Pro-Life Marketing Organization Stands Firm Against Unfounded Lawsuit Targeting Free Speech
Attleboro, MA – In a bold legal move, Choose Life Marketing has enlisted the support of the Thomas More Society to defend its rights in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts against a lawsuit brought forth by Four Women Health Services. This case not only challenges the viability of pro-life marketing but also raises significant questions about the future of free speech in advocacy.
The Lawsuit: A Fight for Free Speech
Four Women Health Services contends that the marketing strategies implemented by Choose Life Marketing for its co-defendant, Abundant Hope, a pro-life pregnancy center, are misleading to women seeking abortions. However, this claim stems from standard marketing practices employed by Choose Life Marketing aimed at promoting alternatives to abortion, including support for parenting, adoption resources, and material assistance.
Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at the Thomas More Society, remarked, “Massachusetts’ abortion businesses, bolstered by a former attorney general who has a history of targeting pro-life speech, are making an unprecedented attempt to erode the First Amendment and silence opinions they oppose.”
Previous Legal Filings and Developments
This latest legal filing follows an earlier motion to dismiss submitted by the Thomas More Society on March 14, 2025. Remarkably, the court permitted Four Women Health Services to rewrite their initial complaint—a decision prompted by claims that seemed conspiratorial, arising from the pregnancy center’s impactful outreach. In a renewed effort to suppress pro-life speech, the abortion facility accused Choose Life Marketing of “unfair business practices” under both state and federal law.
Nathan Loyd, Staff Counsel at the Thomas More Society, clarified, “This frivolous lawsuit weaponizes commercial laws to silence the pro-life message. The First Amendment guarantees that pregnancy centers can inform women of their existence and the free assistance they offer. A victory for the plaintiffs could endanger community organizations and charities that provide free services, similar to food banks or women’s shelters, across Massachusetts and beyond.”
The Broader Implications
At the heart of the issue lies a fundamental fear: the abortion provider recognizes that the pro-life message may resonate more powerfully than their own narrative. As stated by Loyd, “They believe they can enhance their revenue by stifling pro-life dialogue.”
Notably, Four Women Health Services is represented by Martha Coakley, former Attorney General of Massachusetts, who has previously faced a rebuke from the U.S. Supreme Court in the landmark pro-life free speech case, McCullen v. Coakley (2014).
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battle between Choose Life Marketing and Four Women Health Services encapsulates a broader conflict over free speech and advocacy in today’s society. The implications of this lawsuit extend far beyond the parties involved, potentially affecting countless community organizations striving to make a positive impact.
For further details on this case and the defense’s response, you can access the full filing here.
Engage in the Conversation
What are your thoughts on the implications of this lawsuit for free speech in advocacy? Share your views below!
