After the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, pregnancy centers around the country suffered threats and vandalism, and government officials maligned their motives.
Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren accused pregnancy centers of being “there to fool people” and called for them to be shut down “all around the country.” Statements like these are tragic because the lies and misinformation spread about pregnancy centers ignore the very real good that these centers accomplish day in and day out.
Just ask Jean Marie Davis.
For 20 years, Jean Marie was trafficked across 33 states. She remembers witnessing a fellow trafficking victim give birth on the sidewalk but then have to get up and continue working for her trafficker. “I could not help or do anything because my trafficker would have punished me,” Jean Marie recalls.
Jean Marie’s story of hope
Eventually, Jean Marie discovered that she too was pregnant. She decided to flee from her traffickers, and she wound up at a domestic violence shelter in New Hampshire. While she was there, the shelter referred her to a pregnancy center, which provided her with clothes, an ultrasound, and other resources. After seeing her ultrasound and receiving help from the pregnancy center, Jean Marie chose life for her baby boy. After her son was born, the pregnancy center continued to help her, offering her a program for women and children affected by drugs.
Jean Marie later testified, “Because of the pregnancy resource center, I not only graduated from the woman’s program. I went to Northpoint Bible College and graduated with an associate degree.”
Eight years after she was a client at a pregnancy center, she became the director of one—Branches Pregnancy Resource Center in Brattleboro, Vermont—where she serves today to help those in situations like hers.
Stories of trafficking like Jean Marie’s are not uncommon, and pregnancy centers play a significant role in supporting women in need. But a Vermont law threatened pro-life pregnancy centers like Branches by infringing on their ability to provide support to women and families seeking help with an unplanned pregnancy.
The law censored pro-life pregnancy centers that do not refer for or provide abortions by placing immense restrictions on their ability to advertise their services and to provide information, counseling, and other services to women. The law was unjust—and unconstitutional. So ADF has filed a lawsuit, on behalf of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), Aspire Now pregnancy center, and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center.
NIFLA is a religious nonprofit representing over 1,600 pro-life pregnancy centers across the nation, 1,200 of which are licensed medical clinics. ADF has previously represented NIFLA all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that pregnancy centers can’t be forced to say something that goes against their very mission.
The group has seven member centers in Vermont, including Aspire Now and Branches. These centers offer women both medical and non-medical information and services free of charge. And because they are pro-life, they do not provide or refer for abortion or abortion-inducing drugs.
Vermont’s unjust law
On May 10, 2023, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed Senate Bill No. 37 (SB 37) into law. As originally written, SB 37 impeded the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to continue providing help and support to Vermont women and families in two ways. First, it censored the centers’ ability to advertise their free services. Second, it required licensed providers at pregnancy centers to supervise the provision of even non-medical services, information, and counseling by unlicensed providers.
The law explicitly targeted pro-life pregnancy centers, applying only to facilities that do not perform or refer for abortions. One witness during a legislative hearing suggested that even naming a pregnancy center “The Women’s Center” could violate the law, claiming that a name like that is too neutral and implies the center offers abortions.
If a pregnancy center had advertised its services in a way Vermont’s pro-abortion attorney general determined was “misleading,” the center would have faced fines of up to $10,000 for each violation. And if an individual who is not a state-licensed medical professional had provided health information, services, or counseling in a manner contrary to professional standards of conduct, the medical doctors (M.D.s) at that facility could have been fined up to $1,000, and other licensed health-care professionals could have been fined up to $5,000.
That’s why ADF challenged this unjust law. Pregnancy centers should be able to provide services, resources, and community to families facing unexpected pregnancies without fear of unjust government punishment.
A win for pregnancy centers
Following ADF’s lawsuit, Vermont amended the language of SB 37 to eliminate its targeting of pregnancy centers and restriction of their ability to provide medical services. As a result, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a stipulated dismissal of the case.
“Women who become unexpectedly pregnant should know they have life-affirming options available to them, from emotional support to practical resources, which is exactly what our clients offer,” said ADF Legal Counsel Julia Payne Koon. “We’re pleased that Vermont recognized it needed to amend its discriminatory law that unlawfully targeted faith-based pregnancy centers and restricted their ability to speak and act according to their conscience.”
National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Clark
- May 2023: Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed Senate Bill No. 37 into law, infringing on the ability of pro-life pregnancy centers to provide support to women and families seeking help with an unplanned pregnancy.
- July 2023: ADF filed a complaint on behalf of NIFLA and two of its Vermont pregnancy centers, Aspire Now and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center, challenging SB 37.
- June 2024: A federal district court allowed ADF’s lawsuit to proceed.
- May 2025: Vermont amended SB 37 to eliminate its targeting of pro-life pregnancy centers, and ADF attorneys filed a stipulated dismissal of the case.
