Heartbeat International was by the side of pregnancy help organizations targeted by New York Attorney General Letitia James this week at a federal court hearing over James’s efforts to quash speech about Abortion Pill Reversal.

There are currently three lawsuits in progress involving James targeting pregnancy help organizations’ speech in New York State related to Abortion Pill Reversal (APR). Two of the cases were the subject of a hearing August 15 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York in Buffalo.

The hearing brought leaders of pregnancy help networks and pregnancy centers from across New York together in solidarity in the face of the attacks by James. Center personnel drove hours to be present for the hearing, some not even a party to any of the court cases. Two legal non-profits on the international and national stages respectively, Alliance Defending Freedom and Thomas More Society, are counsel in the cases.

All told, nearly 50 people from across New York and the U.S. assembled to defend pregnancy help against weaponized government.

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

The cases hinge on the First Amendment, the question of commercial speech, standing, and James trying to take a side in a scientific debate via state law.

And while Heartbeat’s case with James is in state court and was not part of the August 15 hearing, representatives from Heartbeat International were present to show support in the courtroom and at a press conference following the proceeding.

“Every day we answer the phone for women who are regretting their decision of taking that first pill in a chemical abortion, looking for an answer,” Heartbeat President Jor-El Godsey said. “And sadly, the AG of New York wants to deny her the opportunity for an answer to that question.”

Heartbeat is the largest network of pregnancy help in the U.S. and internationally and manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN), a network of more than 1,400 healthcare professionals, pregnancy centers and hospitals that administer the APR protocol. Some of the centers targeted by James simply offer information and referral for the treatment.

“We learned again today that they are most concerned, not so much about her and her reproductive freedom and her ability or desire to continue her pregnancy, but there seems mostly concern about the abortion industry,” Godsey said following the hearing. “That reference was made today.”

“To me, it was startling that they were so concerned about her being referred to someone else,” he said. “Well, that someone else is the people that can provide her the answer to continuing the pregnancy that she now desires and to not continue with an abortion that she no longer consents to.”

“And so, the AG should not be in this conversation,” said Godsey. “But she’s inserted herself into this.”

“We stand with our friends at NIFLA,” Godsey stated. “We stand with the pregnancy centers here and across the state.”

“We’re grateful that they’re willing to be a part of helping her get to the choice that she wants to make in preserving her ability to continue her pregnancy,” he said.

Heartbeat is excited to do that, Godsey added.

“We’re sad that it has to be in court, but we’re willing to battle this because we know our information is good,” he said. “We know that lives have been saved. We know that we continue to help women make the choice for herself to choose to continue her pregnancy.”

Abortion Pill Reversal is a newer application of a treatment used for decades to combat miscarriage. It involves administering progesterone, the natural hormone in a woman’s body necessary to sustain pregnancy, to counter the effects of mifepristone, the first drug in the two-drug chemical abortion regimen.

Chemical abortion works first by mifepristone blocking progesterone, starving the unborn child of nutrients, and then with the second drug, misoprostol, taken a day or so later, causing the woman to deliver her presumably deceased child.

If a woman acts quickly enough after taking the first abortion pill and without having taken the second abortion drug, it may be possible to save her child through Abortion Pill Reversal.

Heartbeat points to numerous first-hand accounts of mothers who have successfully reversed their chemical abortions and statistics show that more than 5,000 children have been saved through the APR protocol.

In Letitia James v. Heartbeat International & CompassCare, et al, Heartbeat and a group of 11 centers sued the attorney general April 30 in state court to block her threatened legal action against them for sharing information about the APR protocol.

In what is being termed “a political witch-hunt,” James has accused Heartbeat and the other organizations of, “repeated and persistent misleading statements and omissions,” threatening to sue for false advertising.

Heartbeat and the centers are represented by Thomas More Society, which filed a request for preliminary injunction against James on May 1. James followed through on her threat to sue to prevent Heartbeat and the other organizations from advertising the APR protocol on May 6.

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. James, filed May 28 by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), NIFLA (the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates), Gianna’s House, and Options Care Center are suing James in federal court for attempting to censor their work because they share information with women about APR.

Thomas More Society (TMS) attorneys filed a federal lawsuit against James on August 7 on behalf of Niagara Falls-based Summit Life Outreach Center and The Evergreen Association, also over James’s “unconstitutionally threatening, prosecuting, and intimidating pregnancy help organizations” over APR, according to TMS’s filing. That suit is Summit Life Outreach Center & The Evergreen Association v. Letitia James.

Summit and Evergreen have both limited or altogether avoided promotion of APR on their social media platforms and websites because of fear of targeted harassment and legal action by James, according to the latter federal lawsuit.

The complaint alleges as well that James is engaging in unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination in her role as New York Attorney General.

In the August 15 hearing, ADF attorneys sought a preliminary injunction against James in in NIFLA v. James. TMS attorneys also requested a preliminary injunction against James in Summit Life Outreach Center & The Evergreen Association v. Letitia James, seeking to consolidate the case with NIFLA v. James as well.

The Attorney General’s attempt to censor pregnancy help organizations from sharing information with clients about APR “chills” the free speech of the organizations, the attorneys argue, via threats of restitution, damages, and civil penalties.

Jessie Anderson, executive director of Options Care Center in Jamestown, New York, was among those from pregnancy help centers who spoke at the press conference following the August 15 hearing.

“If the Attorney General gets her way, our clients won’t know about Abortion Pill Reversal because of government censorship,” Anderson said. “They won’t know that this treatment, which uses the natural hormone progesterone commonly used in pregnancy, might be able to save their baby’s lives.”

The State of New York is denying women the freedom to continue their pregnancies by censoring centers that share information about APR, Anderson said.

“They’re forcing women to follow through with an abortion even if they don’t want to,” she said. “If these government officials claim to be pro-choice, they should allow women to have the choice to reconsider going through with an abortion and to allow pregnancy centers to speak freely and continue our lifesaving work.”

NIFLA Vice President of Legal Affairs Anne O’Connor said her organization’s New York centers are being “outright attacked” by James and the state simply for informing women of their options and helping them access information about abortion pill reversal.

“New York is attempting to censor our speech simply because they don’t agree with us on abortion and they’re using their bully pulpit of government to do so,” O’Connor said. “Pro-life pregnancy centers should be free to serve women and men and children without unjust government harassment.”

“Today’s hearing made it clear that this case is about one thing: whether the government can keep pregnancy centers from informing women about potentially life-saving care,” said ADF Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton.

“The government’s censorship is pushing a pro-abortion agenda at the expense of women who may regret, or have been forced into, a chemical abortion. It is forcing women to go through with an abortion that they don’t want,” Dalton said. “Women deserve to know about all of their choices, not just the ones the Attorney general wishes them to take.”

Kathy Jerman, executive director of New Hope Family Services and president of the New York State Coalition for Life, addressed the press conference as well.

Jerman shared how many women resort to abortion because they feel it is their only option, and that pregnancy centers offer women life‐affirming choices and provide the support they need throughout their pregnancies and beyond.

“Our coalition of pregnancy help exists to provide free services, resources, and community because every woman deserves compassionate care and loving support when facing an unexpected pregnancy,” she said.

Jerman noted how in 2022 alone, the pregnancy centers of New York State provided over $6.2 million in free services and materials, serving 17,269 women, men, and youth, achieving a 97.4% client satisfaction rate.

“Today, the New York Attorney General is mercilessly targeting our life-affirming pregnancy help collective because we don’t support New York’s extreme pro-abortion agenda,” Jerman said.

James is falsely accusing New York centers of sharing “misinformation” with clients about APR, she said.

“If we truly believe that a woman should have a choice in her pregnancy decision, then she should also have the choice to reconsider her abortion after taking the first chemical abortion pill,” said Jerman.

“We proudly stand with our sister organizations as they have their day in court,” she said. “Pregnancy help organizations have served women free of charge for decades, and we will continue to love and serve the women and children of New York State.”

Oral arguments in the federal court hearing touched on standing. And counsel for TMS noted afterward that the judge appeared to recognize the fact that a doctor is involved in the decision-making for prescribing for APR eliminates the claim of fraud.

Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of Litigation for Thomas More Society, said that James has not at any time in any of the proceedings, state court or federal court, identified a material falsehood – actually shown something was false that was said by the centers.

“In every case we’ve got scientific studies, we’ve got thousands of babies, the actual babies alive today, that you can point to that show this procedure works,” Breen said.

Christopher Ferrara, senior counsel for TMS, said the judge in the hearing made a point that he found “quite astonishing,” which seems to him “decisive.”

He said the judge asked the Attorney General’s counsel, ‘What about the involvement of doctors?”

“Because you can say anything you want about abortion pill reversal on a website. But when it comes down to it, a woman has to go to a doctor and the doctor prescribes the medication. Now that’s okay,” Ferrara said. “If a doctor can prescribe progesterone to antagonize the first abortion pill and save the baby, where is the fraud?”

Ferrara referred to this as a “seminal observation” by the judge, and common sense.

It’s also reproductive health decision-making by the woman who has the right to make that decision, he said.

“And to drag people into court arguing about, ‘our studies, contradict your studies, your studies are weak, our studies are strong,’ is ridiculous,” said Ferrara.

“There’s no place in a court for scientific debate,” he stated. “And that’s what the Attorney General of this trying do here, insinuate herself into a legitimate scientific debate. That is a per se violation of the First Amendment.”

Additionally, Ferrara said, the pregnancy help centers involved here are not engaging in commercial speech.

“These are nonprofit organizations offering free advice to women,” said Ferrara. “And ironically enough, free advice about reproductive health decision-making. And that decision-making, when it opts for the APR regimen saves lives.”

“Why is the attorney general trying to prevent saving life in the womb?” he asked. “That’s the question here.”

A decision in the federal cases wouldn’t necessarily control the decision in the state court case, Breen said, but would have a precedential effect, which would have a good effect on the state case.

They are hopeful, he said, for the injunction so the centers can continue to offer information about APR.

Dalton said the court did indicate that it is planning on moving on the cases, potentially in the next few weeks.

LifeNews Note: Lisa Bourne is Managing Editor of Pregnancy Help News and Content Writer for Heartbeat International. This originally appeared at Pregnancy Help News.