A Massachusetts Christian non-profit that operates four pregnancy help organizations (PHOs) is taking a stand against what it calls a coordinated campaign of harassment and discrimination by Governor Maura Healey and her allies in the abortion lobby. On Monday, Your Options Medical (YOM) filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts, alleging that state officials and the Reproductive Equity Now Foundation (REN) have engaged in unconstitutional efforts to silence pro-life voices and intimidate pregnancy centers that promote childbirth over abortion.
The lawsuit, filed with support from the American Center for Law & Justice (ACLJ) and Massachusetts Liberty Legal Center, names Governor Healey, Department of Public Health Commissioner Robert Goldstein, and REN’s Executive Director Rebecca Hart Holder as defendants. The 32-page complaint outlines allegations of viewpoint-based discrimination, claiming that the state’s actions are designed to suppress the free speech rights and religious expression of YOM and other pro-life centers.
A campaign of discrimination and intimidation
YOM’s complaint highlights a series of actions taken by Massachusetts officials that have led to the targeting of pro-life centers across the state. The lawsuit points out that the Department of Public Health hosts a page titled "Avoid Anti-Abortion Centers," which discourages residents from visiting PHOs, labeling them as deceptive and harmful. The page goes as far as to encourage citizens to report these centers for supposedly endangering public health—a claim YOM vehemently denies.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
This state-sponsored campaign, the lawsuit argues, is part of a broader effort to undermine the mission of faith-based pregnancy centers, which offer free resources and support to women facing unplanned pregnancies. According to the lawsuit, Your Options Medical Centers were founded in 1991 by three Christian families in Boston “who saw the need to offer women in unplanned pregnancies a safe place to receive help and support in choosing life.”
The complaint states that the coordinated attack has already resulted in significant harm, including a doctor resigning from YOM and instances of vandalism at their clinics. Such actions are linked to inflammatory language used by state officials, who have labeled PHOs as “anti-abortion centers” and “fake clinics” in public statements.
Tweet This: The coordinated attack has already resulted in significant harm, including a doctor resigning from YOM and instances of vandalism.
Collusion with the abortion lobby
At the heart of YOM’s case is the alleged partnership between state officials and the REN Foundation, a pro-abortion advocacy group. The lawsuit claims that REN and its executive director have been instrumental in the state’s smear campaign against pro-life centers, with REN receiving direct financial support from the Massachusetts government. The complaint further asserts that REN acts as an extension of state authority by conducting activities and spreading messaging aimed at dismantling PHOs.
One of the more troubling aspects of the case is that the state has been accused of selectively enforcing regulations against YOM while giving pro-abortion providers a pass. The complaint contends that such differential treatment violates YOM’s right to equal protection under the law.
Constitutional rights at stake
YOM’s legal team has brought three central claims: violations of free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection under the U.S. Constitution. The suit argues that the state’s actions constitute unlawful coercion of speech, echoing a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in NRA of Am. v. Vullo found similar tactics by New York state officials against the NRA unconstitutional.
Furthermore, the lawsuit claims that Massachusetts officials have targeted PHOs based on their religious beliefs, a clear violation of the First Amendment. Nearly 90% of the PHOs in Massachusetts are faith-based, and the lawsuit argues that the state’s actions are intended to single out and silence religious organizations that hold pro-life views.
A broader battle: New York PHOs also fight back
The Massachusetts case is just one front in an escalating legal battle for pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide. Similar lawsuits have been filed in New York, where pregnancy centers are suing the state’s top officials, including Attorney General Letitia James, for what they describe as a relentless campaign of harassment and unconstitutional targeting.
Tweet This: This case is just one front in an escalating legal battle for pro-life pregnancy centers nationwide to push back against a relentless campaign of harassment and unconstitutional targeting.
New York’s actions have included aggressive enforcement of regulations, public accusations labeling PHOs as “fake clinics,” and proposals to monitor PHO activities. The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a plaintiff in one of these lawsuits who received a temporary injunction in their case, argues that the state’s directives violate their First Amendment rights by forcing PHOs to disclose messages they do not endorse—echoing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in NIFLA v. Becerra, which struck down similar requirements in California.
These legal challenges highlight a disturbing trend where state governments are increasingly using their power to promote abortion while trying to silence pro-life voices. The outcome of these cases could determine whether pregnancy centers can continue their work without facing state-sponsored intimidation and suppression.
Seeking justice and protection
The lawsuit in Massachusetts seeks a permanent injunction to stop the state from continuing its campaign against PHOs, as well as monetary damages for the harm inflicted. YOM’s legal team is also calling for a jury trial, signaling their commitment to defending their rights and setting a precedent for pro-life centers nationwide.
As pro-abortion forces increase pressure on pro-life advocates, this case could set the stage for a pivotal legal battle, reinforcing the constitutional rights of faith-based organizations and challenging the biased treatment of those who stand for life.
The outcome of this case, along with the lawsuits in New York and California, could have far-reaching implications not only for YOM but for pregnancy centers across the nation, as the abortion lobby’s influence on state governments continues to grow.
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN) and Pregnancy Help News. Heartbeat International is currently the subject of lawsuits brought by two state Attorneys General concerning sharing information about Abortion Pill Reversal. This article has been updated to reflect the correct number of pregnancy centers operated by the plaintiff in the Massachusetts lawsuit.
