After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade , many blue state politicians and special interest groups decided to go after crisis pregnancy centers.

These pro- abortion activists wanted to penalize pregnancy resource centers for supposedly disseminating misleading information, which is to say, information about fetal development or the negative effects of abortion that liberals in government find inconvenient.

Yet, efforts to crack down on crisis pregnancy centers have stalled. These politicians and special interest groups are facing a setback: the law.

Last week, a federal judge blocked an Illinois law that would penalize crisis pregnancy centers for using "misinformation, deceptive practices, or misrepresentation" to interfere with abortion access.

The judge granted a preliminary injunction to the group suing to block the law. The judge never commented on the ruling, but those who filed the suit argued that it violated their free speech and freedom of association.

Additionally, efforts to hamstring crisis pregnancy centers in Massachusetts have fizzled. Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Campbell, a staunch supporter of legal abortion, urged communities to quash their plans to pass anti-crisis pregnancy center ordinances and bylaws drawn up by the abortion lobby. Easthampton listened to her. Its mayor vetoed a proposal to penalize crisis pregnancy centers, and the override attempt failed 5-3, with three liberal city councilors blocking it.

The lawmakers who batted down the proposal know not only that such a law would result in a lawsuit but also that their city would lose and pay dearly for it. After all, refusing to fly a Christian flag at city hall cost Boston more than $2 million in legal fees, and Massachusetts lost a Supreme Court case called McCullen v. Coakley in 2014 over its buffer zones outside of abortion clinics. Restricting the free speech of Christians and conservatives has not gone well in the Bay State.

Similarly, proposals to penalize crisis pregnancy centers in Framingham and Worcester, Massachusetts, have stalled . Worcester Mayor Joe Petty said he opposes the ordinance given the litigation threat. There are likely enough city councilors opposing the proposal to prevent an override.

Plus, no one from the pro-abortion side showed up to testify in favor of a bill in the Massachusetts legislature last month that would penalize crisis pregnancy centers for so-called deceptive practices. However, 23 opponents of the bill testified . And curiously, the bill only has three co-sponsors, indicating it is no longer a priority for the abortion lobby.

Most politicians who want to go after crisis pregnancy centers are Democrats. They are members of a political party that prides itself on supposedly being pro-woman. Yet, many in the party are trying to limit women's access to information and material resources that could help them if they do not want an abortion.

Crisis pregnancy centers give women free ultrasounds and baby supplies, including diapers. Volunteers often run these centers. People who donate time and resources to crisis pregnancy centers do so because they see life as valuable and understand that some women would choose not to abort if they had more support or better understood fetal development.

These are admirable organizations that should receive government funding in every state. Yet, many Democratic politicians want to shut them down. Thankfully, the First Amendment is preventing that from happening.

Tom Joyce ( @TomJoyceSports ) is a political reporter for the New Boston Post in Massachusetts.