The abortion industry and its allies are well aware of the threat to its bottom line posed by crisis pregnancy centers and, as such, these centers are targeted at times by oppressive legislation. Five years ago, the ACLJ filed a lawsuit—Evergreen Association, Inc. v. City of New York—on behalf of two organizations that run about half of the pro-life crisis pregnancy centers in New York City to challenge one such law. This anti-free speech law was one of the first of its kind in the country—a law that the abortion lobby used as an example, pressuring other cities and states to impose similar anti-life mandates.

After a long fought legal battle, a settlement agreement that represents an important win in defense of our clients' freedom of speech rights was recently finalized and approved by the court.

In March 2011, the City enacted a draconian law aimed at shutting down pro-life crisis pregnancy centers by hijacking their right to speak for themselves. The law required facilities defined to be "pregnancy services centers" to provide a lengthy series of five disclaimers, in English and Spanish, in any advertisements, in multiple signs at the facility, and at the outset of any in-person or phone conversations with members of the public. Failing to become the City's mouthpiece in this manner would subject centers to crippling fines and penalties.

If the law was permitted to take effect, it would have stifled the ability of pro-life centers to advertise their services—offered free of charge to women facing difficult situations—which is just what its pro-abortion supporters wanted.

Our lawsuit argued that the law violated our clients' freedom of speech. The Supreme Court of the United States has long recognized that the First Amendment's protection of the freedom of speech "prohibits the government from telling people what they must say." The government has plenty of ability to speak for itself—for instance, through public service campaigns, monuments, and the like—but it crosses the line when it attempts to force citizens to involuntarily become government mouthpieces.

We filed a motion for preliminary injunction, asking the district court judge to prevent the law from taking effect, and the court granted the motion, which allowed our clients to continue to speak freely while the case moved forward. The court noted that the law significantly burdened our clients' ability to speak freely, and was not the least restrictive way of promoting the City's interests.

The City appealed this decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In January 2014, the court held that four of the five disclaimer requirements were likely unconstitutional, while one was likely constitutional. We filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court concerning the lone requirement that the Second Circuit upheld, which was eventually denied.

After many subsequent months of discussions and negotiations, the lawsuit was recently settled based on an agreement reached with the City. The settlement tracks the Second Circuit's decision with respect to the five disclaimer mandates: the City is permanently enjoined from enforcing the four disclaimer requirements that the Second Circuit held were likely unconstitutional, while it may enforce the one disclaimer requirement upheld by the Second Circuit against facilities that meet the definition of "pregnancy services center."

We hope that the settlement will bring litigation between our clients and the City of New York to an end once and for all. However, the settlement leaves the door open for future litigation to protect our clients' ability to freely exercise their fundamental rights should the need arise.

For instance, the settlement preserves our clients' right to challenge the administrative rules that supplement the law if they are materially changed in the future. Additionally, the settlement preserves our pro-life clients' right to bring a future suit in the event that the City's enforcement of the law or the administrative rules, as applied to our clients, violates their constitutional rights.

Importantly, the settlement also states that the City "shall not rely upon Plaintiffs' viewpoint regarding abortion or emergency contraception" in determining whether their facilities are regulated "pregnancy services centers" unless doing so satisfies the rigorous strict scrutiny standard for viewpoint discrimination (which it certainly would not).

As a result of this lawsuit, our clients and other crisis pregnancy centers in New York City are able to continue to offer their assistance to women and lifesaving care without being hampered by a lengthy series of oppressive pro-abortion speech mandates. The fight continues across the country, however, as we continue to litigate another case on behalf of several California pro-life centers faced with a similar (and in some ways worse) anti-pro-life speech law.

We will continue to defend the rights of crisis pregnancy centers and their dedicated staffs against those who seek to shut them down. 

We will never give up the fight to ensure that these crisis pregnancy centers continue to help women in need and defend unborn babies—one life at a time.

Reprinted with permission from ACLJ.org.

To receive daily emails from Breaking Christian News to your inbox CLICK HERE

'Get Him!': Watch as Brave Man Rescues Portion of American Flag Being Burned by 'Pro-Hamas Agitators' [Video]

A Growing Global Movement of Parents Is Keeping Their Kids Free from Smartphones

Democrat Downplays That Bill Would Cost Trump His Secret Service Detail

Teacher's Union Accused of Laundering $1.5 Million to Bankroll Dem Governor Josh Shapiro's Campaign

Dan Bongino: 9 Reasons to Vote for Kamala Harris

New Comms Director for Kamala Harris Campaign Wants to Pack the Supreme Court and Defund the Police

Pro-Life Protester Sentenced to More Than 3 Years Behind Bars for Blocking Abortion Clinic

Ben Carson Gives Perfect Defense of Pro-Life Position and Much More, in Powerful Tucker Carlson Interview [Watch]

Pastor Faced Death Threats, Had to Go into Hiding after Revealing Political Beliefs: 'I Reject the Victimhood Mentality'

'Hey Mom, I'm Trans!': The Truth About the Gender Dysphoria Deception, from a Mom in the Middle of It

These Important Election Integrity Initiatives Might Be on Your 2024 Ballot

Harris Campaign Admits to Misleading Voters on Trump, Project 2025

Pro-Harris Media Scrambles to Erase 'Border Czar' from Her Resume as GOP Highlights Her Record

House Republicans Raise American Flags at Union Station in DC after Chaotic Protesting Hamas Supporters Took Down and Burned Flags

Netanyahu Hails Israeli-US Bond, Reminds Protesters Israel the 'Land of the Bible' for 4,000 Years

'Influencing the Culture': Megachurch Equipping Churches to Mobilize Voters Ahead of November Election

Pray: Elderly Trump Supporter Run Over in Front Yard

Elon Musk Says AI Must Be 'Pro-Human,' Is Alarmed by Technological Developments

The Man and the Motive: Behind Musk's War on the 'Woke Mind Virus,' and Why He Fights for Children

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith Promises Bill Protecting Rights to Refuse Vaccines Is Coming