Michigan pro-life groups sue over mandate to hire staff who may oppose their mission

Two pro-life organizations have filed a complaint against the state of Michigan over a law which requires them to hire employees who may hold pro-abortion views that oppose their mission.

Key Takeaways:

• Right to Life of Michigan and the Pregnancy Resource Center have filed a lawsuit in which they say the state's civil rights laws prevent them from denying employment to someone who supports abortion, despite their pro-life mission.

• The law also requires pro-life groups to provide abortion coverage in their insurance plans.

• The groups say the law violates their First Amendment rights.

The Details:

In their lawsuit, Right to Life of Michigan and the Pregnancy Resource Center in Grand Rapids say that the state's civil rights laws “force religious and pro-life groups to employ and associate with persons who do not share or live by – and may even oppose – the organizations’ beliefs on human life.”

The case, which was filed February 6 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, names Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, the Michigan Department of Civil Rights and members of the Civil Rights Commission.

The plaintiffs are being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). In a press release, ADF explained that a Michigan law redefining "sex" discrimination to include "termination of pregnancy" now means that it is illegal for pro-life organizations to refuse to hire someone who does not hold pro-life views.

"Going further, the law also requires these organizations to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans in direct conflict with their very mission," the press release states. "As a result, the law threatens their ability to advocate for their pro-life views and to serve women and families in need consistent with their beliefs."

“It makes no sense to force pro-life organizations to hire employees who disagree with that view. Pro-life groups should be free to share the message of hope and joy with women and families experiencing a difficult season through employees who share their common goal,” said ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart. “Right to Life and Pregnancy Resource Center both recognize that every woman deserves real support to make the healthiest choice for her and her unborn baby. But Michigan’s law forces these organizations to contradict their beliefs and to employ staff who endorse abortion—a decision that harms women and ends innocent lives.”

The plaintiffs are arguing that the law violates their First Amendment rights of free speech, assembly, and association, while noting that they would be "severely" burdened by the insurance mandate. They have asked the court to place a preliminary injunction on the law.

The Bottom Line:

In a statement, Right to Life of Michigan president Amber Roseboom reaffirmed the importance of being able to hire employees who are committed to protecting the preborn.

“Non-profit organizations like Right to Life of Michigan should have the right to recruit and hire employees who unequivocally support women in choosing life-affirming pregnancy care and who compassionately advocate for that choice,” she said.