This story was originally published by the WND News Center.

Yelp, the online social media operation that lists and reviews various business operations, is insisting it deserves an exemption from a federal court standard that precludes review there when the same people and their issues are being addressed in state court.

The fight is over Yelp's decision to attach negative information to listings for crisis pregnancy centers, those locations that offer counseling but not abortions.

Yelp created those warnings specifically for those centers after 2022 when Texas adopted abortion limits following the demise, in the U.S. Supreme Court, of the faulty Roe v. Wade opinion that created out of thin air a federal "right" to abortion.

Courthouse News explains that Yelp's fight now is pending before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, where judges heard arguments this week.

The company sued Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, claiming a First Amendment dispute, when he threatened, and later did, take Yelp to state court over its warnings.

Yelp has claimed that it watches for when "consumers may be deceived" and then attaches warnings, claiming that the pregnancy counseling centers "were leading users seeking abortion care away from medical providers to anti-abortion counseling services."

A federal judge previously dismissed Yelp's complaint, citing a 1971 precedent that found federal courts can't hear civil rights tort claims when the same players and issues are in state court.

Paxton had sued Yelp about the same time Yelp sued him, and while that case was dismissed it is pending at an appeals court.

Yelp lawyer James Sigel told the judges that Yelp deserves an exemption to that precedent, claiming Paxton's case was "meritless."

He said Yelp would look for "bad faith" on the part of Paxton if the case is allowed to continue.

The report, however, said the judges appeared to doubt Yelp's claims.

"You want the federal court to enjoin the attorney general from prosecuting that case or pursuing that case," said U.S. Circuit Judge Daniel Bress, a Donald Trump appointee. "That's a difficult one. It seems to me if you win on this, we're gonna have cases filed every week in federal court saying, 'I don't like what that the attorney general is doing in that state.'"

Two other judges expressed similar doubts.

A lawyer for the state of Texas said the fight should be handled in Texas courts.

The state had charged that the Yelp "warning labels" were misleading and overbroad in that they didn't apply the same to all centers.

Paxton had said Yelp cannot lie about the centers.