Them Before Us Podcast #095 | Defending Pro-Life Speech at the U.S. Supreme Court

Date: November 28, 2025
Host: Jennifer Friesen (TBU, Training Director)
Guests: Amy Huber (First Choice Women’s Resource Centers), Gabby (Attorney, Alliance Defending Freedom)

Episode Overview

This episode dives into the landmark Supreme Court case First Choice Women's Resource Centers v. Platkin, centering on pro-life speech and the rights of pregnancy centers amidst government scrutiny. Host Jennifer Friesen is joined by Amy Huber, director of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers (NJ), and Gabby from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), exploring the origins and implications of the legal battle, why it matters for First Amendment rights, and how chilling effects threaten advocacy for children and families.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Background of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers (00:45 – 01:20)

• Amy Huber: Outlines the work of First Choice: a NJ nonprofit serving women in unplanned pregnancies, offering professional, compassionate, and free services for over 40 years, impacting 36,000+ women and families.
• Emphasis on holistic, ongoing support—“pro-life work after babies are born” (Jennifer, 01:20).

2. The Legal Challenge: Subpoena and Supreme Court Case (02:14 – 04:18)

• Amy: Details receipt of an extensive subpoena from the NJ Attorney General, demanding up to 10 years of records—donor communications, advertising, abortion statements, donor identities.
• The state’s justification traced to a "consumer alert" against so-called “deceptive crisis pregnancy centers,” notably co-edited by Planned Parenthood (Amy, 02:57).
  • Notable Quote:

    “The Attorney General did not cite one complaint against First Choice by a client, by a donor—nothing.” (Amy, 03:58)

3. Allegations of “Deceptive Practices” and Political Targeting (04:18 – 06:18)

• Gabby: Criticizes the “absurd notion” that donors were misled about First Choice’s pro-life identity—transparency is repeatedly made clear (04:18).
• Jennifer: Highlights the contradiction, contrasting Planned Parenthood’s documented deceptive behavior with the accusations against pro-life centers.
  • Discussion: Accusations include misleading information about fetal development or abortion pill effects; Amy clarifies their clarity about services (05:37).

4. The Chilling Effect: Government Power & Free Speech (07:35 – 16:57)

• Amy: Describes her initial overwhelm and intimidation by the subpoena; relied on legal counsel, which led to ADF representation (07:35).
  • Notable Moment:

    “I just remember thinking, ‘Oh my goodness, this just got bigger than me...’” (Amy, 08:06)

• Gabby (ADF): Explains their mission—defending life, parental rights, First Amendment freedoms, focusing on supporting pregnancy centers post-Dobbs and defending against increasingly hostile state actions (09:01).
• Legal Pathway: Gabby summarizes the procedural journey—starting in federal district court, facing “kick the case” tactics, and moving through federal and parallel state systems to reach the Supreme Court (11:42).
• Chilling Effect Explained:
  • Governmental intimidation, even without prosecution, creates fear—discouraging free speech and association (notably donor disclosures) (15:12).
  • Supreme Court precedent recognizes that chilling First Amendment rights is itself harm enough to warrant court action.
  • Notable Quote:

    “...The very existence of this subpoena by a hostile state government official...that’s going to make the right to associate a pipe dream...” (Gabby, 16:27)

• Historical Parallel:
  • Jennifer references California’s Prop 8 donor disclosures and resulting harassment, illustrating broader implications of chilling advocacy (16:57).

5. Personal Journey: Amy’s Experience as a “Test Case” (17:53 – 22:12)

• Amy: Shares personal story—her childhood dream inspired by her pastor father’s sanctity-of-life sermons, never imagining she’d be at the Supreme Court, but is honored to represent her organization and “all pregnancy centers across the nation” (17:53).
  • Notable Quote:

    “It will be one of the highlights of my life to go and to stand for truth...” (Amy, 18:29)

• Reflections: Discuss importance—and cost—of being willing to stand up as a “test case,” citing similar cases like Jack Phillips (Colorado cake baker) and the endurance required over years of litigation.

6. Broader Implications: Free Speech Protections for All (23:51 – 24:44)

• Jennifer: Reminds listeners—regardless of ideology—the precedent set here can impact anyone; robust speech protection is vital even for views we disagree with.
  • Notable Quote:

    “If the government can wield this kind of thing against people they don’t agree with...it can still be wielded against you.” (Jennifer, 23:51)

7. How to Support: ADF and First Choice (24:44 – 25:55)

• Gabby: Points listeners to adflegal.org for case info, supporting ADF’s work, reading case pages, and donating. Legal services to First Choice are 100% pro bono; their work is donor-supported.

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:45 – 01:20: First Choice Women’s Resource Centers background
• 02:14 – 03:58: Subpoena received; rationale for government action
• 04:18 – 06:18: Response to “deception” claims; Planned Parenthood contrasts
• 07:35 – 08:52: Amy’s initial reaction to the subpoena; contacting ADF
• 09:01 – 10:15: ADF’s mission and involvement
• 11:42 – 13:45: Legal process to the Supreme Court explained
• 15:12 – 16:57: Chilling effect doctrine and why it matters
• 17:53 – 19:28: Amy’s personal journey and attending Supreme Court
• 22:12 – 23:51: Thoughts on being a test case; impact on broader advocacy
• 24:44 – 25:55: How listeners can support ADF and First Choice

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Amy Huber (03:58):

  “The Attorney General did not cite one complaint against First Choice by a client, by a donor—nothing.”

• Gabby, ADF (04:18):

  “He cites the absurd notion that there may have been donors who didn’t realize when they were giving to First Choice that they were giving to a pro-life organization... that’s absurd because First Choice is very clear and very transparent...”

• Gabby, ADF (16:27):

  “The very existence of this subpoena by a hostile state government official... that’s going to make the right to associate a pipe dream, right? When you know that there’s a hostile state government official who’s trying to get your identity and your contact information...”

• Amy Huber (18:29):

  “It will be one of the highlights of my life to go and to stand for truth and to stand for not just our pregnancy center, but all the pregnancy centers across the nation who care about this case. I mean, what a privilege and what an honor.”

• Jennifer Friesen (23:51):

  “If the government can wield this kind of thing against people they don’t agree with... it can still be wielded against you. That’s why we need to protect the freedom of speech for everyone, even if we disagree with their speech.”

Summary & Takeaway

This episode provides a powerful, in-depth look at the intersection of pro-life advocacy, government overreach, and First Amendment protections. Through real-life storytelling, legal expertise, and personal conviction, the speakers underscore the broader implications of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin: not just for faith-based and pro-life organizations, but for anyone concerned about free speech and the right to associate. Listeners are encouraged to follow the Supreme Court case (oral arguments Dec 2, 2025), support the work of ADF, and stay informed on issues impacting both children’s advocacy and fundamental freedoms.