Vermont lawmakers were forced to backtrack on their anti-life law targeting pregnancy centers after facing a constitutional challenge that proved their overreach had gone too far.
Key Takeaways
- Vermont’s SB 37 initially contained discriminatory provisions targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, restricting their speech with potential fines up to $10,000 for “misleading” advertising
- The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, along with two Vermont pregnancy centers, filed a federal lawsuit challenging the law on First and 14th Amendment grounds
- Vermont lawmakers amended the law in response to legal pressure, removing specific targeting of pro-life centers and their services
- Despite the victory, Vermont Right to Life continues to express constitutional concerns about the amended law’s vague language regarding “misleading” healthcare-related speech
- Studies show pro-life pregnancy centers offer more efficient, cost-effective services than abortion facilities, with client satisfaction rates of 99%
Vermont’s Unconstitutional Attack on Pro-Life Centers
When Vermont Governor Phil Scott signed SB 37 into law in May 2023, it represented a direct assault on the free speech rights of faith-based pregnancy centers. The controversial Section 8 specifically targeted “limited-services pregnancy centers” that do not provide or refer for abortions or emergency contraception. The law accused these centers of providing misleading information about abortion and reproductive health, imposing harsh restrictions on their advertising and threatening substantial fines of up to $10,000 for violations determined by the state Attorney General’s office.
The legislation moved forward despite explicit warnings from Sharon F. Toborg of Vermont Right to Life, who testified that such targeted restrictions would face constitutional challenges. Those warnings were ignored as progressive lawmakers pushed forward with their agenda to silence pro-life voices. The law’s prohibitions were based on the unfounded assertion that pregnancy centers are predatory institutions, despite evidence showing they provide valuable services to women in need.
“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. 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. Pregnancy centers must be free to serve and empower women and their families by offering the support they need without fear of unjust government punishment,” said Julia Payne Koon, ADF Legal Counsel
Constitutional Challenge Forces Lawmakers to Retreat
Faced with this blatant violation of constitutional rights, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), Aspire Now, and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center filed a federal lawsuit against Vermont. The legal challenge, led by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), argued that the law violated the First and 14th Amendments by imposing vague standards that could lead to compelled speech and restricted communication. This strong legal pushback forced Vermont legislators to reconsider their overreach.
The lawsuit highlighted how the law’s vague terminology created an impossible standard for compliance, effectively allowing state officials to arbitrarily determine what constituted “misleading” information. This ambiguity created a chilling effect on the centers’ ability to communicate their pro-life message and provide alternatives to abortion. As a direct result of this legal pressure, the Vermont Legislature amended SB 37, removing the specific targeting of pro-life centers and restrictions on their medical services.
“The state of Vermont has backed away from attacking the work of pro-life pregnancy centers,” said Anne O’Connor, NIFLA Vice President of Legal Affairs
A Temporary Victory with Ongoing Concerns
While the amendment represents a significant victory for pro-life advocacy in Vermont, concerns remain about the revised law. The amended version now broadens its scope to include all organizations and individuals involved in healthcare-related speech, maintaining potential fines for “misleading” speech as determined by the Attorney General. Vermont Right to Life continues to express constitutional concerns over the new language, suggesting the battle for free speech in pro-life advocacy is far from over.
The retreat by Vermont lawmakers underscores the importance of legal challenges to unconstitutional restrictions on speech. This case also highlights the value of pregnancy resource centers, which a study published in the medical journal Contraception found offer more efficient and cost-effective services than abortion facilities. Client satisfaction surveys for Care Net and Heartbeat International showed an impressive 99% satisfaction rate, contradicting the negative characterization pushed by pro-abortion advocates.
“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 Julia Payne Koon, ADF Legal Counsel
Standing Ready Against Future Threats
Following the amendment of the law, ADF filed a stipulated dismissal of the case, but pro-life advocates remain vigilant. NIFLA Vice President Anne O’Connor made it clear that while pregnancy resource centers are no longer under direct threat in Vermont, they are prepared to take legal action if necessary in the future. This case demonstrates how progressive attempts to silence pro-life voices through legislative action can be successfully challenged when they infringe upon constitutional rights.
The outcome in Vermont serves as both a warning and encouragement to pro-life advocates across the country. It shows that determined legal action can force even the most progressive state governments to respect constitutional rights. However, it also highlights the ongoing attempts to regulate and restrict pro-life speech through vague legal frameworks that could still be weaponized against pregnancy centers that offer alternatives to abortion. The fight to protect both unborn lives and the constitutional rights of those who advocate for them continues.
