New Jersey's Attorney General Matthew Platkin has taken his investigation into alleged anti-abortion practices at a faith-based pregnancy center group, First Choice Women's Resource Centers, all the way to the Supreme Court. The case began in November 2023 when Platkin issued a broad subpoena demanding donor names and other documents from the organization.
The subpoena was part of an investigation into whether First Choice was misleading donors or clients about its abortion services. However, the group challenged the move, arguing that the request for sensitive information could chill their First Amendment rights and those of their donors. They also claimed Platkin's actions were biased and retaliatory.
In June, First Choice took its case to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on whether a state court needs to review the issue before federal courts get involved. The high court has agreed to weigh in on the matter.
The dispute centers around a 2022 consumer alert issued by Platkin's office warning residents about crisis pregnancy centers, which often advertise services like counseling for unplanned pregnancies but do not actually provide abortions. While First Choice was not named in the alert, Platkin filed the subpoena to investigate their operations after expressing concern over multiple websites, patient privacy practices, and conflicting evidence on licensed professionals.
In a Supreme Court petition, First Choice claimed that the subpoena had already caused harm before it could be enforced, citing testimony from donors who said they would have been less likely to donate if they knew their information might be disclosed. The group also argued that the subpoena would make it harder for them to recruit new donors.
Platkin maintains that his actions are lawful and that First Choice is trying to avoid complying with a legitimate state investigation. "First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," he said in a statement.
The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether federal courts should get involved in the case, and whether the issue of chilling effects on donors can be heard by the high court.
The subpoena was part of an investigation into whether First Choice was misleading donors or clients about its abortion services. However, the group challenged the move, arguing that the request for sensitive information could chill their First Amendment rights and those of their donors. They also claimed Platkin's actions were biased and retaliatory.
In June, First Choice took its case to the Supreme Court, seeking clarity on whether a state court needs to review the issue before federal courts get involved. The high court has agreed to weigh in on the matter.
The dispute centers around a 2022 consumer alert issued by Platkin's office warning residents about crisis pregnancy centers, which often advertise services like counseling for unplanned pregnancies but do not actually provide abortions. While First Choice was not named in the alert, Platkin filed the subpoena to investigate their operations after expressing concern over multiple websites, patient privacy practices, and conflicting evidence on licensed professionals.
In a Supreme Court petition, First Choice claimed that the subpoena had already caused harm before it could be enforced, citing testimony from donors who said they would have been less likely to donate if they knew their information might be disclosed. The group also argued that the subpoena would make it harder for them to recruit new donors.
Platkin maintains that his actions are lawful and that First Choice is trying to avoid complying with a legitimate state investigation. "First Choice is looking for a special exception from the usual procedural rules as it tries to avoid complying with an entirely lawful state subpoena," he said in a statement.
The Supreme Court's decision will determine whether federal courts should get involved in the case, and whether the issue of chilling effects on donors can be heard by the high court.
... anyway back to this First Choice thing - it's wild how politicized everything is now, even non-profit organizations are under a microscope 
. And what really got me thinking is, have you guys ever noticed how some pregnancy centers can just pop up anywhere? Like, they're not even licensed professionals or anything... I mean, I get that women need help and all, but shouldn't there be some basic standards in place? 
I think it's a bit rich that First Choice is claiming the subpoena would chill their donors' rights when really, they're just trying to cover up their own shady practices. The fact that they're suing over the investigation itself rather than addressing any wrongdoing is pretty telling. And let's be real, if Platkin's office was being biased or retaliatory, wouldn't we know about it by now? It's all about transparency and accountability, in my book 
.
it's all about trust and transparency, right? 
.
. On one hand, you want to protect donors from coercion or pressure, but on the other hand, you also need to ensure that organizations aren't evading the law by making special exceptions for themselves 
.
. It's a tough call because you want to balance individual rights with the need for accountability and transparency.
. Will they side with Platkin or First Choice? Only time will tell 
.
. But Platkin thinks he's just doing his job and following the rules 
And if it does, should that be enough to shut down the probe entirely? 
Like, first Platkin is trying to investigate First Choice for being shady about their abortion services, but then he's sending them a subpoena that could chill their donors' rights? 
It's like, isn't his job to protect the public, not stifle free speech?
But isn't that kind of a slippery slope? Where do you draw the line?