Courts rebuke New York's Letitia James for trying to muzzle pro-life pregnancy centers, activists

New York Attorney General Letitia James is behind in the count in her quest to muzzle pro-life pregnancy centers and so-called sidewalk counselors near abortion clinics, among broader setbacks in recent weeks for blue-state allies against anti-abortion activists.

The #Resistance leader seeks intervention from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a preliminary injunction last summer that prevents James from sanctioning pregnancy centers for promoting so-called abortion pill reversal, a pregnancy-hormone protocol that makes "biological sense" according to a leading reproductive researcher.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and its New York members Gianna's House and Options Care Center filed their response brief last week, joined by friend-of-the-court briefs by 41 primarily pro-life, religious and conservative organizations and Democrats for Life of America among others.

James also failed to secure contempt of court against Red Rose Rescue activists for talking to women within 15 feet of abortion clinics, which James claimed violated a 2023 injunction.

Their lawyers at the Thomas More Society also secured $450,000 in attorney's fees in a settlement last week with the City of Minneapolis stemming from its "buffer zone" law that prohibited sidewalk counseling in front of the city's Planned Parenthood clinic. In December, the city amended the law and made an "offer of judgment" to plaintiff Pro-Life Action Ministries.

The Supreme Court declined last month to reconsider a 2000 precedent widely used to suppress sidewalk counseling, likely encouraging politically blue jurisdictions to maintain and expand speech restrictions on public property near abortion clinics.

Delaware caved barely five weeks after NIFLA and its Delaware member, A Door of Hope, filed a First Amendment suit against its law singling out pro-life pregnancy centers for compelled and prohibited speech, agreeing not to enforce SB 300.

U.S. District Judge Richard Andrews, nominated by President Obama, hadn't even scheduled a hearing on the plaintiffs' March 3 motion for preliminary injunction when the parties filed a "Proposed Status Quo Order" March 17.

The Pregnancy Care Center of Rockford and Diocese of Springfield sued Illinois last week to block new provisions in the Illinois Human Rights Act (HB 4867) that make "reproductive health decisions" a protected category, meaning they could be punished for disciplining or refusing to hire employees who violate their views on abortion.

The 2nd Circuit revived a lawsuit against New York's similar employment law in January, four and a half years after a district court dismissed all but one claim by the plaintiffs.

Abortion providers also find themselves on their heels amid attempted enforcement of red-state restrictions, botched-abortion litigation and, perhaps most surprisingly, media scrutiny.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced charges against Maria Margarita Rojas, 48, for allegedly providing illegal abortions through a network of Houston clinics and practicing medicine without a license. He also sued a New York doctor in December for allegedly prescribing abortion pills to Texans via telehealth appointments.

"Jane Doe" sued Illinois Dr. Keith Reisinger-Kindle last week for medical negligence after he allegedly left parts of the aborted baby inside her, requiring emergency care and surgery.

"Botched Care and Tired Staff: Planned Parenthood in Crisis," blared a New York Times headline last month that documented malpractice claims from botched abortions and improperly implanted intrauterine devices to dangerous clinic conditions and poor staff training.

One upstate New York clinic drew several complaints, with one patient suing after her purported abortion left a living baby that died 12 weeks later. Planned Parenthood is flush with fundraising cash but little goes to affiliates providing care, the Times said.

James showed no 'intent to injure, intimidate, or interfere' 

The appeals brief by New York AG James, to overturn the injunction that protects the promotion of abortion pill reversal, briefly argues the supplemental-progesterone protocol to counteract the abortifacient mifepristone is "scientifically impossible."

She didn't mention a 2017 New York Times Magazine feature on the protocol. Harvey Kliman, director of the reproductive and placental research unit at the Yale School of Medicine, said he'd recommend it if his daughter accidentally took mifepristone while pregnant.

James mostly argued U.S. District Judge John Sinatra, nominated by President Trump, didn't have jurisdiction to intervene in her ongoing investigation of a different set of plaintiffs for promoting the protocol as a false and misleading practice.

NIFLA and its New York members rebutted James's understanding of science and argued their First Amendment claims "do not seek or even threaten interference with ongoing state proceedings against unrelated third parties" in their response brief last week.

"The NIFLA plaintiffs have chilled their speech to avoid being targeted by state enforcement proceedings, and no state proceeding is pending against them … distinct legal entities who seek to vindicate their own First Amendment rights," the brief says.

The friend-of-the-court brief by Advancing American Freedom, whose signatories include the Southeastern Legal Foundation, Students for Life of America and Young America's Foundation, seeks to defend free speech and free association against "government overreach."

Personal liberty "depends on the rule of law which is undermined when a government official uses her power to advance her political agenda at any cost," as AG James is doing with abortion, the brief says. "Because even the threat of prosecution causes harm, organizations need the opportunity to seek relief in federal courts."

The joint brief by Democrats for Life and the Life Legal Defense Foundation cited the "high incidence of abortion regret" among women, the "negative mental health consequences associated with abortion" and lack of "evidence of harm to any woman as a result of being advised about APR" as favoring the injunction.

It cited a 2023 peer-reviewed study of 1,000 U.S. women ages 41 to 45 in the Springer Nature journal Cureus, in which a quarter said they had an abortion. Among those, 24% said the abortions were "unwanted or coerced."

The AG's "purported concern for health and safety of women is suspect in light of her history of strident abortion advocacy," even trying to prevent other states from regulating abortion by appealing to Congress in 2021, the brief says.

James won a Pyrrhic victory in her Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act case against Red Rose Rescue activists for abortion clinic trespassing and blockades in 2021 and 2022, securing summary judgment against them after an embarrassing legal rebuke.

Her triumphal press release didn't note that several days earlier, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Karas denied her request for contempt of court against the activists for non-disruptive speech near abortion clinics, such as sidewalk counseling.

In a March 10 bench ruling, Karas said it was protected because the expression lacked "intent to injure, intimidate, or interfere" with abortion seekers or staff, according to the activists' lawyers at the Thomas More Society. 

The March 11 written denial cites "the reasons stated on the record" the day before, without elaborating. A spokesperson for the Thomas More Society told Just the News it had a transcript from the hearing but couldn't share it due to restrictions from the court reporter.

Senior Counsel Christopher Ferrara said their "bodycam footage show[ed] that every claim of misconduct made by the AG’s two partisan witnesses" — described by the AG's office as a "legal observer" and a "clinic escort" – "was demonstrably false." The footage is described in Ferrera's Jan. 7 and 15 "proffer" letters to Judge Karas.