Pro-life advocates just scored a major victory in New York as a federal judge ruled in the favor of several crisis pregnancy centers, which will enable them to continue pushing for an abortion pill reversal protocol. You can almost hear the state’s Attorney General, Letitia James, backed by George Soros, crying out in agony at the thought of unborn children having their right to life protected by the U.S. legal system.
For whatever reason, leftists are absolutely obsessed with being able to legally shed the innocent blood of pre-born kids. Abortion advocates will foam at the mouth with pure rage and spit plenty of vitriol against anyone who campaigns against their “right” to sacrifice children to the modern-day version of Molech, which we call convenience and sexual deviance.
U.S. District Judge John Sinatra issued a preliminary injunction last week, effectively blocking New York Attorney General Letitia James’ efforts to silence pro-life organizations that provide information about the abortion pill reversal process. The ruling came after James initiated lawsuits against 11 pregnancy centers across New York, accusing them of false advertising and endangering women’s health by promoting the reversal protocol. The abortion pill reversal process, which is backed by several pro-life organizations, involves administering bioidentical progesterone to counteract the effects of mifepristone, a synthetic steroid commonly used in chemical abortions. Proponents of the method argue that it offers women a second chance if they regret starting the abortion process and wish to continue their pregnancies.
The concept of “abortion pill reversal” (APR) emerged as a response to the use of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which is typically used in combination with another pill, misoprostol, to medically terminate a pregnancy. The process of APR was introduced to provide women who take mifepristone and then change their minds about terminating their pregnancies an option to potentially reverse the effects and continue their pregnancies.
Judge Sinatra stated in his opinion on the case, “The First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak freely about [abortion pill reversal] protocol and, more specifically, to say that it is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use in consultation with her doctor. Indeed, the ‘very purpose of the First Amendment is to foreclose public authority from assuming a guardianship of the public mind through regulating the press, speech, and religion.’”
The plaintiffs for the case include groups such as the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna’s House, and the Options Care Center. The organizations were legally represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which made the argument that the actions taken by James stomped all over the groups’ rights as protected under the Constitution. One of the attorneys for ADF, Caleb Dalton, heaped praise upon the court’s decision, going on to say, “Women in New York have literally saved their babies from an in-progress chemical drug abortion because they had access to information through their local pregnancy centers about using safe and effective progesterone for abortion pill reversal.”
For the past 25 years, it’s been my privilege to be a volunteer and board member at Aid for Women, a nonprofit that runs maternity homes and pregnancy services throughout Illinois.
Last night, after the closing of the DNC, vandals attacked one of AFW’s Chicago locations. pic.twitter.com/yieCfi3XqE
— Mary H. FioRito (@maryfiorito) August 23, 2024
Crisis pregnancy centers have become a major target for both scrutiny and even physical attack from rabid pro-abortion advocates. Many of these incidents occurred in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Centers like these are typically affiliated with Christian churches and organizations and seek to provide women who are pregnant with counseling and offer other options for dealing with their situation that do not involve the heinous murder of unborn children.
The article concluded, “James’ lawsuits against the pregnancy centers were part of an effort by her office to crack down on what she called deceptive practices. Her legal team contended that the abortion pill reversal protocol lacks sufficient scientific backing and could expose women to unnecessary risks. However, Judge Sinatra’s ruling effectively halted this campaign, at least for the time being.”
"*" indicates required fields
