Women across America want real choices. Unfortunately, pro-abortion advocates have spent decades determining what “choice” women should want — while attacking pregnancy resource centers that offer women what they need. For the past three decades, it has been my privilege to serve as a volunteer and board member at Aid for Women, a network of pregnancy centers and maternity homes in Illinois. The success of pregnancy resource centers like ours in offering women genuine support and resources has made us targets for pro-abortion smear campaigns, lawfare, and even physical attack.Pro-abortion activists don’t seem to care if women, children, and families are cut off from the support they need.On Dec. 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that perfectly encapsulates the targeting and harassment organizations like ours have suffered for years.The case, First Choice Women’s Resource Centers v. Platkin, will determine whether the New Jersey attorney general can arbitrarily demand private donor lists and other confidential information from First Choice Women’s Resource Center without cause.It’s critical that the Supreme Court rule favorably toward First Choice Women’s Resource Centers and send a warning to those targeting pro-life work nationwide.Pro-abortion attacks on pregnancy resource centers have escalated in recent years.Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, pro-abortion radicals unleashed a summer of rage that included physical violence on nearly 100 pregnancy resource centers nationwide. These attacks were shocking to those of us stepping up to meet the need post-Dobbs, especially after fresh polling revealed that 60% of post-abortive women said they would have preferred to parent if they had more resources and support.We were baffled why anyone would want to cut off support networks for women, many of whom clearly wanted to choose life, at a time when increased limits on abortion made our work more essential than ever. Even in blue states that do not have a single restriction on abortion, pro-abortion politicians have striven to strangle our support networks and shut us down.Those of us at Aid for Women felt each of these attacks personally. Even still, we had no idea that we would soon experience pro-abortion “rage” firsthand.This past August, our center staff served countless babies and moms, oblivious to the Democratic National Convention that was being held in our state.At that convention, former Vice President Kamala Harris’ Democrat nomination acceptance speech fearmongered about President Trump’s abortion agenda, alleging that Trump and his allies would endanger women and their rights.Just hours later, one of Aid for Women's Chicago pregnancy centers was badly vandalized, with doors cemented shut and red paint thrown on the windows, graffiti reading, "Fake Clinic! The dead babies are in Gaza." The political vitriol from the DNC undoubtedly inspired the physical attack on our center.Unfortunately, the vandals only succeeded in hurting the very women they claim to champion.The following day, a dozen pregnant mothers who had booked prenatal appointments at Aid for Women were unable to be seen by the organization’s physician and nurse practitioners due to the vandalism. Dozens more could not visit to pick up the diapers, formula, infant and maternity clothing, and household supplies that Aid for Women provides — all free of charge and all without any government assistance. Every service and item given to pregnant women is provided through the generosity of donors.RELATED: The FDA’s deadly betrayal of pro-life America STEFANI REYNOLDS/AFP via Getty ImagesWhat those attacking our center failed to realize is that many of our clients live below or just skimming the poverty line. Some have housing insecurity. And their inability to access our center for the care that they needed likely affected them dramatically.Unfortunately, pro-abortion activists don’t seem to care if women, children, and families are cut off from the support they need.As we approach oral arguments in First Choice Women’s Resource Center, Inc. v. Platkin, the attacks on centers like ours serve as a powerful reminder that those offering alternatives to abortion have become punching bags of abortion extremists that will do anything to stop lifesaving work and promote abortion.For example, the New Jersey attorney general is alleged to have singled out First Choice Women’s Resource Center because of its pro-life and Christian views. New Jersey officials allegedly have spent months harassing First Choice with crippling administrative requirements, threatening legal sanctions if the organization refused to produce private donor records and other private information — all of which is confidential to protect those involved from the very real threat of pro-abortion retribution.Compounding this injustice was the shocking truth that New Jersey officials did not have a just cause for this burdensome lawfare and still have not submitted any evidence of wrongdoing by First Choice or any of its associates.Despite this, donors and volunteers engaging in charitable work face the possibility of intimidation and retribution for putting their money — and their time — where their mouths are.It’s critical that the Supreme Court end this unfair lawfare against First Choice and draw a line to stop pro-abortion attacks on pregnancy resource centers once and for all.

Last week, my colleague Ryan Thorpe and I broke a story about widespread fraud committed by Somalis in Minnesota. Members of the state’s Somali community allegedly participated in complex schemes related to autism services, food programs, and housing, which prosecutors estimate have stolen billions of taxpayer dollars. Even worse, some of the cash has ended up in the hands of Al-Shabaab, a terrorist organization in Somalia.The story quickly reached the White House. Within days, President Trump announced that he was revoking Temporary Protected Status for all Somali migrants in Minnesota.Progressives have suggested that our reporting and the subsequent policy change were “racist.” While many of those indicted in these schemes are Somali, these critics argue, the federal government should not hold Minnesota’s Somali community corporately responsible for the actions of individuals.Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis has a real problem, and it is about time that our government began facing it.This criticism is superficially appealing, but it isn’t persuasive on closer inspection.First, a description of the facts should not be measured as “racist or not racist,” but rather as “true or not true.” And in this case, the truth is that numerous members of a relatively small community participated in a scheme that stole billions in taxpayer funds. This is a legitimate consideration for American immigration policy, which is organized around nation of origin and, for more than 30 years, has favorably treated Somalis relative to other groups. It is more than fair to ask whether that policy has served the national interest. The fraud story suggests that the answer is “no.”Second, the fact that Somalis are black is incidental. If Norwegian immigrants were perpetrating fraud at the same alleged scale and had the same employment and income statistics as Somalis, it would be perfectly reasonable to make the same criticism and enact the same policy response. It would not be “racist” against Norwegians to do so.Further, Somalis have enormously high unemployment rates, and federal law enforcement has long considered Minneapolis’ Little Mogadishu neighborhood a hot spot for terrorism recruitment. We should condemn that behavior without regard to skin color.The underlying question — which, until now, Americans have been loath to address directly — is that of different behaviors and outcomes between different groups. Americans tend to avoid this question, rely on euphemisms, and let these distinctions remain implied rather than spoken aloud. Yet it seems increasingly untenable to maintain this Anglo-American courtesy when the left has spent decades insisting that we conceptualize our national life in terms of group identity.The reality is that different groups have different cultural characteristics. The national culture of Somalia is different from the national culture of Norway. Somalis and Norwegians therefore tend to think differently, behave differently, and organize themselves differently, which leads to different group outcomes. Norwegians in Minnesota behave similarly to Norwegians in Norway; Somalis in Minnesota behave similarly to Somalis in Somalia. Many cultural patterns from Somalia — particularly clan networks, informal economies, and distrust of state institutions — travel with the diaspora and have shown up in Minnesota as well. In the absence of strong assimilation pressures, the fraud networks aren’t so surprising; they reflect the extension of Somali institutional norms into a new environment with weak enforcement and poorly designed incentives.The beauty of America is that we had a system that thoughtfully balanced individual and group considerations. We recognized that all men, whatever their background, have a natural right to life, liberty, property, and equal treatment under the law. We also recognized that group averages can be a basis for judgment — especially in immigration, where they can help determine which potential immigrant groups are most suitable and advantageous for America.RELATED: Chip Roy’s immigration blitz hits the lawless left and the squish right Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty ImagesThese principles are in tension but not in contradiction. As a sociological matter, a policy of equal rights for all individuals will result in unequal outcomes among groups. This is not a sign of injustice per se. It is an inevitability. No two groups are the same, and therefore, no two groups will have the same outcomes in a system of individual liberty and equality.The firestorm around the Somali fraud story was so intense precisely because it forced this question into the spotlight. For decades, America has given Somali immigrants special privileges through TPS. We have expected Somalis to play by the rules, contribute to the country, and assimilate into the culture. Some individuals have certainly done so, but as the fraud story suggests, many others have not. A rational government would amend its policies accordingly.We can see the same process playing out in other parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, mass immigration from incompatible cultures is creating a civilizational crisis. Rather than replicate the policies of our sister country, we should accept reality and adopt a more thoughtful policy, which recognizes cultural norms as a reasonable measure of capacity to assimilate and to contribute.The president should stand firm. Little Mogadishu in Minneapolis has a real problem, and it is about time that our government began facing it.Editor’s note: This article appeared originally on Substack.

Trinity College Dublin’s Old Library will close for restoration and construction in 2027. What does that mean for the medieval manuscripts and books housed there?

If President Trump intends to use military force to topple Maduro, he should go to Congress.

That Narrative About Hegseth and the Strike on the Drug Boats Just Imploded Even More

Although its future hasn't always been a sure thing, NASA's manned Artemis II mission is one step closer on its journey to the moon and back.

CEO Sam Altman seems to have issued a code red memo to OpenAI employees to improve ChatGPT's capabilities after Google's Gemini outscored it in benchmarks.

Behind the hoopla over the promise of artificial intelligence lay difficult realities, including how such technology might affect people already disadvantaged in a datadriven world.A new report by the United Nations Development Program notes most of the gains from AI are...

The Northeast was getting ready Tuesday for its first major snowstorm of the season, just as the Midwest began to escape snow and ice that snarled travel after the Thanksgiving holiday. Some parts of northern New England were expecting up to 10 inches (25.4 centimeters) of...

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Tuesday in a case from New Jersey involving the state attorney general's investigation into the operator of Christian faith-based "crisis pregnancy centers," facilities that seek to steer women away from having...