New York temporarily barred from taking action against groups for promoting abortion pill ‘reversal’
A federal judge has temporarily barred the New York Attorney General from taking enforcement action against certain pregnancy counseling centers that critics say promote an unproven method of reversing the effects of medications. abortions.
U.S. District Judge John Sinatra Jr. in Buffalo on Thursday issued a preliminary injunction against Attorney General Letitia James and her office. The order says James’ office cannot pursue legal action against two centers and a related association while their lawsuit against James is pending in federal court.
The lawsuit accuses James of unfairly targeting anti-abortion groups for their positions, including their promotion of a protocol called the “Abortion Pill Reversal.” It references a lawsuit filed by James’ office in state court in May against another anti-abortion group and nearly a dozen other pregnancy education centers for promoting the rollback of abortion medications.
James’ case against the other groups follows a similar lawsuit in California and other legal actions in states such as Colorado regarding unsubstantiated treatments to reverse medical abortions.
Medication abortionThe most common way to end a pregnancy is to take two different medications – mifepristone and misoprostol – several days apart.
According to James’ office, anti-abortion groups are advising people who have taken mifepristone not to undergo follow-up treatment with misoprostol and instead receive repeated doses of the hormone progesterone.
According to James’ office, the treatment has not been approved by federal regulators. In addition, major medical associations have warned that the protocol is unproven and unscientific.
Sinatra, nominated to the court in 2019 by then-President Donald Trump, a Republican, wrote in his decision that the First Amendment protects free speech, even when that speech contains false statements. He also said the two pregnancy education centers and their affiliated association are likely to prevail in their lawsuit against James.
The centers have the right to “speak freely” about the reversal protocol and say it is safe and effective to use in consultation with a doctor, the judge said.
“Plaintiffs are irreparably harmed every day as their First Amendment freedoms are violated,” Sinatra wrote.
He added that the interim order “serves the public interest by allowing women to access and receive information that could lead to saving the lives of their unborn children.”
James’ office opposed the preliminary injunction, calling it in court papers “a collateral attack” on the office’s ongoing lawsuit against the other pregnancy counseling centers. Her office also said it has the authority to “enforce state protections against consumer fraud and false advertising.”
James’ office declined to comment on the order Friday.
The plaintiffs seeking the injunction include the National Institute for Family and Life Advocates and two of its affiliated centers: Gianna’s House in Brewster, north of New York City, and Options Care Center in Jamestown in western New York. The Virginia-based anti-abortion group has affiliated pregnancy counseling centers across the country, including 51 in New York.
The preliminary injunction applies only to those plaintiffs, and not to the centers named in James’ lawsuit in state court.
Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative group representing the plaintiffs in court, praised the judge’s ruling.
“Women in New York literally saved their babies from chemical abortion because they had access to information about the use of safe and effective progesterone to reverse abortion pills through their local pregnancy centers,” Caleb Dalton, the group’s senior counsel, said in a statement. “But the attorney general tried to deprive women of the opportunity to even hear about this life-saving option.”
In court documents, James’ office argues that there is no valid evidence that reversing the abortion pill is safe or effective in increasing the chances of pregnancy. It also argues that the use of progesterone in this process has never been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.