Less than a year after a federal court ruled against her, New York Attorney General Letitia James is still fighting to silence pregnancy resource centers (PRCs) and prevent women from having access to ‘abortion pill reversal’ (APR).
Key Takeaways:
- In April of 2024, AG Letitia James sued PRCs in New York in an effort to force them to stop promoting a treatment known as “abortion pill reversal,” which she presented as “misleading.”
- A coalition of PRCs responded with a countersuit, saying James’ persecution violated the groups’ constitutional rights.
- The United States District Court for the Western District of New York ruled in favor of the PRCs, saying they have the right to inform patients of the availability of APR.
- James is now requesting the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit intervene and allow her to continue targeting the PRCs.
The Details:
According to Courthouse News Service, James is arguing that the PRCs’ speech about ‘abortion pill reversal’ (progesterone treatment meant to outcompete the action of the abortion pill, mifepristone) is commercial in nature, and therefore, is not subject to First Amendment protections.
“The speech, on the whole, is communicating that they’re proposing a commercial transaction,” Jonathan Hitsous of the attorney general’s office told the three-judge panel.
However, the judges seemed disinclined to side with that argument, pointing out that siding with James could negatively impact other non-profit organizations. “You could have immigration services, nonprofit entities that refer people out for services,” Judge Joseph Bianco said. “You could have environmental groups that do those things. It would apply to every category.”
Two of the PRCs are being represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which issued a press release after the court heard arguments on the case this week.
“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. They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice,” ADF Senior Counsel Caroline Lindsay said. “Right now, women in New York have access to information about safe and effective supplemental progesterone through their local pregnancy centers, but the attorney general is trying to limit women’s choices by taking that access away. The First Amendment prohibits such censorship and makes clear that Letitia James can’t deny women the opportunity to hear about this potentially life-saving option.”
Oral arguments took place on Tuesday, June 24, and the panel did not immediately issue a ruling.
Zoom In:
The abortion industry and its defenders have frequently tried to argue that ‘abortion pill reversal’ poses a risk to women, though the only study claiming it is dangerous was deeply flawed.
But what is abortion pill reversal, and how does it work? As OB/GYN Christina Francis explained,
If a woman has taken the first medication [mifepristone], and then changes her mind before taking the second medication [misoprostol], then we can give her large doses of progesterone to try and displace the first medication from the receptors and to try and block the effects of any further action from that medication. And in doing so, then, we can lead to having a normal, successful pregnancy. And that happens about 70% of the time.
Progesterone, the only drug used in APR, has been safely used for decades to treat women at high risk of miscarriage. As one 2024 meta-analysis showed, “In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events.”
The lone study claiming abortion pill reversal is dangerous was authored by Mitchell Creinin at the University of California-Davis. Creinin is an abortion industry insider who has been a paid consultant for Danco Laboratories, which manufactures the abortion pill.
In Creinin’s study, three women were taken to the hospital due to severe bleeding. Yet two of those three women did not receive progesterone, and only took mifepristone — which is known to have a risk of causing hemorrhage — and both of those women had to have emergency surgery.
Despite the very small sample size, twice as many of Creinin’s patients who received progesterone instead of a placebo saw their pregnancies continue, and twice as many patients who received the placebo were transported to the hospital via ambulance.
The Bottom Line:
Despite the fact that Creinin’s study results showed that mifepristone, not progesterone, was the likely culprit for women’s hemorrhaging, the media (including Courthouse News Service) continues to misleadingly portray the results as if progesterone was to blame.
Additionally, even the judge from the previous case viewed James’ actions with skepticism, stating, “If the First Amendment means anything, it means that regulating speech must be a last — not first — resort. Yet here it seems to have been the first strategy the government thought to try.”
More and more, James appears to be looking to promote a pro-abortion agenda, removing any true ‘choice’ from women.
