Colorado voters won’t receive TABOR refunds this year, but the the law firms behind the lawsuit over the state’s ban on so-called “abortion pill reversal,” just received $6.1 million in legal fees according to settlement agreements signed last month. The Becket Fund, which represented Bella Health and Wellness, received $5.4 million, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Chelsea Mynyk of Castle Rock Women’s Health, received $700,000. U.S. District Judge Daniel D. Domenico, a Trump appointee, ruled in favor of Bella in August, finding the state lacked a compelling argument in regulating the practice.
Becket filed the lawsuit in 2023, immediately after the passage of Senate Bill 190, which targeted the marketing practices of anti-abortion centers and their use of an unproven pill to reverse a medication abortion, argued that the law unfairly targeted faith-based organizations in violation of the First Amendment.
Abortion pill reversal is commonly advertised at anti-abortion centers. The abortion pill reversal is essentially doses of progesterone to counteract the effects of mifepristone. During a medication abortion, mifepristone is administered to block progesterone, stopping the development of the fetus. Misoprostol, the second part of a medication abortion, is then administered to cause the uterus to expel the fetus.
Democrats and abortion advocates argue that “abortion pill reversal” is not supported by medical science. According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, “A 2012 case series reported on six women who took mifepristone and were then administered varying progesterone doses. Four continued their pregnancies. This is not scientific evidence that progesterone resulted in the continuation of those pregnancies. This study was not supervised by an institutional review board (IRB) or an ethical review committee, required to protect human research subjects, raising serious questions regarding the ethics and scientific validity of the results. Case series with no control groups are among the weakest forms of medical evidence. Subsequent case series used to support use of medication abortion reversal have had similar limitations, including no ethics approval, no control group, under-reporting of data, and no reported safety outcomes. A 2020 study intending to evaluate medication abortion reversal in a controlled, IRB-approved setting was ended early due to safety concerns among the participants.”
The safety concerns in the 2020 study involved three women who experienced vaginal hemorrhaging and needed to be taken to the emergency room. One woman needed a blood transfusion.
“We don’t have any evidence that disproves the possibility that abortion reversal exists,” said Mitchell Creinin, the study’s lead researcher, to Vice in 2019. “But I do have evidence that not completing the regimen as it’s designed is dangerous.”
Despite the concerns, anti-abortion medical professionals regularly provide anecdotal evidence regarding the efficacy of the treatments. “At least 18 moms who received abortion pill reversal care at Bella just celebrated Christmas with babies born during this case,” said Rebekah Ricketts, senior counsel at Becket and an attorney for Bella, in a news release. “All Coloradans should celebrate those little miracles and the brave medical team at Bella that helped their moms when no one else would.”
The bill’s sponsors defend their legislation. “It is unfortunate, to say the least, that a federal court decided on this award,” said Rep. Karen McCormick (D-Longmont), a sponsor of SB-190 and a doctor of veterinary medicine, in an email. “Telling patients something that is not based in science-based and medically proven information is ultimately harmful not only to individual patients but also harmful to our trust in the medical profession. The more we allow the dilution of evidence-based medicine the more we as a society steer people to making choices that harm them and public health as a whole. Telling patients that ‘abortion-pill reversal’ is an alternative when in fact it is not an actual science-based treatment may be protected by the First Amendment, but that doesn’t make it factual or true.”
The $6.1 million award comes as Colorado is facing budgetary challenges. “In this difficult budget environment, we are doing everything we can to deliver the best possible results for Colorado and know that the Joint Budget Committee will have challenging decisions to make in the months ahead,” said Gov. Jared Polis in a Jan. 2 news release. “We look forward to working with them and the rest of the General Assembly.”
Sen. Janice Marchman (D-Loveland) stands by the legislation. “While I am disappointed by the court’s ruling and the significant cost to Colorado taxpayers, I stand by the original intent of SB23-190,” she said in an email. “Our goal was, and remains, ensuring that Coloradans have access to accurate, science-based medical information and are protected from deceptive trade practices. The state has a duty to defend the laws passed by its legislature, particularly those designed to protect patient safety. It is unfortunate that the legal process has resulted in this expense, but we will continue to explore every avenue to ensure that medical care in Colorado is grounded in science and transparency.”
