When discussing the abortion issue, words like “choice” and “women’s health” typically define the debate — particularly in favor of pro-abortion arguments.

But what about when women wish to choose life? Who advocates for and defends their choice?

Enter pro-life pregnancy centers and medical clinics. These facilities exist to empower a mother’s choice of life. They provide invaluable education as well as physical, medical, emotional and financial support. As a result of the critical work these clinics perform in communities nationwide, women are choosing life for their unborn children by the thousands.

ADVERTISEMENT

Arguing in defense of women’s right to choose life, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates – also known as NIFLA — represents a nationwide network of more than 1,400 of these life-affirming centers.

However, pro-abortion rights organizations, such as NARAL — the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League — don’t like this.

They wrote biased “investigative reports,” which were then used to lobby legislators to support NARAL and Planned Parenthood-sponsored legislation, such as California’s AB 775 — currently before the U.S. Supreme Court in NIFLA v. Becerra.

As one judge in Maryland noted, the “investigations” by NARAL in that state were written by abortion industry employees and volunteers. The same is true in California.

AB 775 states that the problem it is trying to fix is that thousands of pregnant California women “remain unaware of the public programs available.”

If that was truly their concern, the law could have taken many other actions, such as requiring over-the-counter pregnancy tests kits to include a statement informing the user about these public programs.

If this were really a matter of sharing information on public programs, why only attack these pregnancy centers and medical clinics fighting for a woman’s right to choose life? Why use the force of government to stand between a woman and her decision to keep her baby?

These pro-life pregnancy centers and medical clinics give women all the information they need to make an informed choice about their pregnancies.

Even more importantly, they have no financial stake in a woman’s reproductive choice — a stark contrast to Planned Parenthood facilities, which raked in over $500 million in taxpayer dollars according to the group’s last annual report.

The women these pregnancy centers serve often feel they have nowhere else to turn, and express overwhelming gratitude for the support they receive. Angela Jozwicki and Brooke North are two of 13 pro-life pregnancy center clients who came forward to share their stories for an amicus brief in NILFA v. Becerra.

Brooke North says she found healing at Hope Pregnancy Center in Pontiac, Illinois, after decades of trauma and abuse.

“They do not pressure you not to get an abortion if you want one,” Ms. North said of her experience. “I would like pregnancy centers to be all over the place. … The people donate their time and money (to) help not just women, but their children. The people at the center are the sweetest, most caring, full-of-energy people.”

Angela Jozwicki had a turbulent childhood and turned to drugs when she was fourteen years old. After aborting her first child and finding she was pregnant with her second, she reached out to Soundview Pregnancy Center in New York.

“I always thought (these) people were fake, but they are genuine,” she said of her interactions with the center’s staff. Angela credits Soundview Pregnancy Center with giving her the support she needs in order to avoid turning “back to drugs.”

The mothers served by pro-life pregnancy centers and medical centers are clearly glad these resources exist. The abortion industry vilifies the same centers for one reason and one reason only: the almighty dollar.

It is vital that the Supreme Court take this opportunity to ensure that government cannot compel anyone to speak a message that violates their reason for being — especially when fundamental First Amendment rights are at stake.

Anne O'Connor, J.D. is the V.P. of Legal Affairs for National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA). She is co-counsel on the NIFLA v. Becerra case which is currently before the Supreme Court.