Michigan pro-life groups can’t be forced to hire pro-abortion workers, judge rules  

A federal judge has temporarily stopped Michigan officials from forcing two pro-life organizations to hire workers who support abortion. U.S. District Judge Robert J. Jonker issued a preliminary injunction Friday in favor of Right to Life of Michigan and the Pregnancy Resource Center of Grand Rapids.

The order allows the groups to hire workers who share their pro-life beliefs and allows the pregnancy resource center to accept only volunteers who follow its teachings.

For their current job openings, the groups may turn down applicants who have had an abortion, promote abortion or express pro-abortion views. They may also offer employee health plans that do not cover elective abortions.

The ruling is not a final decision in the case. However, it protects the groups from state enforcement while the case proceeds. Michigan lawmakers amended the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 2023. The law now includes the “termination of a pregnancy” in its prohibition against sex discrimination in employment.

The law bars employers from refusing to hire or recruit someone based on a protected class. It also limits what employers may say in job advertisements or ask applicants.

The pro-life groups filed the case in February in response to the law, as previously reported by Heartlander News.

The dispute centers on how broadly the abortion language applies.

State officials say it protects workers from discrimination because they had an abortion. The pro-life groups argue the wording could also protect workers who promote abortion and reject the groups’ core beliefs.

The groups also argue the change could force them to pay for abortions through their employee health plans.

Right to Life of Michigan works to pass pro-life laws and educate the public. The Pregnancy Resource Center is a Christian ministry that offers women free medical care, education and material assistance, including formula, food, diapers and bedding.

Both groups say their work depends on staff members who affirm the value of unborn life. The pregnancy resource center also requires its workers and volunteers to follow its Christian teachings on marriage and human sexuality.

State lawyers asked Jonker to dismiss the case. They argued the groups faced no real threat because the state had never attempted to enforce the law against them. Jonker rejected the request. He said the 2023 changes “at least arguably cover Plaintiffs’ constitutionally protected conduct.”

The judge found the groups would likely prevail on their freedom-of-association claim if Michigan’s law were interpreted to cover abortion advocates. The First Amendment generally protects the right of people to join together and choose messengers who can advance their shared beliefs.

Alliance Defending Freedom represents the two groups.

“The government can’t force pro-life organizations to sabotage their own beliefs by requiring them to employ staff who endorse abortion,” ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart said.

Right to Life of Michigan President Amber Roseboom also welcomed the ruling.

“The court’s decision is a welcome reprieve and reaffirms our fundamental right to hire employees who agree with our life-affirming mission,” Roseboom said.

However, Jonker did not decide exactly what Michigan’s law means. He instead certified five questions to the Michigan Supreme Court.

Those questions ask whether the law protects only workers who had abortions or also those who promote abortion, associate with someone who had an abortion or express pro-abortion views. Jonker also asked how the law applies to public services and employee insurance plans.

University of Michigan law professor Sam Bagenstos told WEMU that federal judges sometimes ask state courts for guidance when state law is unclear because “the state courts get to tell us what state law means.”

It remains unclear whether the Michigan Supreme Court will answer those questions.

A spokesperson for Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel told reporters her office is still reviewing the ruling.