The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City handed a significant victory to a pro-life pregnancy care network, reversing a lower court's dismissal and ruling that the organization can challenge a New York law that would force it to hire employees whose views directly contradict its mission.

The Evergreen Association — a pregnancy center network founded by Christopher Slattery — sued over New York's so-called "Boss Bill" of 2019, which created a protected class based on "reproductive health decision making." In practice, the law barred employers from considering whether a prospective hire had an abortion, advocated for abortion, or engaged in premarital sex, even when the employer's entire purpose is built around a pro-life message.

According to a Christian Post report, a district court initially tossed the case, calling the law's impact on Evergreen's associational rights merely "incidental." The appeals court disagreed.

The Court's Logic

Circuit Judge Steven Menashi, a Trump appointee, wrote that the organization's stance on the morality of abortion constitutes its defining values — and that the state cannot simply override that identity. The ruling stated plainly what should be obvious:

"Forcing it to accept as members those who engage in or approve of that conduct would cause the group as it currently identifies itself to cease to exist."

That's the core of the case. A pro-life pregnancy center exists to counsel women toward choosing life. Requiring it to employ people who reject that mission doesn't regulate hiring — it dismantles the organization from the inside out.

Menashi's ruling continued:

"Accordingly, the balancing of interests favors the expressive association that opposes the conduct the state would protect against discrimination."

The court reversed the lower court's dismissal on the expressive association claim, though it affirmed the dismissal of Evergreen's separate free speech and religious freedom claims. That distinction matters legally, but the practical result is clear: the case moves forward, and the principle that mission-driven organizations can hire according to their mission survived the state's attempt to kill it.

What the "Boss Bill" Actually Does

New York's 2019 law sounds anodyne in the abstract — protecting employees from discrimination based on "reproductive health choices." But apply it to organizations whose entire reason for existence is advocacy on reproductive questions, and the law becomes a weapon.

Timothy Belz, special counsel for the Thomas More Society representing Evergreen, told CP that the Boss Bill "chilled" his client's right to even ask prospective employees whether they opposed abortion. Think about that. A pregnancy resource center dedicated to saving unborn lives couldn't ask job candidates if they shared that goal.

Belz laid out the principle with precision:

"That is, the state cannot come in and require you to do something that is contrary to that message. And that applies to churches, religious institutions of all sorts; it applies to anybody who is promoting a message, even in a secular context."

The law reportedly contained no exemptions for churches or religious organizations — a detail that reveals the bill's ambition. This wasn't about protecting workers in neutral corporate settings. It was designed to reach into institutions built on moral conviction and strip them of the ability to maintain coherence.

Who Gets to Decide

Belz was careful to note that the case isn't about blanket exclusion. It's about authority — who decides how a mission-driven organization staffs its mission.

"We're not saying that we would never hire someone who had an abortion. It's just that our client needs to be the judge of who it hires or who it doesn't hire."

He went further:

"Our client may hire a woman who has had an abortion because she may be the most powerful witness in favor of pro-life ideas, so that's not the issue. The issue is who gets to make this decision, and we're saying, obviously, that the pregnancy resource center gets to make its own hiring decisions when it comes to who it chooses to promote its message."

That framing demolishes the caricature that pro-life centers operate on rigid exclusion. The opposite is true — these organizations regularly work with women who've had abortions and channel those experiences into powerful advocacy. What they refuse to do is let Albany decide their staffing priorities for them.

The Bigger Picture

This ruling arrives against a backdrop of sustained political and legal pressure against pro-life pregnancy centers. Blue states have spent years trying to regulate, restrict, or discredit these organizations — from compelled speech mandates to zoning battles to laws like the Boss Bill that attack their internal operations.

The irony is thick. The same political movement that insists private organizations can enforce ideological conformity — that a tech company can fire employees for wrongthink, that a university can require DEI pledges — suddenly discovers the sacred principle of employee autonomy when the organization in question is pro-life.

Meanwhile, the centers themselves continue to serve women. A study published in January 2023 in the journal Contraception surveyed 445 pregnancy centers alongside 445 geographically paired abortion facilities. The results:

• 68.5% of pregnancy centers offered same-day appointments, compared to 37.2% of abortion facilities.
• Median cost for a pregnancy test at an abortion facility: $24.
• Median cost for an ultrasound at an abortion facility: $162.50.
• Pro-life pregnancy centers rarely charge for either service.

These are the organizations that New York's legislature decided needed to be brought to heel. Centers that offer faster access and free services to women facing crisis pregnancies — targeted not because they fail women, but because they succeed without the approved ideological framework.

What Comes Next

Slattery, Evergreen's founder and CEO, framed the ruling as vindication:

"We are thrilled that a Federal Court in New York affirmed what we knew from the beginning, the need to shield pregnancy resource centers from unconstitutional laws that try to thwart their mission. We are grateful to the Thomas More Society for defending our free speech rights."

Belz expressed hope the decision would carry weight beyond this single case:

"We hope the ruling will discourage any state legislature from enacting legislation that would violate an organization's First Amendment rights, including the right to work with those who share their values."

Whether other legislatures take the hint remains to be seen. But the 2nd Circuit — sitting in New York City, not exactly friendly territory for pro-life causes — just affirmed that the First Amendment still means something when the state tries to gut an organization's identity through hiring mandates.

Albany wrote a law designed to make pro-life pregnancy centers choose between their mission and their existence. A federal court just told them that's not their call to make.