New Bill Protects Pregnancy Centers, Opens Door for Lawsuits Against Government Over Abortion Referrals

The “Let Pregnancy Centers Serve Act of 2025” is straightforward: it aims to give legal protection and financial backing to organizations that offer alternatives to abortion, often called pregnancy centers. The bill starts by highlighting the scale of these centers, noting that in 2022, nearly 2,800 centers provided over 3.2 million client sessions and gave away $367 million worth of material goods like diapers and car seats. The core of this legislation, however, is not about the material goods; it’s about legally separating these centers from any requirement to participate in abortion services and giving them a powerful new tool to enforce that separation.

The New Rulebook: No Penalty for Saying No

Section 3 adds a new rule to the Public Health Service Act that essentially creates a legal firewall. If you’re an organization—like a pregnancy center—that focuses on helping women carry a pregnancy to term, the federal government (or anyone receiving federal money, like a state health department) cannot penalize you for refusing to perform, refer for, or counsel in favor of an abortion or abortion-inducing drugs. Think of it this way: if a state agency has a grant program for women’s health, they can’t deny funding to a center just because that center doesn't include abortion referrals in its services menu. The bill explicitly defines “life-affirming support” to exclude any activity that involves performing, referring for, or counseling in favor of abortion. This provision ensures that federal dollars can’t be used to pressure these centers into expanding their services beyond their stated mission.

Litigation Power-Up: Suing the Government for Discrimination

This is where the bill gets serious about enforcement. Section 4 significantly beefs up the legal power of these centers by allowing them to file a direct “civil action”—a lawsuit—against government bodies if they feel they’ve been discriminated against. If a state agency or local health department violates these new conscience protections, the affected center can sue them directly. Crucially, the bill specifies that the center doesn’t have to exhaust every administrative appeal first; they can go straight to court. If they win, the court must grant “all appropriate relief,” including compensatory damages (money to cover losses) even if the defendant is a government entity. On top of that, the losing side—the government agency—must pay the center’s attorney fees and court costs. This shifts the financial risk of litigation heavily onto public entities.

The Real-World Impact on Healthcare Access

For everyday people, this bill creates a clear separation in the healthcare landscape. If you rely on a federally funded clinic or program for reproductive health, this law might affect the information you receive. For instance, if a public health program is required to offer comprehensive options, but contracts with a facility that refuses to counsel in favor of abortion, that facility is now legally protected. This could mean that comprehensive reproductive health information, including referrals to abortion providers, might become less accessible within networks that receive federal funding, particularly if those networks rely on smaller, local partners who choose to opt out under this new protection.

For state and local governments, the new ability for centers to sue directly for damages and attorney fees is a major liability shift. A public health department trying to enforce comprehensive care standards could find itself facing expensive litigation, which means taxpayer dollars could be diverted from services to legal defense. The broad protection against being forced to counsel “in favor of” abortion is a key area of concern, as it could be interpreted to allow providers to withhold critical, medically necessary information required for truly informed consent, potentially complicating care for people seeking full options.