‘Major Victory for the Pro-Life World:’ Court Upholds Pregnancy Center’s First Amendment Rights

LifeSite News ^ | 3/28/23 | Patrick Delaney

[marshmallow]

‘Evergreen’s constitutional right to expressive association allows it to determine that its pro-life views can be conveyed only by those who completely support and affirm the organization’s mission, in both word and deed,’ Thomas More Society special counsel Timothy Belz explained.

NEW YORK (LifeSiteNews) – An attempt by radically pro-abortion lawmakers in the state of New York to force pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to hire and retain pro-abortion employees appears to have come to an end with a Tuesday decision from a federal court.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York City reversed a decision by a lower court to dismiss a lawsuit filed by pro-life “hero” Chris Slattery in defense of his organization’s mission to support mothers and families facing crisis pregnancies.

“We are thrilled,” Slattery said in an email release. “[This] is a major victory for the pro-life world, and Catholic and Christian schools and organizations, thanks in a large part to the and their great crack attorneys.”

Slattery is the founder of Expectant Mother Care (EMC), a network of New York City-based pregnancy centers that provides only pro-life alternatives to abortion. Over the past three decades, the network attests to having saved an estimated 43,000 children from abortion.

In 2019, the state of New York passed its so-called “Boss Bill” in tandem with its infamous Reproductive Health Act, which legalized abortion ,A HREF="https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/new-york-legislature-votes-to-protect-roe-legalize-abortion-up-to-birth/'>up until birth and was described as being “no different than infanticide” and “more barbaric” than procedures permitted under China’s One Child policy.

In a further assault on the lives of preborn children, this “Boss Bill” law makes support of abortion a protected class in employment nondiscrimination laws forbidding employers from making hiring and promotion decisions based upon “reproductive health” decisions of employees.......