New York Attorney General Letitia James has been hit with a lawsuit from anti-abortion organizations, challenging her recent actions as constitutional overreaches. The legal challenge spearheaded by the Thomas More Society accuses James of stifling the promotion of controversial "abortion pill reversal" methods.
Newsweek reported that James is now entangled in a lawsuit filed by a coalition of anti-abortion groups. These groups, led by the conservative Chicago-based Thomas More Society, allege that James targeted them unjustly by threatening legal action.
The core of the dispute involves the promotion of "abortion pill reversal" (APR), a procedure touted by some as a way to halt a medication-induced abortion. The method employs progesterone to counteract the effects of mifepristone, a drug commonly used in abortion practices.
According to claims by the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, APR has a success rate between 64% and 68% in sustaining pregnancies that women choose to continue after initially taking mifepristone.
Despite the support from certain circles, major medical authorities, including the FDA and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have not sanctioned APR as a reliable or scientifically valid method. The ACOG specifically points out the lack of substantial evidence backing APR's effectiveness and safety.
"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists ranks its recommendations on the strength of the evidence, and does not support prescribing progesterone to stop a medication abortion," states the ACOG, underscoring its stance on APR.
This opposition from prominent medical bodies frames the backdrop against which the lawsuit unfolds, highlighting the controversial nature of APR and the varying opinions on its promotion and use.
The lawsuit accuses AG James of infringing on the constitutional rights of these organizations by attempting to curtail their advocacy of APR. The notices sent by James aimed to prelude possible legal actions against the groups promoting this method.
Peter Breen, Executive Vice President of the Thomas More Society, characterizes James' actions as a "political witch-hunt against small nonprofits." He argues that these are groups "that have selflessly served New York's pregnant women and their children for over 50 years."
Further criticism comes from Jor-El Godsey, President of Heartbeat International, who accuses the state of New York of bias. "New York State laws protect abortionists and abortion on demand up until birth. Now they are targeting those who assist a woman in exercising her right to continue her own pregnancy," Godsey asserts.
The controversy in New York mirrors similar legal challenges elsewhere in the United States. For instance, California Attorney General Rob Bonta initiated lawsuits against Heartbeat International and five other crisis pregnancy centers in September 2023, also focusing on the promotion of APR.
These parallel legal actions underscore a broader national debate over the methods and legality of abortion-related services, particularly those that are not mainstream or medically endorsed.
"It is unconscionable to see the abortion industry and its paid-for politicians go so far as to insist she complete an abortion she no longer wants," comments Godsey, highlighting the emotional and controversial nature of these legal battles.
The Thomas More Society argues that the First Amendment shields their right to discuss and promote APR, irrespective of mainstream medical opinion or state laws. They assert that James' notices represent a direct threat to this right.
"Letitia James should be heralding these charities, not launching outrageously false claims against them under laws that don't apply to their noncommercial speech," Peter Breen contends, adding that these actions are attempts to "harass small pro-life charities into silence."
This legal confrontation thus centers not only on the specifics of abortion law but also on broader issues of free speech and state authority over nonprofit activities.
The lawsuit against New York Attorney General Letitia James by the Thomas More Society and allied groups brings to the forefront significant questions about free speech, medical ethics, and the legal boundaries of advocacy. As the case progresses, it will likely become a focal point for national discussions on the regulation of controversial medical procedures and the rights of nonprofit organizations. The outcomes could have profound implications for how states regulate and interact with organizations promoting unapproved medical protocols.
