Courts Protect Women’s Right To Reverse Chemical Abortions

Despite vicious attacks from leftist politicians and legislative losses in states since the overturning of Roe in June of 2022, a major court victory in New York is being celebrated by pro-life pregnancy centers and their allies all over the country.

The recent federal court ruling in NIFLA v. James protected pregnancy centers in New York against the rabidly pro-abortion attorney general, Letitia James, who sued eleven of these centers, along with Heartbeat International, seeking penalties for “deceptive advertising” of a medical procedure known as Abortion Pill Reversal (APR). The judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking James’ hostile attack from going into effect.

This is a significant win as it continues the trend of precedent-setting cases in the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers.

The abortion pill regimen involves the ingestion by a pregnant mother of two powerful drugs 72 hours apart. In the end, the mother will miscarry, most likely in her bathroom, with serious hemorrhaging and complications. The young mother soon finds out that such a procedure is far different from simply taking a medication to end a menstrual headache, as she was led to believe. Rather, the mother is left to hold her young child in her hand and in hysterics many times tosses her child into the toilet for disposal.

What happens if this mother changes her mind after taking the first pill? APR is an established procedure that administers the drug progesterone to support the pregnancy. Progesterone has long been used by obstetricians to combat miscarriages of their patients. If APR is administered within 72 hours after the first pill is taken, the abortion can be stopped and the baby’s life can be saved. In fact, over 65 percent of such procedures are successful if progesterone is administered in time.

Pro-life pregnancy centers across the nation are providing this service to mothers who regret their decision and want to stop the chemical abortion. In New York, Letitia James declared war on such centers, claiming that they are falsely advertising the procedure.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA), a national network of nearly 1,800 pro-life centers and medical clinics, filed suit in federal court against James seeking an injunction to prohibit her harassing and bullying tactics against pro-life centers. A big victory came for the centers as federal judge John Sinatra swiftly ruled in their favor.

Sinatra wrote:

“The First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak freely about {abortion pill reversal} protocol and, more specifically, to say that it is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use in consultation with her doctor. Indeed, the ‘very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.’ …And this is particularly true in the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives.”

This information does save lives. Pregnancy centers truthfully inform women that it may be possible to halt the lethal effects of chemical abortion through the administration of progesterone, a safe and naturally occurring hormone that can counteract the fatal effects of abortion drugs 64-68 percent of the time. It is estimated that more than 5,000 unborn babies have been saved this way. In the hearing leading up to the ruling, the judge noted that James “admits that no one has been harmed by Plaintiffs’ speech.” So James is just doing the bidding of the abortion industry.

This is the second time in less than a year that pro-abortion states have wielded their power against people whose only motivation is to help mothers in difficult circumstances. In Illinois, the state senate passed a horrific bill that directly targeted pregnancy centers for “deceptive business practices.”

In NIFLA v. Raoul, the judge ruled in favor of NIFLA and pregnancy centers, halting the law from going into effect. His reasoning needs to be on a plaque in every single AG’s office to remind them to stop using lawfare to target those with whom they disagree.

“SB 1909 is both stupid and very likely unconstitutional. It is stupid because its own supporter admitted it was unneeded and was unsupported by evidence when challenged. It is likely unconstitutional because it is a blatant example of government taking the side of whose speech is sanctionable and whose speech is immunized—on the very same subject no less.”

While the battle is far from over, the pro-life movement is making huge strides in the judicial arena against abortion and in favor of the First Amendment. Our cases are layering precedent-upon-precedent that supports the right of free speech for pro-life pregnancy centers. Judge Sinatra cited NIFLA v. Becerra (originally NIFLA v. Harris — the same Harris running for president) in his court order because it is the most significant case to set a precedent for the free speech rights of pro-life pregnancy centers.

All of these recent wins are built upon the foundations of NIFLA v. (Harris) Becerra. Still, some attorneys general can’t seem to get it right. Pregnancy centers are facing similar battles in New Jersey, Vermont, California, Connecticut, and Delaware. (NIFLA is involved in all of these cases.) These AGs need to read the writing on the wall and stop wasting taxpayer time and money targeting places that legitimately help women with true empowerment.

Ultimately, pro-life pregnancy centers are going to win against all such attacks, and mothers considering abortion are going to have a valuable resource preserved to empower them to choose life.

There is no longer a constitutional right to abortion, but there is still a constitutional right to choose life. NIFLA v. James in New York, NIFLA v. Raoul in Illinois, and NIFLA v. (Harris) Becerra all prove this.

Thomas A. Glessner is the founder and President of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).