Vermont lawmakers have revised a controversial statute targeting pro-life pregnancy centers, leading to the dismissal of a closely watched federal lawsuit.

By amending its statute to eliminate specific restrictions targeting faith-based clinics, Vermont ended a legal challenge by the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates over claims of compelled speech and viewpoint discrimination, Just the News reported.

The legislation in question, originally enacted in 2023, had mirrored a 2018 California law that was ultimately blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. Vermont's law labeled some organizations as “limited-services pregnancy centers” and imposed restrictions on how they could advertise services such as abortion pill reversal. Advocacy groups argued the law unfairly targeted pro-life speech and violated the First Amendment.

Backed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) filed suit shortly after the law’s passage. They were joined by local groups, Aspire Now and Branches Pregnancy Resource Center. The law's framing of counseling as commercial conduct prompted legal objections concerning free speech and religious freedom.

On May 13, 2025, Gov. Phil Scott signed a new bill, SB 28, which amended the original legislation. The revised text removed the term "limited-services pregnancy centers" and replaced it with references to general “health care services.” Notably, the final language excludes specific references to abortion or related counseling services.

Federal Judge Drops Case Following Law Change

Following the amendment, U.S. District Judge William Sessions signed a stipulation of dismissal without prejudice, effectively ending the lawsuit. Sessions had previously denied the state's motion to dismiss the case in 2024, allowing it to move forward at the time. Although the case is now closed, the dismissal without prejudice means it could be refiled if similar restrictions are introduced again.

Anne O’Connor, vice president of legal affairs at NIFLA, said the centers are “no longer under direct threat” from the revised law. However, she made clear that NIFLA remains prepared to return to court if Vermont reinstates similar language targeting pregnancy centers in the future.

Jean Marie Davis, executive director at Branches Pregnancy Resource Center, personally defended the work of pro-life centers against what she described as misleading portrayals. She said such organizations provide support and guidance that helped her, rather than harm her, calling her experience one of empowerment rather than victimization.

Other States Also Backtrack Under Legal Pressure

Vermont’s decision to revise its law follows a trend among other Democratic-led states retreating from efforts to regulate pro-life pregnancy centers under pressure from the courts. In Illinois, lawmakers dropped SB 1909 18 months after a federal judge halted its enforcement. Similarly, Connecticut's law was effectively abandoned in 2023, with officials conceding they could not enforce it legally.

Delaware also pulled back from enforcing its pregnancy center law just a month after NIFLA filed suit. Legal analysts noted that these developments suggest growing judicial resistance to laws that compel or restrict speech based on ideological viewpoints. Advocacy groups see these cases as part of a bigger battle over First Amendment protections in the healthcare setting.

In a related case, a federal judge in April reviewed a portion of Illinois law that mandated referrals for abortions. The court blocked language requiring pregnancy centers to promote abortion but allowed the referral mandate to remain, classifying it as professional conduct rather than compelled speech.

Illinois Ruling Faces Ongoing Legal Challenge

Critics argue that the ruling in Illinois is inconsistent. Liberty University’s Standing for Freedom Center called it both “paradoxical” and legally flawed for distinguishing between what the court saw as medical requirements versus philosophical beliefs. They said the ruling lacked a clear, consistent standard of review.

The Alliance Defending Freedom and the Thomas More Society have since filed appeals with the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. They argue that the referral mandate is unconstitutional because it forces providers to express views they conscientiously oppose. Their briefs assert that this runs contrary to the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling against California’s similar law, which found such mandates were a form of viewpoint-based compelled speech.

ADF's legal brief argued that the lower court’s reasoning “flies in the face” of legal precedent. The Thomas More Society further argued the judge offered “zero evidence” of a compelling state interest and failed to consider less restrictive alternatives, such as government-sponsored informational campaigns about reproductive services.

Legal Strategy Centers on Free Speech Rights

Both legal groups maintain that the Illinois law disproportionately burdens only those with conscience-based objections to abortion. By requiring referrals as a condition of legal protection under the state’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act, the mandate penalizes those with certain views while sparing others.

Organizations represented by ADF in Illinois include Tri-County Crisis Pregnancy Center, The Life Center, and Mosaic Pregnancy & Health Centers. The Thomas More Society represents physician Ronald Schroeder and several additional pregnancy centers. Their position is that these centers should not be compelled to promote or facilitate procedures that conflict with their religious or moral beliefs.

As both sides continue to argue over speech protections, the broader debate around reproductive politics and free expression in medical settings appears poised to remain active in the courts. For now, Vermont's revision and the dismissal of its lawsuit may mark a pause rather than an end to a legal saga that spans several states.