By I. Edwards HealthDay Reporter<\/b>
\n<\/b><\/p>\n
TUESDAY, June 17, 2025 (HealthDay News) \u2014 The U.S. Supreme Court will hear a case next term involving a New Jersey nonprofit that runs anti-abortion pregnancy centers and is fighting a state investigation.<\/p>\n
At the center of the case is First Choice Women\u2019s Resource Centers<\/a>, which operates five clinics across the state. The group is challenging a subpoena from New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin<\/a> that demands the names of nearly 5,000 donors.<\/p>\n First Choice argues the subpoena violates its First Amendment rights and those of its supporters. The group says requiring it to reveal donor names will discourage people from giving and expressing their beliefs, The Washington Post <\/em>reported.<\/p>\n Donors\u2019 names are not made public because abortion is such a politically charged subject, the organization said.<\/p>\n Platkin, a Democrat, began investigating First Choice in 2023. He said the clinics may have used misleading medical information and deceptive practices.<\/p>\n \u201cThe State noted medical statements on Petitioner\u2019s websites that may be misleading or untrue,\u201d Platkin said in a filing with the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n Critics of these types of clinics\u2014often called pregnancy crisis centers \u2014 say they can appear similar to abortion clinics but are designed to steer people away from deciding on getting an abortion.<\/p>\n First Choice denies that it misleads people. It says it is open about its anti-abortion stance and offers services like free pregnancy tests, ultrasounds and counseling, The Post <\/em>added in its report.<\/p>\n The group took the case to federal court to block the subpoena. However, both a lower federal court and a federal appeals court said the case must go through state court first.<\/p>\n Now, the Supreme Court will decide whether federal courts should be allowed to review cases like this before a state court enforces a subpoena.<\/p>\n First Choice says the subpoena \u2014 whether enforced or not \u2014 has a chilling effect on donors.<\/p>\n \u201cIn recent years, state attorneys general have made increasing use of these broad investigative powers \u2014 sometimes employing them to target political opponents,” the group explained.<\/p>\n On the same day, the Supreme Court also said a New York court must revisit a case involving religious groups that want to be exempt from a state rule requiring health insurance plans to cover abortion.<\/p>\n More information<\/strong><\/p>\n Read the full docket<\/a> on the Supreme Court’s website.<\/p>\n