A hiring law just made it harder for pro-life groups to succeed |
Imagine running a nonprofit with a clearly defined mission. You’re passionate about it. You’d want to be able to hire employees who would help you fulfill that mission, right?
Of course you would.
If you’re a pro-life organization in Michigan, however, you may be out of luck – at least as far as the law is concerned.
Language added a few years ago to the state’s civil rights law, which governs hiring practices, directly impacts how these groups can operate.
Two affected organizations – Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center – are fighting back. With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), they filed a federal lawsuit in February against Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (who has a history of hostility toward religious organizations), the state’s Department of Civil Rights and Civil Rights Commission.
“Recent changes to Michigan’s employment law force religious and pro-life groups to employ and associate with persons who do not share or live by – and may even oppose – the organizations’ beliefs on human life,” the lawsuit states. “This violates the First Amendment.”
'Sex' discrimination now includes 'termination of pregnancy'
While the lawsuit is a pre-enforcement challenge – a legal action meant to prevent the government from using a law to violate one’s constitutional rights – ADF attorneys say the pro-life groups have already felt the need to withhold their pro-life statements in job postings for fear of running afoul of the amended law.
They’ve also received applications from those who identify as “pro-abortion.”
This is happening because a Democratic-controlled Michigan legislature – and a supportive governor in Gretchen Whitmer – in 2023 redefined “sex” discrimination to include the “termination of a pregnancy.” Most of the attention at the time was on the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in the anti-discrimination law.
The new language regarding pregnancy poses huge implications for pro-life groups, however.
According to ADF, the law now makes it illegal for Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center “to recruit and hire only those employees who share their pro-life views.”
It argues the law also requires these groups to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans, which is an obvious conflict with their very missions.
Pro-life groups that violate the law face “severe penalties,” according to the lawsuit, including five-figure fines and loss of state-issued licenses.
The lawsuit also alleges that lawmakers “persistently rejected proposals to exempt religious employers or employers who object to abortion on moral grounds.”
The lack of exemption makes Michigan an outlier among states with similar laws. ADF has filed a similar lawsuit in New York, and that case is ongoing.
Courts keep standing for First Amendment rights
Pro-life groups should not have to chill their speech or change their hiring practices because of government coercion.
Hal Frampton, senior counsel and director of the Center for Conscience Initiatives at ADF, told me that each group in this lawsuit has “First Amendment rights to speak in accordance with its own message and part of that speech means being able to hire employees who are going to speak the same message and live out the same message.”
Although it’s concerning what’s going on in Michigan, courts in recent years have stood strong for individuals and organizations with deeply held beliefs and convictions.
Anti-discrimination laws like Michigan’s are often at the heart of these other cases. For instance, in 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, a Colorado web designer who did not want to be forced by the state to design wedding websites for same-sex couples.
“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority in that decision.
That sentiment holds true in Michigan, too. The government cannot be the arbiter of what anyone – or any organization – believes.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques