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

Many Are Escaping Iran, and 'Hundreds Have Come to Faith in Jesus Christ' in the Process

Netanyahu: 'No Law' Will Pass in Knesset That 'Harms Christianity'

COVID in the 2030s: How Endless Booster Shots Will Devastate the Health of Our Children

Federal Agency Contradicts Biden, Says Student Loan Cancellation Not in Effect

Daily Signal Exclusive: GOP Bill Would Make Abortionists Report Victims of Trafficking

Is This the Bombshell Evidence That Destroyed Bragg's Case against Trump?

Trans-'Woman' (Biological Male) Finishes in First Place at New York City Women's Cycling Event, Sparks Anger

Ugandan Parliament Passes 'Anti-Homosexuality Bill,' Infuriating the Pro-LGBT West

'Cusp of Great Spiritual Awakening': Pastors Report Fresh 'Fire' in Wake of Methodist Mass Exodus

Ohio's Proposed New Abortion Amendment Will Take the State Back to the 'Dark Ages', Say Faith Leaders (VIDEO)

Supreme Court Vacates Ruling that Minors Have Constitutional 'Right' to Abortion; One Justice Dissents

NJ Mom Treated Like a Terrorist Threat, 'Demonized' for Questioning Sexual Posters in Elementary School

Wyoming Bans Gender-Confused Male Students from Competing in Girls' Sports—However...

Missouri Issues Emergency Rule Restricting 'Inhumane Science Experiments' on Children

Warning: California Bill Threatening to Remove Children from Parents over Trans Issue Passes First Committee

Famed Biologist Richard Dawkins Affirms There Are Only 2 Sexes, It's Science: 'It's Incontrovertible. There's No Scientific Doubt About This'

Give Him 15: A Deluge Is Coming

'I Just Want to Feel Like Myself,' Tearfully Admits America's Most Famous 'Trans Kid' Jazz Jennings

Franklin Graham Praises DeSantis for Drag Show Kid Crackdown: 'Doesn't Mess Around'

Biden Vetoes Bipartisan Joint Resolution That Would've Kept Woke ESG Politics Out of Retirement Plan Profits