Federal Judge issues injunction permitting abortion pill reversal ads
New York AG had sought to use consumer protection laws to go after clinics that had advertised for questionable medical methods
A federal judge in the western district of New York granted an injunction against the state’s attorney general, who had sought to sue several antiabortion organizations over misleading advertisements about abortion pill reversal methods.
Judge John L. Sinatra, who Donald Trump appointed, ruled against New York AG Letitia James, who wanted to use consumer fraud laws against three groups: the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, Gianna’s House, Inc., and Choose Life of Jamestown Inc.
On May 6, James began a civil enforcement action against Heartbeat International and 11 antiabortion centers. She argued that the centers had made false statements and misled people by omitting essential data.
In a news release, James indicated that Heartbeat and the crisis pregnancy centers—whose mission is to prevent people from obtaining abortions—advertise “Abortion Pill Reversal” (APR) as a safe and effective treatment that they claim can “reverse” medication abortions.
In reality, abortion cannot be “reversed,” and there is a glaring lack of scientific evidence to support APR’s safety and effectiveness. The only clinical trial conducted to evaluate APR had to be halted due to concerns about patient safety. Major medical associations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), have cautioned that APR is not backed by science and does not meet clinical standards.
According to their websites, some of these crisis pregnancy centers appear to offer or facilitate APR treatment on-site at their offices. Others direct people to obtain APR treatment through Heartbeat’s Abortion Pill Rescue Network. Attorney General James alleges that making false and misleading claims about APR to convince pregnant people to get the therapy constitutes fraud, deceptive business practices, and false advertising under New York law.
“Abortions cannot be reversed. Any treatments that claim to do so are made without scientific evidence and could be unsafe,” James said at the time. “Heartbeat International and the other crisis pregnancy center defendants are spreading dangerous misinformation by advertising 'abortion reversals' without any medical and scientific proof.
“Amid the increase in attacks on reproductive health care nationwide, we must protect pregnant people’s right to make safe, well-informed decisions about their health.
Medication abortion involves taking two oral medications—first, mifepristone, followed by misoprostol 24-48 hours later. Medical experts, including ACOG, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the National Institute of Health, agree that medication abortion is safe and effective. Medication abortion has grown in popularity as anti-abortion extremists continue to ramp up efforts to block access to abortion care in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. According to the Guttmacher Institute, medication abortion accounted for 63 percent of all U.S. abortions in 2023, an increase from just 53 percent in 2020.
The APR treatment involves administering repeated doses of progesterone, a hormone bodies naturally produce during pregnancy, to a pregnant person who has taken mifepristone but has not yet taken misoprostol. The APR is not an accepted mainstream medical practice, and no credible scientific evidence proves the treatment is safe or effective. Still, Heartbeat and crisis pregnancy centers advertise the treatment as if it is a clinically proven and secure way to reverse an abortion.
The organizations operate dozens of crisis pregnancy centers in New York. In May, they had sued the Attorney General over her law enforcement agenda to protect consumers from abortion pill reversal marketing. They argued the state lawsuit violated their First Amendment rights.
Last year, I spoke with Dr. Mitchell Creinen, an OB-GYN and professor at UC Davis Health at the University of California, who led one of the few studies on abortion reversal.
“There's nothing scientifically sound to say this is anything other than a mythical hypothetical treatment,” Creinen said.
He had to abandon it because of safety concerns for the participants. He had enrolled people who had planned on getting a surgical abortion. They agreed to partake in the study and delayed their abortion a couple of weeks to study the effect of abortion reversal, where progesterone is used to counteract the effects of mifepristone.
They couldn't draw conclusive results because the study had to be stopped. However, the evidence indicates that abortion reversal is dangerous.
In his 30 years of practice, Creinen has never had a single person ask about abortion reversal. He feels its prevalence is embellished mainly due to the same misinformation crisis that has hampered other medical care, including vaccination efforts for COVID-19 and the flu.
“The more I claim or more I say the same thing over and over again, even though it's a lie, you start to believe it's the truth,” Creinen said. “And that's the issue here”
Stateline reported recently that Republican lawmakers in at least 14 states have passed laws requiring healthcare providers to give patients information about abortion reversal. Kansas became the 15th state this year. Meanwhile, Democratic-controlled Colorado this year moved in the opposite direction, becoming the first state to effectively ban abortion reversal treatment, designating it as medical misconduct.
“There's nothing scientific,” Creinen said. “We shouldn't be writing laws without any evidence to back up the laws. And that's really where we are. So this is all part of the anti-choice, religious zealot movement to try to create a false narrative.”