Judge expands order barring New York AG from censoring pro-life groups
A judge has expanded an earlier order to stop New York from censoring pro-life groups that recommend the abortion pill reversal treatment to pregnant women.
U.S. District Judge John Sinatra of the Western District of New York, a Trump appointee, issued an order last Friday in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates et al. v. Letitia James. The order expands an earlier preliminary injunction preventing the state from censoring talk about abortion pill reversal to include “unnamed New York members” of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA).
Gabriella McIntyre, legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which is helping represent the plaintiffs, celebrated the expanded injunction in a statement on Monday.
“Many women regret their abortions, and some change their minds after taking the first abortion drug and want to try to save their unborn babies’ lives. The district court was right to allow women to hear about this option and make that choice,” McIntyre said.
“The New York attorney general has desperately tried to censor and keep women in the dark about abortion-pill reversal, but they have every right to be empowered with information about this potentially life-saving option.”
Abortion pill reversal is a treatment in which a pregnant woman who took the abortion pill, mifepristone, changes her mind and takes the natural hormone progesterone to counteract the chemical abortion drug.
“Progesterone is a natural hormone needed to sustain pregnancy and has been used for decades to safely and effectively prevent miscarriage and forestall preterm labor,” said the pro-life group Heartbeat International, which claims that thousands of lives have been saved through the treatment.
“Abortion pill reversal displaces mifepristone (the first drug in a chemical abortion) from progesterone receptors using the natural progesterone hormone, counteracting the effects of mifepristone and allowing the baby to continue growing. For women who have begun abortion pill reversal, progesterone treatment is continued through the end of the first trimester at a minimum.”
Critics of the abortion pill reversal treatment include the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), which has argued that scientific evidence for the treatment’s effectiveness is lacking.
“Facts are important, especially when it comes to policies and discussions that impact patients. Claims regarding abortion 'reversal' treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards,” ACOG said.
In May 2024, New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Heartbeat International and 11 pro-life pregnancy care centers over their promotion of the treatment, claiming they were engaging in “false and misleading claims.”
“Abortions cannot be reversed. Any treatments that claim to do so are made without scientific evidence and could be unsafe,” James said at the time. “Heartbeat International and the other crisis pregnancy center defendants are spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising 'abortion reversals' without any medical and scientific proof.”
In August 2024, the Thomas More Society sued James on behalf of Summit Life Outreach Center and The Evergreen Association, accusing her of threatening multiple pro-life groups.
Sinatra issued a preliminary injunction against James on behalf of several pro-life groups in an order released in September 2024, building on an earlier temporary order.
Earlier this year, Colorado agreed to pay $6 million in legal fees to settle a legal challenge to a 2023 state law barring pro-life groups from providing the abortion pill reversal treatment. The settlement came after U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico issued a permanent injunction against enforcing the state law.
“[W]hile the clinical efficacy of abortion pill reversal remains debatable, nobody has been injured by the treatment and a number of women have successfully given birth after receiving it,” wrote Domenico, a Trump appointee.
“The Defendants have thus failed to show that they have a compelling interest in regulating this practice, and Plaintiffs’ motion must therefore be granted to the extent it seeks a permanent injunction allowing them to continue offering the treatment.”
