Free Speech Victory for New York Pro-Life Pregnancy Centers

A federal district court ruled Thursday that pro-life pregnancy centers in New York may inform women “that the abortion pill reversal (‘APR’) protocol is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use, with her doctor, to reverse the effects of a first chemical abortion pill and thereby, help to save the life of her unborn child.”

District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr., a Trump appointee, granted a preliminary injunction because the pregnancy centers are “likely to succeed on the merits of their First Amendment Free Speech claim, and they are suffering irreparable harm each day that their Constitutional freedoms are infringed.”

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat, had initiated a civil enforcement action against 11 faith-based, pro-life pregnancy centers that were part of Heartbeat International to censor their speech, alleging that informing women about the APR protocol was “misleading advertising.”

In response to James, Alliance Defending Freedom challenged the constitutionality of her enforcement action in federal court, on behalf of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, a pregnancy center network with 51 locations in the state, and two of its members, Gianna’s House and Options Care Center.

“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,” said Caleb Dalton, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel. “But the attorney general tried to deny women the opportunity to even hear about this lifesaving option.”

Elected abortion activists have sought to restrict pro-life pregnancy centers from offering the APR protocol, which literally reverses the work of a chemical abortion. In April 2023, the Colorado Legislature banned APR on similar grounds that it was ineffective. At first, the state agreed not to enforce that law, but a federal judge eventually enjoined the law in October on religious exercise grounds.

However, studies show that the APR protocol has saved the lives of over 5,000 unborn babies and has a success rate of up to 64%-68%.

“Many women regret their abortions, and some seek to stop the effects of abortion drugs before taking the second drug in the abortion drug process. Taking supplemental progesterone may give them a chance to save their baby’s life,” Dalton added. “Women should have the option to reconsider an abortion, and the pro-life pregnancy centers we represent in this case truthfully inform them about that choice.”

This is not the first time National Institute of Family and Life Advocates has gone to court over attempts by pro-abortion politicians to police its speech. Eight years ago, the pro-life network of pregnancy centers challenged a California law that would have required it to refer women for abortion, something that went against its deeply held religious beliefs. NIFLA’s opponents in the case were California Attorney General Kamala Harris and later California Attorney General Xavier Becerra, both Democrats.

In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in NIFLA v. Becerra that the California law did unconstitutionally compel the speech of the pro-life pregnancy centers.

Sinatra quoted NIFLA v. Becerra in his opinion. “Government, even with the purest of motives, may not substitute its judgment as to how best to speak for that of speakers and listeners; free and robust debate cannot thrive if directed by the government,” the judge wrote, citing another case. “And this is particularly true ‘in the fields of medicine and public health, where information can save lives.’ Nat’l Inst. Of Fam. & Life Advocs. V. Becerra.”

“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,’” wrote Sinatra. “The First Amendment protects Plaintiffs’ right to speak freely about APR protocol and, more specifically, to say that it is safe and effective for a pregnant woman to use in consultation with her doctor.”

https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/08/26/free-speech-victory-for-new-york-pro-life-pregnancy-centers/

***************************************

All my main blogs below:

http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)

http://dissectleft.blogspot.com (DISSECTING LEFTISM)

http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)

http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)

http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/ozarc.html (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)

https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)

http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)

http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)

***********************************************

Source: http://snorphty.blogspot.com/2024/08/free-speech-victory-for-new-york-pro.html