Texas and Yelp are suing each other over crisis pregnancy centers
A battle over free speech and abortion rights heads to court

Who knew the next big battle over free speech and abortion would feature a website best known for restaurant reviews?
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced Thursday that he’s suing Yelp for appending a disclaimer to listings for crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) whose mission is to steer pregnant women away from choosing abortion, Reuters reported. After the Supreme Court overturned abortion rights last year, the company began warning users that CPCs "typically provide limited medical services." That’s misleading, Paxton said, and “dissuaded consumers from visiting these clinics in favor of clinics that perform abortion services."
But Yelp isn’t just playing defense. CNN reported the company is suing Texas for the right to keep the disclaimer. Paxton’s lawsuit "threatens to silence Yelp and infringe on the company’s First Amendment rights," the company said in its filing. Yelp said it stood by the truthfulness of its original notice — and has also updated the warning it places on CPC listings with new language: "Crisis Pregnancy Centers do not offer abortions or referrals to abortion providers."
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The battle comes as anti-abortion lawmakers in red states increasingly steer tax dollars to crisis pregnancy centers, The Washington Post reported. Nationally, the centers — tax-supported and otherwise — now outnumber abortion clinics by a 3-to-1 margin. They often offer pregnancy tests and ultrasounds "typically coupled with anti-abortion messaging." Critics say that messaging is often misleading. And blue state officials are looking to aggressively regulate the centers as a result.
Misinformation or a 'real choice'?
Texas’ state-funded centers have been at the center of the controversy. For example, NBC News reported last year that its producers visited Texas CPCs where they were told that "abortions caused mental illness and implied abortions could also cause cancer and infertility." (The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists called those claims "misinformation.") Abortion is largely banned in the state, of course, but a study found that one of every four Texas women who had received an out-of-state abortion first visited a CPC, which "delayed their progress toward care."
Conservatives disagree with the centers’ critics. CPCs offer "a pro-life perspective, to be sure," Alexandra DeSanctis wrote for National Review in 2021. But, she argued, in a "majority" of cases "women don’t actually want to choose abortion." The centers provide a "real choice" to those women "by giving them the help they need to choose life." For some mothers, it means choosing adoption. For others, it’s "the assurance that motherhood is a worthwhile choice." The result? Women who visit a CPC "are about 20% less likely to choose abortion."
Whatever your take on that debate, Yelp is suing Texas for the "right to publish actual accurate abortion info," Thomas Claburn argued at The Register, a tech news site. One way we know it’s true: Paxton himself called Yelp’s updated disclaimer "accurate" in a February press release. The company, meanwhile, defends the need to append CPC listings with a warning: While some users want "pregnancy resources that crisis pregnancy centers provide," a Yelp spokesperson said, others are looking to "find reliable information about abortion providers."
A Supreme Court battle ahead
The legal battles over online political speech are piling up. And yes, Texas is in the mix once again. The New York Times reported the Supreme Court will — separately from the CPC lawsuits — hear a challenge to Texas and Florida laws that tell social media companies they can’t remove user posts for political reasons. Conservatives say the companies have unfairly yanked posts "expressing conservative views on issues like the coronavirus pandemic and claims of election fraud." But the tech industry says the government can’t tell them “whether and how to disseminate speech."
Crisis pregnancy centers, meanwhile, face legal challenges for what they say to pregnant women. The Associated Press in August reported a federal judge’s order to block a new Illinois law that penalizes CPCs for using "misinformation, deceptive practices, or misrepresentation" that would interfere with abortion or contraception access. Women should be able to "access safe medical care without deception or lies," Gov. J.B. Pritzker, a Democrat, said after the court’s decision. Anti-abortion advocates in Illinois, though, say CPCs are protected by the First Amendment too.
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
Joel Mathis is a writer with 30 years of newspaper and online journalism experience. His work also regularly appears in National Geographic and The Kansas City Star. His awards include best online commentary at the Online News Association and (twice) at the City and Regional Magazine Association.
-
What the Renters' Rights Bill means for landlords and tenants
The Explainer Reforms will give tenants more protection from eviction – but may result in rent increases
-
How potatoes became an 'unusual bellwether' in Russia's economy
Under The Radarp Spud shortages are pointing to a wider crisis in the nation's finances
-
7 food trails worth zipping along
The Week Recommends Take a bite out of the United States
-
Gavin Newsom mulls California redistricting to counter Texas gerrymandering
TALKING POINTS A controversial plan has become a major flashpoint among Democrats struggling for traction in the Trump era
-
'Singling out crypto for special scrutiny would be misguided'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
Can Texas redistricting save the US House for the GOP?
Today's Big Question Trump pushes a 'ruthless' new plan, but it could backfire
-
'We should all ask ourselves: When we laugh, who's hurting?'
Instant Opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day
-
The Supreme Court and Congress have Planned Parenthood in their crosshairs
Talking Points Trump's budget bill and the court's ruling threaten abortion access
-
Supreme Court lets states ax Planned Parenthood funds
Speed Read The court ruled that Planned Parenthood cannot sue South Carolina over the state's effort to deny it funding
-
The ambiguous legal state of ectopic pregnancy care
The Explainer Rep. Kat Cammack's accusations of 'fearmongering' are the latest example of how mixed messages are complicating the debate around abortion
-
Are free votes the best way to change British society?
Today's Big Question On 'conscience issues' like abortion and assisted dying, MPs are being left to make the most consequential social decisions without guidance