DECISION & ORDER Plaintiffs, religious organizations opposed to abortion, seek a preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of a labor law promulgated by the State of New York. See dkt. # 17. Plaintiffs contend that the law, which purports to prevent employer discrimination against women because of their reproductive health care choices, is actually aimed at undermining their ability to carry out their anti-abortion mission and violate their First Amendment rights. Defendants, New York State officials, oppose the request for a preliminary injunction and have filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim. See dkt. # 19. The parties have briefed the issues and the Court has determined to decide the motion without oral argument. I. BACKGROUND A. Facts Alleged in the Complaint Plaintiffs describe this case as a “pre-enforcement federal civil rights action[.]” Complaint (“ Complt.”), dkt. # 1, at 1. They raise their claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin enforcement of the “Boss Bill,” which they describe as “the third in a trio of abortion-protective and abortion-advancing laws passed by the New York State Legislature on January 22, 2019.” Id. at 2.1 The first two laws addressed when in the gestational period abortions could be performed and the second addressed the cost of contraceptives and other family planning drugs in health plans. Id. i. The Plaintiffs a. CompassCare Plaintiff CompassCare Pregnancy Services (“CompassCare”) is a religious nonprofit incorporated under New York law, with a principal place of business in Rochester, New York. Id. at 40. CompassCare “provides pregnancy-related medical and nonmedical services and comprehensive pregnancy-and abortion-related information without cost to its patients[.]” Id. at 41. CompassCare has both a president and a medical director. Id. As a “pregnancy care center,” CompassCare “exists to serve women considering abortion and their unborn children.” Id. at 55. CompassCare aims “to provide the compassion, concern, and support necessary to enable women to carry their unborn children to term.” Id. CompassCare does not seek to earn a profit, does not charge for its aid, and does not discriminate because of “age, sex, marital status, or religious preference.” Id. at 56. CompassCare operates without funding from the government. Id. at 57. CompassCare provides a number of services, including “clinical pregnancy testing…; ultrasound exams; gestational age determinations; complete pregnancy, abortion, and adoption options consultations; STD testing and treatment; abortion pill reversal services; and medical, insurance, and community support referrals.” Id. at 58. Plaintiff also offers “accurate and complete comprehensive information concerning prenatal development, pregnancy and childbirth, abortion procedures and risks, and alternatives to abortion.” Id. at 59. Beyond this “rigorous and consistent treatment and testing protocol,” CompassCare also offers “informational resources” on “pregancy, abortion, post-abortion care and expectations, contraception, and STDs.” Id. at 60. Plaintiffs further describe the aim of CompassCare’s programs and the beliefs that underlie those aims. CompassCare, they say, “is committed to meeting a woman’s need at the point of decision regarding an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.” Id. at 62. By providing “emotional support and practical assistance,” Plaintiff “provides women with the knowledge and ability to face the future with hope, and to plan constructively for themselves and their babies.” Id. at 63. CompassCare “believes all human life is equally valuable and deserving of blessing and protection, from fertilization to natural death.” Id. at 64. To Compass Care, “every abortion claims an innocent life.” Id. at 65. Since “every life is inherently valuable” as “a gift from God and made in His image,” Plaintiff “believes that such life should not be destroyed. Id. at 65. Rather than solving women’s problems, CompassCare alleges “that abortion compounds actual and perceived problems and difficulties[.]” Id. at 67. CompassCare sees “the purpose of medical care [as] to heal and maintain the health of the individual[.]” Id. at 68. Abortion, CompassCare claims, “does neither for either women or the baby.” Id. CompassCare does not, therefore, “recommend, provide, or refer for abortions or abortifacient drugs or devices.” Id. at 69. Plaintiff finds “it immoral for anyone to participate in those services.” Id. Instead, CompassCare finds adoption “an excellent alternative” and offers “referrals to adoption agencies and attorneys for those who want such assistance.” Id. at 70. CompassCare also has specific beliefs related to sexuality and birth control. Plaintiff “believes that popular…acceptance of a birth control mentality violates the purpose of sexuality as revealed in the Bible.” Id. at 71. That acceptance “results in an increase in adolescent promiscuity, pregnancy, abortion, and disease.” Id. at 71. CompassCare therefore “works to teach young adults that sex can only be meaningful and safe within the context of a loving, permanent marital relationship between one man and one woman.” Id. at 72. CompassCare provides information on birth control, offering a distinction between contraceptives and “abortifacient drugs and devices on the other.” Id. While CompassCare provides information on contraceptives, the Plaintiff does not “refer patients for birth control in any form.” Id. at 73. CompassCare also promotes abstinence among single people and “sexual fidelity within a marital relationship.” Id. at 74. Such marriages, CompassCare states, are “between one man and one woman.” Id. Plaintiff CompassCare further alleges that its “Christian faith and religious beliefs motivate and permeate its mission and all its activities” Id. at 75. CompassCare considers “itself as an outreach ministry of Jesus Christ through His church.” Id. “During every interaction with a patient,” Plaintiff contends, “CompassCare staff offer to share the Gospel message of God’s love and hope to those who wish to agree to hear it.” Id. at 76. Staff only share that gospel message with people who agree to hear it. Id. CompassCare’s mission statement describes the Plaintiff as “a Christ-centered agency dedicated to empowering women and men to erase the need for abortion by transforming a woman’s fear into confidence.” Id. at 77. God’s desire, CompassCare believes, is “to use [CompassCare] to transform the communities it serves in western New York into a place where abortion is no longer needed and wanted.” Id. at 78. To achieve that end, CompassCare seeks to aid both “at-risk women,” and also to assist other “pregnancy care centers” in doing the same. Id. Plaintiff contends that “CompassCare is a religious organization that provides its services…pursuant to its pro-life and religious viewpoint[.]” Id. at 80. It hopes “to empower the women it serves to say ‘no’ to abortion.” Id. To meet this “religious and prolife mission,” the Plaintiff “requires all who serve the organization — whether staff, board members, or volunteers — to know Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.” Id. at 81. Further, “[a]ll who work at CompassCare must support CompassCare’s religious mission, and must personally conduct themselves consistent with the Christian faith and belief that guides that mission.” Id. at 82. Thus, “all who serve the organization in any capacity” must “believe in and agree to abide by its positional statements on abortion, birth control, religious faith, and organizational principles.” Id. at 83. Those views are found in an employee handbook. Id. at 84. All persons “serv[ing] the organization” must sign the handbook. Id. Employees are not only required to agree to “such statements” when they begin their work, but must also “uphold them, unwaveringly, throughout their tenure with the organization.” Id. at 85. The CompassCare “positional statements” mandate that “all those who serve the organization” must “agree that the Bible is the inspired — and the only — infallible, authoritative Word of God; [and] that there is only one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit[.]” Id. at 86. They must also agree “that every abortion claims an innocent life; that sexual relationships outside of marriages between one man and one women results in great numbers of unplanned pregnancies, sexually transmitted diseases, and broken lives[.]” Id. Finally, they must believe “ that sexual abstinence, rather than contraception, is the proper means” to prevent unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases. Id. CompassCare contends that “[f]or staff, volunteers, and board members, assent to CompassCare’s mission and beliefs necessarily entails living a life consistent with that mission and those beliefs.” Id. at 87. As part of living consistently with the organization’s beliefs, CompassCare alleges, “[a]ll those who serve the organization must agree to never refer or advise any woman to have an abortion[.]” Id. at 88. They also must pledge “to uphold the organization’s policy on birth control, which is abstinence only for unmarried patients.” Id. They must also “refrain from having, and helping other to procure, abortions.” If. at 89. Such persons are also to “refrain from using, or helping others procure, abortifacient drugs or devices[.]” Id. at 90. They must also remain monogamous if married, and be sexually abstinent if not married. Id. They must also “agree to pray for CompassCare staff, volunteers, and patients.” Id. at 91. CompassCare’s requirements [are] for staff, board members, and volunteers to both agree with and abide by its beliefs and missions are driven by the organization’s belief that such views “comport with God’s Will and Word.” Id. at 92. Requiring such fealty, CompassCare explains, is also driven by a belief “that by associating with likeminded individuals,” CompassCare “will be able to spread an authentic message of love and hope that will be received more readily by patients[.]” Id. 93. That authenticity, CompassCare believes, “will ultimately save more lives and reduce the perceived need for abortion.” Id. CompassCare asserts that its policies saved “the lives of 225 babies…whose mothers were abortion inclined when they arrived for their appointments[.]” Id. at 94. CompassCare not only operates as a “pregnancy care center” that “facilitat[es] medical and other assistance to women facing unplanned pregnancies,” but also “provides training and tools to other” similar facilities. Id. at 95. In this way, CompassCare “seeks to optimize treatment and counseling procedures throughout the industry.” Id. CompassCare also operates websites and a blog that promulgates “a pro-life message and” CompassCare’s “positions regarding various laws and cultural developments dealing with life, pregnancy, abortions, contraception, and other issues.” Id. at 96. The organization also uses radio and television “spots” to promote its message. Id. b. NIFLA Plaintiff National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (“NIFLA”) is a Virginia religious non-profit with a principal place of business in Fredericksburg, Virgnia. Id. at 42. NIFLA is made up of “member pregnancy care centers from across the nation.” Id. at 43. Forty-one such centers operate in New York. Id. They “provide pregnancy related medical and/or non-medical information and services without charge to their clients.” Id. NIFLA also provides legal resources and legal counsel for “medical and non-medical prolife pregnancy centers[.]” Id. at 99. NIFLA’s aim is to “[develop] a network of life-affirming ministries in every community across the nation…to achieve an abortion-free America.” Id. NIFLA holds conferences to “[educate] individuals and organizations as to best practices” about providing “pro-life services and advocacy on behalf of the unborn.” Id. at 100. NIFLA operates by “equipping pregnancy centers with legal counsel and support; enabling pregnancy centers to convert to medical clinic status where possible; and energizing pregnancy centers with a renewed vision for the future.” Id. at 101. Many of NIFLA’s 41 member centers in New York “are religious organizations that pursue their pro-life missions and spread their pro-life message as an exercise of their religious beliefs.” Id. at
102-103. The organization “emphasizes the importance of statements of faith and codes of conduct” among member centers. Id. at 104. NIFLA “strongly encourages that its centers implement such documents in their daily operations.” Id. NIFLA provides a template for an employee handbook and “encourages member centers to adapt” the template to “use as circumstances dictate.” Id. at 105. Many New York NIFLA “member centers require their employees and all who serve them in any capacity” to agree to and “personally live by, among other things, their organizational codes of conduct, positional statements, and/or statements of faith regarding pregnancy, abortion, contraceptive use, and sexual conduct outside the context of a marriage between one man and one woman.” Id. at 106. At these centers, “employees are required to assent to and/or sign these operative documents to signal their agreement with their contents and their intention to live by and model the beliefs contained therein.” Id. Many NIFLA-affiliate centers in New York have an employee handbook. Id. at 107. NIFLA describes the organization’s “religious mission” as “includ[ing] helping its members centers advance their religious missions and beliefs.” Id. at 108. c. First Bible Plaintiff First Bible is a Christian Church organized as a non-profit “exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.” Id. at 44. First Bible’s church is located in Hilton, New York. Id. First Bible also operates a school located in Rochester, New York. Id. The church serves the town of Hilton, New York and the suburbs of Rochester. Id. at 114. The church has been in service for more than fifty years. Id. In addition to its work in the Rochester area, First Bible “seeks to spread God’s message throughout the world” through “a thriving missionary purpose and practice.” Id. at 115. First Bible’s lead pastor is Kevin Pestke. Id. at 116. The Church “believes the Bible is the inerrant Word of God and the final authority for human conduct.” Id. at 117. First Bible therefore contends that “its mission, message, and statement of faith are in direct alignment with the Bible.” Id. First Bible professes that “each human life, from the moment of conception, is formed by God and bears His image.” Id. at 118. First Bible operates according to a Constitution. Id. at 119. The Constitution includes the Church’s “beliefs regarding human sexuality and abortion.” Id. The Church “believes that God has commanded that no intimate sexual activity be engaged in outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” Id. at 120. The Church also professes and teaches that conception begins life and unborn children are living human beings. Id. at 121. An abortion, the First Baptist teaches, “constitutes the unjustified, unexcused taking of unborn human life[.]” Id. Abortion thus violates Biblical prohibitions “ against the intentional destruction of innocent human life.” Id. As such, “participation in, facilitation of, or payment for abortion in any circumstance is a grave sin.” Id. at 122. These beliefs cause First Bible to “[seek] to recognize and preserve the sanctity of human life from conception until natural death.” Id. at 123. The Church uses “a variety of events, ministries, and partnerships” to promote and support this “pro-life mission” at First Bible and in the broader community. Id. at 124. First Bible has a partnership with Mission Share Outreach Center. Id. at 125. Mission Share “provides, among other things, pro-life pregnancy care services, food and clothing support, and training classes in life skills.” Id. at 126. First Bible also has a partnership and provides monthly financial support for Lifesaver Ministries, a pregnancy care center in Gloversville, New York. Id. at 127. The Church also has a foster care ministry called HIS Ministry. Id. at 128. HIS Ministry gives away diapers, toys, and gift cards to new foster parents. Id. HIS Minstry also offers “respite care” for such parents and uses prayer teams to “lift up each of the foster families and their needs on a regular basis.” Id. These efforts go beyond church members to include foster families who are “outside of First Bible.” Id. First Bible has “14 pastors and directors, . . 24 full-time and part-time employees, and…900+ volunteers.” Id. at 129. The Church “expects its pastors, directors, employees and volunteers — …all who minister in any capacity — to abide by and agree with the church’s moral and ethical standards[.]” Id. at 130. These standards include First Bible’s “religious beliefs and teachings on human sexuality and abortion, in both their work life and private life.” Id. The Church declares that it “will not hire or retain any pastor, director, employee, or volunteer who refuses to assent to its statement of faith, or refuses to live out that statement of faith in his or her personal life.” Id. at 131. Hiring and retention decisions are made “in light of its statement of faith.” Id. at 132. “Pastors, directors, employees, and volunteers who violate the principles contained in First Bible’s statement of faith can be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Id. First Bible operates Northstar Christian Academy. Id. at 133. This school offers “traditional curriculum” to around 350 students ranging from preschool to 12th grade. Id. The Academy has 6 administrators, 33 teachers, and “myriad volunteers.” Id. Northstar’s mission is: to glorify God; establish the scriptures as the final, absolute authority; provide a distinctly Christian environment for its student body; teach traditional course offerings from a biblical worldview; encourage excellence in all aspects of life; encourage the student body to be conformed to Christ; and prepare its students to be servant disciples of Christ. Id. at 134. The school “stresses the inculcation of Christian character, virtues, and morality.” Id. at 135. Such values include “the belief that every child is made in the image and likeness of God,” as well as “that abortion is the unjustified taking of an innocent human life[.]” Id. These values also include the idea “ that sexual activity should be reserved for a marriage between one man and one woman.” Id. The Academy “follows First Bible’s statement of faith in all respects.” Id. at 136. First Bible owns and operates Grace and Truth Athletics and Sports Park. Id. at 137. Grace and Truth “offers recreational and sports programs for children and adults[.]” Id. Those programs teach “ good sportsmanship, teamwork, fundamental skill development, and positive Christian values.” Id. First Bible employs a director and ten part-time employees through Grace and Truth. Id. at 138. Grace and Truth “follows First Bible’s statement of faith in all respects.” Id. at 139. At both Grace and Truth and Northstar, First Baptist refuses to “hire or retain any director, teacher, employee, or volunteer who refuses to assent to its statement of faith, or who refuses to live out that statement of faith in his or her personal life.” Id. at 140. The church makes decisions about who to hire and retain in these programs in light of those beliefs, and will not hire or retain “any director, teacher, employee, or volunteer” who does not abide by those beliefs. Id. “Staff, faculty, volunteers, or board members at its school or sports program and facility who violate the principles contained in First Bible’s statement of faith can be subject to disciplinary action, up to and including termination.” Id. B. Plaintiffs’ Allegations Regarding the Statute in Question At issue here is a bill that became law as Section 203-e of the New York Labor Law. Plaintiffs allege that the New York State legislature issued memoranda that declared that the statute “would ‘[ensure] that employees or their dependents are able to make their own reproductive health care decisions without incurring adverse employment consequences.’” Id. at 147 (quoting New York State Assembly Bill A584 Summary; Senate Bill 660 Bill Summary, Sponsor Memo). Both the State Senate and State Assembly claimed that the legislation aimed to close “‘legal loopholes…to ensure that employees’ decisions about pregnancy, contraception, and reproductive health are…protected under state law.’” Id. at 148 (quoting above-cited legislative statements). Plaintiffs contend that neither body provided a “description of the genesis or provenance of such asserted legal loopholes.” Id. at 149. Neither did either body cite any example of employees being deprived of their rights because of these “loopholes” in the law. Id. The summaries also fail, Plaintiffs allege, to point to any actual “‘adverse employment consequences’ precipitated by any employer decisions in light of employee reproductive health decisions.” Id. at 150. The text of the Act also fails to provide any insight into instances of discrimination of legal loopholes that the text sought to solve. Id. at
