Right to Life Michigan Sues Over Law Requiring Hiring of Pro-Abortion Employees

by Jeff Johnston | February 6, 2026 | Life

Right to Life of Michigan (RLM) and Pregnancy Resource Center (PRC) filed a lawsuit challenging a state employment law that requires them to hire pro-abortion employees.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed the suit on behalf of the pro-life organizations, explaining in a press release:

Michigan amended its employment law to re-define “sex” discrimination to include “the termination of a pregnancy.” It is now illegal for Right to Life of Michigan and Pregnancy Resource Center to recruit and hire only those employees who share their pro-life views.

ADF, a legal organization committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life and parents’ rights, added, “The law also requires these organizations to offer abortion coverage in their insurance plans in direct conflict with their very mission.”

ADF Senior Counsel Bryan Neihart stated:

It makes no sense to force pro-life organizations to hire employees who disagree with that view. Pro-life groups should be free to share the message of hope and joy with women and families experiencing a difficult season through employees who share their common goal.

According to the ADF press release:

Right to Life of Michigan offers life-affirming education and advocates for pro-life policies across the state. Pregnancy Resource Center provides women with medical care, resources and support structures to help them through their pregnancies. Both hire like-minded individuals who share their convictions about the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. They depend on their employees to promote their pro-life views to the public and to encourage other staff.

But state employment law now requires them to hire individuals who disagree with their work and their deeply-held pro-life beliefs.

Michigan enacted the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in 1976, prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations, employment, housing and education on the basis of “religion, race, color, national origin, age, sex, height, weight, familial status, or marital status.”

The act prohibited “sex-based discrimination due to pregnancy, childbirth, or a medical condition related to pregnancy,” but it specifically excluded “nontherapeutic abortions not intended to save the life of the mother.”

In 2022, Michigan voters passed Proposal 3, the “Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative,” a law enshrining abortion as a constitutional right.

To bring the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act in line with Proposal 3, the legislature passed Senate Bill 147, which deleted “nontherapeutic abortion not intended to save the life of the mother.”

That change meant that “sex discrimination” included anyone who had an abortion or supported abortion.

The legislature also approved Senate Bill 4, adding “sexual orientation and gender identity or expression” as categories protected from discrimination.

Amber Roseboom, president of Right to Life of Michigan, spoke in a press release about the challenge to the state’s employment law:

Non-profit organizations like Right to Life of Michigan should have the right to recruit and hire employees who unequivocally support women in choosing life-affirming pregnancy care and who compassionately advocate for that choice. … Our legal challenge aims to ensure that Right to Life of Michigan has the freedom to hire employees who share its vision without the threat of government punishment so that we can continue to advocate for life-affirming options now and into the future.

Among other allegations, the lawsuit states that Michigan’s employment law violates RLM and PRC’s First Amendment rights to expressive association and assembly; to freedom of speech and press; and to free exercise of religion and to religious autonomy.

The case is Right to Life of Michigan v. Nessel.

Right to Life Michigan Sues Over Law Requiring Hiring of Pro-Abortion Employees

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Related Posts