PLEASE DO BUSINESS WITH THOSE WHO DO BUSINESS WITH US -- OUR ADVERTISERS.
THANK YOU FOR VISITING OUR WEB PORTAL. PLEASE TELL A FRIEND.
YOU can speak out and be heard by having your own "Column" - Visit the "Public Opinion" Section above.
WE ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK ALL OUR SOURCES FOR THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS IN MAKING US AMERICA'S NUMBER ONE NEWS INFORMATION PORTAL.
ATTENTION TALK SHOW HOSTS: We are honored that many radio talk show hosts use our Web Portal for their "show prep." We would appreciate your occasional mention of our site to your audience. Thanks!
ADVERTISEMENT: If you want to advertise your business or Web Site, send us an email by clicking on "Contact" above. It could be the best business decision you make.
VOA VIEW -- Is the opinion of "Voice of Americans", which is a private entity not affiliated in any way with the United States government or any of its agencies. The opinions expressed here, in whatever medium or format, are not necessarily the opinions of the ownership or advertisers of this web site - 0415.
Conservative Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas got a lawyer for the New Jersey Attorney General’s Office to admit it mounted a “fishing expedition” against a pro-life organization without receiving specific complaints about the group. He got caught.
Thomas drilled down on the investigation of First Choice Women’s Resource Centers during oral arguments in a case challenging a subpoena the organization received from AG Matthew Platkin’s office. “You had no basis to think that they were deceiving any of their contributors?” Thomas asked Chief Counsel Sundeep Iyer. “We certainly had complaints about crisis pregnancy centers,” Iyer deflected before admitting none specifically applied to First Choice, a faith-based nonprofit with five facilities across the Garden State that discourages women from terminating their pregnancies.
“We had no complaints,” Iyer said. “But state governments, [the] federal government, initiate investigations all the time in the absence of complaints where they have a reason to suspect that there could be potential issues of legal compliance.” “I think we had a more than ample basis to initiate this,” he added, citing concerns about misleading donors, unlicensed medical practices, violation of patient privacy, and “potentially misleading or untrue medical statements.” “Well, that just seems a burdensome way to find out whether someone has a confusing website,” jabbed Thomas.
The 2023 subpoena from Platkin’s office requested that First Choice turn over names of its donors to investigators, alleging that the organization could be defrauding them. First Choice sued, arguing the subpoena chilled its First Amendment rights. Platkin’s team countered that First Choice was not yet required to turn over the donor names, but most of the justices were skeptical of the argument against letting the crisis center’s challenge continue. “You don’t think it might have an effect on future potential donors to the organization to know that their name, phone number, address, etc, could be disclosed as a result of the subpoena?” Chief Justice John Roberts pressed Iyer at one point.
Iyer insisted it wouldn’t and claimed that the closest First Choice got to proving otherwise was a donor declaration that they would have been less “likely to donate … if we had known information about the donation might be disclosed,” which the AG’s office called a “backwards-looking statement.” “Really? I mean, we’re going to now pick over the tense of the verb that they chose?” exclaimed conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch at Iyer’s rationale. First Choice attorney Erin Hawley underscored in her argument how potential small donors might be nervous about a subpoena and argued there was nothing misleading about the group’s website.
