Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 12/04/2025 4:56:21 PM PST by CharlesOConnell
(Excerpt) Read more at lifesitenews.com ...
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
In 2023, the attorney general of New Jersey issued a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, seeking internal documents (including donor names) as part of an investigation into whether the center misled clients about the services it provided.
During oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas pressed the state’s lawyer, who conceded that, at the time the subpoena was issued, there had been no specific complaints against First Choice. In other words, the state admitted it initiated the probe without any concrete allegation from a patient or third-party.
The crux is that the state was effectively “fishing,” investigating a pro-life center simply to see if it could find wrongdoing — not responding to a consumer complaint or credible allegation. Several justices expressed concern about the chilling effect on free speech, donor privacy, and religious/ideological expression.
First Choice argues the subpoena burdens its constitutional rights (especially the right to free association, privacy, and to operate without harassment), even if no wrongdoing is proven or alleged.
Interpretation: The “targeting” here is institutional and ideologically driven — a state-level investigation into a pro-life clinic network not based on particular complaints, but on a broad suspicion of possible deceptive practices. The issue is mostly legal/political: whether a state can demand sensitive internal records simply because it disfavors a group’s viewpoint or mission.
In 2011, an anti-abortion activist group (Live Action) released a video purporting to show a Planned Parenthood clinic manager in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, counseling individuals posing as a pimp and prostitute. The video appeared to show the manager advising them how to lie about age, avoid triggering mandatory-reporting rules, and help underage or undocumented sex workers obtain abortion, STD testing, or contraception.
The footage caused a media and political firestorm. The employee featured in the video was fired. Planned Parenthood described the behavior as egregious and repugnant, saying it violated the organization’s policies.
Planned Parenthood also said it notified law-enforcement authorities after the visit. The group’s defenders argued the video might be deceptive or a “sting” designed to trap the clinic using misrepresentation. Critics pointed out that the encounters were orchestrated, not random, which raises questions about whether they reflect systemic wrongdoing or a deliberately targeted operation.
Because the origins of the undercover operation involved activists posing as sex traffickers, and because key details have been disputed (editing, context, authenticity, and the reality of any trafficking), many concluded the videos were at least partly orchestrated for advocacy purposes rather than a neutral fact-finding effort.
Interpretation: This appears to have been a targeted activist-led attempt to catch a clinic in wrongdoing. It was not a neutral, state-sponsored regulatory investigation, but a media/advocacy-oriented sting (with hidden cameras, pretense of criminal intent by the “clients,” and subsequent public release of edited videos to shape the narrative).
| Feature | 2025 New Jersey “Targeting” of Pro-Life Center | 2011 Perth Amboy Undercover Video / Planned Parenthood |
|---|---|---|
| Initiated by | State attorney general (government) | Private anti-abortion activist group (non-state) |
| Basis for scrutiny | No prior specific complaints; broad suspicion of misleading practices | Undercover operatives posing as sex traffickers to provoke incriminating behavior |
| Legal posture | Subpoena / court challenge on constitutional grounds (free speech, privacy, association) | Public release of video to protest and discredit; not primarily a court-driven investigation, though it led to internal firing and political fallout |
| Motivation / goal | Regulatory oversight / alleged consumer protection / donor-transparency | Advocacy, public exposure, political pressure, possibly defunding |
| Transparency & process | Formal subpoena, legal process, potential court oversight | Covert filming, edited release, no neutral oversight, likely selection bias |
| Implication for policy or rights | Raises questions about whether governments can investigate based purely on ideology / viewpoint | Raises questions about ethical use of undercover tactics, potential entrapment, and credibility of activist-generated evidence |
People who are skeptical of state action against pro-life centers sometimes draw analogies to the 2011 videos. The idea is that just as a private group used undercover methods to expose (or manufacture) wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood, a state might be using the power of the law to similarly pressure or chill pro-life organizations — targeting them not because of concrete evidence but because of viewpoint or ideology. In that sense, both are seen (by critics) as forms of harassment or ideological warfare.
Nobody asked the question until now....that’s why we need Clarance Thomas’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.