Court rules against NY’s push to censor pro-life pregnancy orgs

An appeals court panel has ruled that efforts to stop pro-life pregnancy centers in New York from informing patients about abortion pill reversal are unconstitutional, as such organizations find themselves increasingly subject to investigations from Democratic politicians. 

In an opinion published Monday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court ruling siding with two pro-life pregnancy centers, Gianna’s House and Options Care Center.

The pro-life pregnancy centers filed a preemptive lawsuit against Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James after she sued 11 similarly situated pro-life organizations for fraud for promoting abortion pill reversal. 

James alleged that the pro-life organizations at the center of her office’s enforcement action engaged in “false and misleading” speech by promoting abortion pill reversal as effective. 

Monday’s ruling upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York last year finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their case to prove that any enforcement action against the pro-life pregnancy centers would violate their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“A preliminary injunction is in the public interest,” Monday’s opinion stated. “The preliminary injunction serves to secure the First Amendment rights of the … plaintiffs by allowing them to make religiously and morally motivated statements that provide information about APR to women who may wish to attempt to counteract the effects of an abortion initiated by oral medication.”

The conservative nonprofit legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the plaintiffs in their litigation, reacted to the ruling in a statement released 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. They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice,” said ADF Senior Counsel Caroline Lindsay.

“The court is correct to affirm that women in New York have the right to access information about safe and effective supplemental progesterone through their local pregnancy centers, regardless of what the attorney general may personally believe.” 

While James and other Democratic politicians have cast doubt on the effectiveness of abortion pill reversal, a 2023 study from the pro-life research organization Charlotte Lozier Institute found that 29 of 36 women who underwent abortion pill reversal were able to maintain their pregnancies. 

The targeting of pro-life pregnancy centers at issue in the litigation comes as such organizations find themselves in the crosshairs of Democratic politicians nationwide following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization determining that the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to abortion. 

In 2022, Washington’s then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an investigation into two pro-life pregnancy centers based on concerns that they violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by promoting abortion pill reversal. The investigation concluded last year with no charges filed against the centers. 

In 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health threatened disciplinary action against pro-life pregnancy centers that promote abortion pill reversal. 

“Physicians and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRN) who practice in violation of good and accepted health care practice may be disciplined for conduct which places into question their competence to practice,” wrote Massachusetts Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Robert Goldstein in a memo. 

“For example, there is strong evidence that medication abortion reversal is unproven, unethical, and unsafe to provide to patients; such that a physician or APRN who offers or provides this treatment could be found to be practicing inconsistently with accepted practice and subject to discipline.” 

Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on whether the office of New Jersey’s Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin violated the First Amendment by ordering a pro-life pregnancy center to disclose information about its donors.

An appeals court panel has ruled that efforts to stop pro-life pregnancy centers in New York from informing patients about abortion pill reversal are unconstitutional, as such organizations find themselves increasingly subject to investigations from Democratic politicians. 

In an opinion published Monday, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court ruling siding with two pro-life pregnancy centers, Gianna’s House and Options Care Center.

The pro-life pregnancy centers filed a preemptive lawsuit against Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James after she sued 11 similarly situated pro-life organizations for fraud for promoting abortion pill reversal. 

James alleged that the pro-life organizations at the center of her office’s enforcement action engaged in “false and misleading” speech by promoting abortion pill reversal as effective. 

Monday’s ruling upheld a preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York last year finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their case to prove that any enforcement action against the pro-life pregnancy centers would violate their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

“A preliminary injunction is in the public interest,” Monday’s opinion stated. “The preliminary injunction serves to secure the First Amendment rights of the … plaintiffs by allowing them to make religiously and morally motivated statements that provide information about APR to women who may wish to attempt to counteract the effects of an abortion initiated by oral medication.”

The conservative nonprofit legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented the plaintiffs in their litigation, reacted to the ruling in a statement released 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. They should be allowed to hear about this option and make that choice,” said ADF Senior Counsel Caroline Lindsay.

“The court is correct to affirm that women in New York have the right to access information about safe and effective supplemental progesterone through their local pregnancy centers, regardless of what the attorney general may personally believe.” 

While James and other Democratic politicians have cast doubt on the effectiveness of abortion pill reversal, a 2023 study from the pro-life research organization Charlotte Lozier Institute found that 29 of 36 women who underwent abortion pill reversal were able to maintain their pregnancies. 

The targeting of pro-life pregnancy centers at issue in the litigation comes as such organizations find themselves in the crosshairs of Democratic politicians nationwide following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization determining that the U.S. Constitution does not contain a right to abortion. 

In 2022, Washington’s then-Attorney General Bob Ferguson launched an investigation into two pro-life pregnancy centers based on concerns that they violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act by promoting abortion pill reversal. The investigation concluded last year with no charges filed against the centers. 

In 2024, the Massachusetts Department of Public Health threatened disciplinary action against pro-life pregnancy centers that promote abortion pill reversal. 

“Physicians and Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRN) who practice in violation of good and accepted health care practice may be disciplined for conduct which places into question their competence to practice,” wrote Massachusetts Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Robert Goldstein in a memo. 

“For example, there is strong evidence that medication abortion reversal is unproven, unethical, and unsafe to provide to patients; such that a physician or APRN who offers or provides this treatment could be found to be practicing inconsistently with accepted practice and subject to discipline.” 

Just this week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case centered on whether the office of New Jersey’s Democratic Attorney General Matthew Platkin violated the First Amendment by ordering a pro-life pregnancy center to disclose information about its donors.