Pro-Life Groups FORCED to Fund Abortions

Gavel and sign reading Abortion on a wooden surface.

A Michigan law designed to protect reproductive rights now forces pro-life organizations to choose between betraying their core mission or shutting their doors entirely.

Story Snapshot

Right to Life of Michigan and a pregnancy resource center filed federal lawsuit February 6, 2026, challenging a 2023 state law that bars them from hiring only pro-life employees
The amended Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act defines “termination of pregnancy” as protected under sex discrimination, forcing pro-life groups to hire abortion supporters and provide insurance covering abortion
Plaintiffs claim the law violates First Amendment rights to free speech, association, and assembly by compelling them to employ ideological opponents
Alliance Defending Freedom represents the organizations, seeking a preliminary injunction to halt enforcement while the case proceeds
The lawsuit tests the collision between state-mandated reproductive rights protections and religious liberty in post-Dobbs America

When Civil Rights Law Becomes a Weapon Against Mission

Governor Gretchen Whitmer signed Senate Bill 147 in May 2023, expanding Michigan’s Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act to explicitly include “termination of pregnancy” under sex discrimination protections. The original 1976 law protected employees from discrimination based on pregnancy and childbirth. The amendment added abortion to that list, creating what pro-life advocates call an impossible situation. Right to Life of Michigan president Amber Roseboom says her organization stopped asking job applicants about their stance on abortion, fearing legal repercussions. The group receives between 15 and 75 applications for each position but can no longer screen for mission alignment.

The Insurance Mandate Nobody Saw Coming

Beyond hiring restrictions, the law appears to mandate that employers offering pregnancy-related benefits must also cover abortion procedures. This creates a financial and moral quandary for small nonprofits like the Pregnancy Resource Center in Grand Rapids, which exists specifically to offer alternatives to abortion. The organizations argue they now face a choice: provide insurance that funds services they fundamentally oppose or eliminate health coverage entirely for their staff. Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Bryan Neihart argues this forces groups to “contradict their beliefs” while funding procedures that undermine their life-affirming mission.

First Amendment Battle Lines Drawn in Federal Court

The February 6, 2026, complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan names Attorney General Dana Nessel, Michigan Department of Civil Rights Director John E. Johnson Jr., and Michigan Civil Rights Commission members as defendants. The plaintiffs invoke both First and Fourteenth Amendment protections, arguing that compelled association with ideological opponents violates freedoms of speech and assembly. Alliance Defending Freedom brings a track record of Supreme Court victories on religious liberty issues. The case docket number 1:26-cv-390 now sits before a federal judge who will determine whether mission-driven organizations retain the right to hire employees who share their values.

Post-Dobbs Dominoes Continue to Fall

Michigan voters approved Proposal 3 in 2022, enshrining reproductive rights in the state constitution following the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. Democratic legislative control in 2023 enabled the ELCRA expansion, framed as protecting women who exercise abortion rights from employment discrimination. What supporters called safeguarding fundamental freedoms, opponents now characterize as government overreach that inverts civil rights protections. The law doesn’t just prevent firing someone for having an abortion; it allegedly prohibits pro-life organizations from maintaining ideological coherence in their workforce, effectively conscripting them into advancing a cause they oppose.

The Ripple Effect Beyond Michigan Borders

Faith-based and pro-life organizations nationwide are watching this lawsuit closely. If Michigan succeeds in forcing ideological hiring, similar laws could proliferate in blue states seeking to codify abortion protections. The economic impact on small nonprofits could be severe, with insurance costs rising and operational budgets strained. Socially, the case amplifies existing polarization in America’s abortion debate, pitting reproductive rights against religious freedom. Politically, Michigan serves as a bellwether swing state where Democratic abortion protections collide with conservative principles of free association and limited government. A ruling favoring the plaintiffs could establish precedent limiting how far states can extend anti-discrimination laws into mission-driven organizations.

The plaintiffs don’t seek to discriminate against women who have had abortions in their personal lives. They seek to maintain workforces aligned with their organizational purpose: saving unborn lives. The distinction matters. Whitmer’s 2023 statement praised the law for protecting “constitutional rights to reproductive freedom,” yet the Constitution also guarantees freedom of association. When anti-discrimination law forces advocacy groups to employ advocates for the opposite position, the law ceases protecting civil rights and starts destroying civil society. Pro-life organizations serve women seeking alternatives, offering material support, counseling, and resources. Requiring them to hire abortion supporters undermines their ability to serve that population effectively and authentically.

As the case proceeds through federal court, no rulings have been issued. The plaintiffs argue they face a “severe burden” on operations, unable to fulfill their missions while complying with state mandates. The court must weigh competing interests: Michigan’s goal of protecting reproductive freedom against constitutional protections for expressive association. Common sense suggests forcing an organization to hire employees opposed to its core purpose resembles compelled speech, a First Amendment violation. Whether the judge agrees will determine if mission-driven nonprofits retain autonomy or become vessels for state ideology, regardless of their founding purpose and donor intent.