(Pregnancy Help News) A federal court recently delivered what abortion advocates have hailed as an important First Amendment victory.

Mayday Health, a nonprofit that publishes information about abortion pill availability and directs women to third-party providers, challenged a South Dakota law making it a felony to advertise medication intended for an unlawful abortion. Mayday does not prescribe, sell, or ship abortion pills.

On July 17, a federal judge granted Mayday and its co-plaintiff, trial attorney and former Democrat state legislator Nancy Turbak Berry, a preliminary injunction, temporarily preventing South Dakota from enforcing the law against them while the case proceeds.

Mayday Health Executive Director Leo Raisner celebrated the decision.

“We share information and list legitimate providers,” Raisner said. “That’s not illegal. That’s protected by the First Amendment.”

Mayday shared on its Instagram account, calling it a “Big time First Amendment win in South Dakota.” 

The applause was immediate.

Cody McDevitt of Repro Rights NOW described the ruling as “an early First Amendment victory” with potential implications for “medication-abortion information, online speech, and interstate access.” 

Abortion, Every Day founder Jessica Valenti was more colorful, writing that South Dakota had been “absolutely ratioed by the Constitution.” 

In earlier coverage of Mayday’s lawsuit, Valenti emphasized that the organization does not “sell, handle, provide, offer for sale, or distribute any medications.” Instead, she wrote, “They only provide information,” leaving out the fact that the information Mayday provides specifically helps people circumvent the state’s abortion law.

The ACLU of South Dakota had already condemned the state’s attempt to restrict Mayday’s advertisements.

Samantha Chapman, ACLU of South Dakota advocacy manager, called the investigation “little more than political theater at the taxpayer’s expense” and warned that attempts to restrict abortion information would further isolate pregnant South Dakotans seeking to educate themselves about medical care.

Jezebel characterized South Dakota’s effort to uphold its abortion law as a “free-speech stomping crusade” and quoted the ACLU describing it as “a politically motivated attack on free speech.” 

The argument running through these responses is clear: The government should not be permitted to silence an organization merely because state officials disapprove of the information it shares. Mayday does not prescribe or distribute abortion pills. It provides information and connects people with third-party providers. Its supporters insist that this distinction places Mayday’s work squarely within the protection of the First Amendment.

“Information should not be banned,” Mayday’s attorney, Jim Leach, said after the ruling. “This ruling says the state cannot ban information about abortion, no matter what you think about abortion or anything else.” 

Double Standard

Interestingly enough, however, many of the same voices applauding the ruling and advocating for Mayday Health’s First Amendment rights are among those insisting that ours should be taken away.

Heartbeat International does not sell, ship, or manufacture progesterone. Through the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, we share information and connect women who regret beginning a chemical abortion with licensed medical professionals willing to evaluate them and, when appropriate, prescribe progesterone.

A woman reaches out. We listen. We provide information. We connect her with a medical professional. She makes her own decision.

Apparently, “we share information and list legitimate providers” is a winning First Amendment argument when the objective is to help a woman complete an abortion. When the objective is to help a woman stop an unwanted abortion, the same activity suddenly becomes “dangerous disinformation.” At least for some state attorneys general.

Mayday itself has accused pregnancy centers of spreading harmful disinformation. Raisner previously wrote that pregnancy center employees use “false and dangerous information” to dissuade women from abortion.

In an interview with an undercover investigation conducted by Mayday, Abortion Pill Reversal was described as “a dangerous, non-proven method” and a “bogus, medically dangerous claim.” 

Repro Rights NOW celebrated Mayday’s injunction as a First Amendment victory but called Abortion Pill Reversal “an unproven protocol promoted by anti-abortion groups.” In separate coverage, it declared, “There is no credible evidence that abortion pill reversal exists.” 

The ACLU of South Dakota defended Mayday from what it considered a politically motivated attack on speech. The national ACLU, meanwhile, has called the science supporting Abortion Pill Reversal “junk science” and described Dr. George Delgado’s work as an “unproven” theory that is “not based on science.” 

In earlier litigation, ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project Director Jennifer Dalven praised a court for preventing women from being “forced to receive false information from their doctors.” 

Jezebel condemned South Dakota’s actions against Mayday as an assault on free speech. Yet when New York Attorney General Letitia James sued Heartbeat International and pregnancy centers over Abortion Pill Reversal, the publication applauded James’ actions and accused us of “deceiving abortion seekers” and promoting “unsafe, untested ‘abortion pill reversal’ junk science.” 

Valenti praised Mayday because it “only provide[s] information.” Four days after Mayday secured its preliminary injunction, her publication, "Abortion, Every Day," described pregnancy centers as “fake clinics that exist to surveil, lie, and dissuade prospective abortion seekers.” It called Abortion Pill Reversal “an unsafe and unproven process” and accused pro-life organizations of spreading “dangerous disinformation.”

The double standard could not be more blatant.

When Mayday directs women to abortion pill providers, it is education. When Heartbeat directs women to licensed healthcare providers, it is deception.

When Mayday advertises an option that may end a pregnancy, information “should not be banned.” When Heartbeat tells a woman she may still have an opportunity to continue her desired pregnancy, government restriction is treated as consumer protection.

When Mayday challenges government interference, it is courageously “fighting back.” When Heartbeat defends itself against government interference, our appeal to the First Amendment is dismissed as an attempt to avoid accountability.

'Choice' vs. Control

Free speech cannot turn on the speaker’s viewpoint.

Nor should “choice” evaporate the moment a woman changes her mind. A woman who wants an abortion is told that she deserves information, autonomy, and immediate access to help. A woman who regrets taking mifepristone and wants to try to save her pregnancy is told that the information she seeks should be censored for her own good.

That is not choice. It is ideological control dressed up as concern.

The contradiction is particularly striking because Mayday relied in its own South Dakota court briefing on a Second Circuit decision protecting speech about Abortion Pill Reversal. Even as it leverages a case protecting the right to speak about abortion pill reversal, would Mayday agree that APR-related speech is indeed worthy of protection?

Heartbeat International is still waiting for our California trial to conclude. The state is seeking extraordinary penalties against us for communicating with women about Abortion Pill Reversal. After weeks in court, we now await the remaining briefs, closing arguments, and ultimately the judge’s decision.

We are not asking for a special exemption. We are asking for the same principle Mayday’s supporters so enthusiastically claim for themselves.

If Mayday has a First Amendment right to tell women where they can obtain illegal abortion pills, then surely Heartbeat has a First Amendment right to tell women where they can seek perfectly legal medical help after taking one.