By DEACON MIKE MANNO
The Democrats in Colorado have enacted a new law that prohibits the use of the drug progesterone to offset the tragic effects of the abortion bill.
Just a little background. Progesterone is produced naturally and is used regularly to assist pregnant women at risk for miscarriage or pre-term birth. Progesterone assists the mother’s body to produce nutrients for the developing fetus — nutrients without which the fetus would die and be expelled from the mother’s body.
Thus, for decades progesterone has been used to prevent the loss of the fetus.
Now when a woman seeks a non-surgical abortion by use of the abortion pill, the medications work to undo what progesterone does. The abortion pill is a two-step process. In the first step the woman takes mifepristone, a pill that blocks progesterone receptors, blocking the delivery of nutrition and oxygen to the developing child which results in its death. A second pill, misoprostol, is taken 24 hours later which causes the expulsion of the dead child.
Crisis pregnancy centers around the nation have found that women using progesterone after having taken the first abortion pill, mifepristone, can serve to re-establish nutrition and oxygen to the fetus, thus saving the pregnancy. In fact, in several states the use of progesterone to reverse the effects of the abortion is required information that must be given to abortion-minded women seeking a non-surgical abortion.
But not in Colorado where the baby-killers in charge determined that informing pregnant women of this option is a deceptive trade practice which should subject medical personnel and their clinics to heavy fines and the revocation of their licenses.
In April the overwhelmingly Democrat legislature passed SB23-190 which prohibits the use of progesterone for only one thing — to prevent women who have changed their mind about the abortion pill to step back, reassess their status, and to continue their pregnancy.
In other words, in Colorado women are not free to change their minds about abortion, but must continue to kill their offspring regardless of the reason why. So ardent are these pro-abortion politicians that any medical measure to reverse an abortion must be outlawed.
Into this comes a set of mother-daughter Catholic nurse practitioners who operate an independent health care facility, Bella Health and Wellness, offering “life affirming” care. It has successfully used progesterone to save pregnancies from the final effects of the abortion pill regime. But, of course, saving babies is not in the best interest of the politicians who run the state so Bella Health and Wellness found itself subject to enormous fines and the nurses a loss of their professional licenses.
With the help of Becket Law (formerly the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty), Bella Health filed suit in federal court against the state and its administrative agencies tasked with enforcing the law.
“Although Colorado claims to recognize the ‘fundamental right to continue a pregnancy,’ its new law, SB 23-190, actively thwarts women from making that choice, and makes it illegal for nurses and doctors to assist them or even inform them about their options,” said the lawsuit.
The suit argues that the law advances no public health goal and irreparably harms pregnant women that could be helped by the clinic.
“Indeed, mere hours before SB 23-190 took effect, a woman contacted Plaintiffs, requesting their help in reversing an abortion after taking mifepristone. Under Bella’s care, she received an initial dose of progesterone to reverse the effects of mifepristone and is now under follow-up care. SB 23-190 would deprive this woman of the ability to exercise her fundamental right to continue her pregnancy, leaving her at risk of being forced to undergo an abortion she no longer desires,” the suit alleges.
“It also forces Plaintiffs to imminently choose between exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs by offering this woman and her child life-affirming health care — or facing the loss of their licenses and severe financial penalties,” it said.
The lawsuit alleges that the law was based on anti-religious animus, citing its legislative history and statements of its sponsors, one of which is mentioned here:
“The debate surrounding SB 23-190 shows that it targets religious organizations in Colorado that offer alternatives to abortion. Sen. Janice Marchman, one of the bill’s sponsors, stated that the bill’s reference to ‘anti-abortion centers’ referred to ‘faith-based organizations’ that offer alternatives to abortion in Colorado. She labeled these organizations ‘fake clinics’….
“Marchman lamented that ‘Colorado has more than 50 religious-based’ organizations ‘that encourage women to keep their babies or link them with adoption agencies,’ and she accused these ‘ideologically driven’ religious organizations of ‘trad[ing] on the goodwill of legitimate medicine to defraud patients’ by ‘us[ing] disinformation, intimidation, shame, and delay tactics to withhold essential and time-sensitive reproductive healthcare’ and by ‘lur[ing] people in and steer[ing] them away from abortion.
“Marchman also stated that these ‘fake clinics’ were the ‘only ones that can prescribe abortion pill reversal.’ And she argued that these ‘fake clinics’ must be stopped from offering this ‘life threatening’ procedure,” the suit argued [cites omitted].
Of course, the naming of names didn’t end there. The suit continued to quote anti-religious language from several of the other sponsors of the bill.
The suit alleges that the law violates the Free Expression Clause of the First Amendment, in several respects; violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses; and the law was void for vagueness.
It asked that the law be declared unconstitutional, for damages and attorney’s fees.
On April 14 this lawsuit was filed. On April 24 the court held a hearing during which state officials promised that it would not in any way try to enforce the law until the matter could be tried in court. On April 28 the court entered the stipulation in a separate order and further ordered that the state must file a status report within two days of any “material action” that occurs in the rulemaking process as set forth by the law in question.
Since this is coming out of Colorado I have few hopes that it will be resolved quickly. The state is deep blue and has administrators who will keep at it until they have their way. For example, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop won his truffle with state administrators at the Supreme Court over refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage. So, what did the state do? It went after him for refusing to bake a “transition” cake, celebrating an individual’s sexual transition.
There’s another case from Colorado in front of the High Court right now, 303 Creative, in which graphic designers offer designs and websites celebrating traditional marriage, but are restricted in doing so because of the state’s interpretation of its public accommodations law. That’s what you get when you paint your state so blue that it loses all common sense.
The state has been turned over to people who are so single-minded and who will not back down or accept a loss. This may take years followed by Progesterone II, III, and possibly IV.
(You can reach Mike at: DeaconMike@q.com and listen to him every weekend on Faith On Trial or podcast at https://iowacatholicradio.com/faith-on-trial/)
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress