A battle for fundamental rights is unfolding at the highest court in the land. The Supreme Court is preparing to hear arguments in a case that pits a New Jersey network of pregnancy resource centers against the state’s Attorney General, a dispute with potentially far-reaching consequences for similar organizations nationwide.
At the heart of the conflict is First Choice Women's Resource Centers, a nonprofit serving women across north and central New Jersey for four decades. They’ve found themselves embroiled in a legal fight since 2023, triggered by an investigative subpoena demanding the names, contact information, and employment records of their donors.
Aimee Huber, Executive Director of First Choice, describes the subpoena as a “fishing expedition,” launched without a single complaint from either donors or clients. She insists the inquiry is a blatant attempt to intimidate supporters and disrupt the vital services they provide to vulnerable women.
The core question before the Supreme Court isn’t about the merits of First Choice’s work, but rather *where* this battle should be fought – in state or federal court. A state court could favor the Attorney General, while a federal venue would allow First Choice to fully assert its First Amendment rights.
Legal experts warn the stakes extend beyond New Jersey. A ruling against First Choice could embolden Attorneys General to aggressively pursue donor information from organizations they disagree with, chilling free speech and potentially crippling charitable giving.
The Attorney General’s scrutiny began in July 2022, following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, with the formation of a “strike force” aimed at bolstering abortion access. Accusations of “consumer fraud” were leveled against pregnancy centers, alleging they misled donors and clients about the services offered.
First Choice vehemently denies these claims, maintaining complete transparency about its mission. They openly state they do not perform or refer for abortions, ensuring clients understand the scope of services available before seeking help.
Inside the New Brunswick center, a warm and welcoming environment offers a stark contrast to the legal storm raging outside. Women are greeted with compassionate care, free ultrasounds, and access to a “baby boutique” stocked with essential supplies. The majority of clients are Hispanic women facing difficult circumstances.
Huber shares that First Choice has served over 36,000 women, providing a lifeline to those who feel abortion is their only option. They offer professional services and unwavering support, empowering women to choose life and navigate the challenges of pregnancy and motherhood.
The state argues the subpoena is necessary to investigate potential deception regarding donations and unsubstantiated medical claims about abortion pills. However, First Choice’s lawyers maintain they provide “medically accurate” information, highlighting a deep divide over the dissemination of information surrounding reproductive healthcare.
Despite the legal pressures, Huber remains resolute. She focuses on the gratitude of her clients and the unwavering support of her donors, drawing strength from the positive impact First Choice has on the community. But the arrival of the subpoena two years ago irrevocably changed their course, thrusting them into a critical legal battle.
