Abortion Pill Ruling—Religious Rights Beat State Law

A federal judge’s decision to block Colorado from enforcing a ban on abortion pill reversal at a Catholic pregnancy center has ignited new debate over religious freedom, abortion regulation, and medical standards in America’s post-Roe landscape.

Story Snapshot

Federal court grants permanent injunction, allowing a Catholic clinic to continue abortion pill reversal services in Colorado
The ruling centers on religious liberty, not the medical efficacy of abortion pill reversal
Colorado’s law banning the practice remains unenforceable against religious providers
This case could set a nationwide precedent for religious freedom challenges to state abortion regulations

Federal Court Shields Religious Clinic from Colorado’s Abortion Pill Reversal Ban

On August 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Daniel Domenico issued a permanent injunction that bars Colorado from enforcing its 2023 prohibition on abortion pill reversal (APR) against Bella Health and Wellness, a Catholic clinic led by nurses Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett. This decision follows an earlier temporary injunction and comes after the clinic, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), sued the state, arguing that the law infringed on their religious rights to offer alternatives to abortion. The court’s ruling does not weigh in on the medical merits of APR but finds that the state’s action violates the religious liberty of the clinic’s staff under federal law.

Bella Health and Wellness, which operates under Catholic principles, has provided APR to women who regret starting a medication abortion. Colorado’s 2023 law deemed such practices “deceptive” and not medically approved, but the court has now protected religious providers from prosecution under this law, at least for the present moment.

Abortion Pill Reversal: Medical Controversy and Religious Liberty in Collision

Abortion pill reversal involves administering progesterone after a woman has taken the first dose of a two-step medication abortion, with the intent to halt the abortion process. Proponents, including many faith-based clinics, claim it offers women another choice. However, organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Colorado Medical Board do not recognize APR as a generally accepted medical practice, warning that it lacks scientific backing and could pose unknown risks. Despite this, Judge Domenico pointed out that no evidence of harm from the treatment was presented in the legal proceedings, focusing his ruling instead on constitutional protections for religious exercise.

Colorado’s legislature has a history of introducing bills to regulate or restrict APR, but the 2023 statute marked a turning point by categorically banning providers from offering or even advertising the procedure. Bella Health’s successful challenge is one of the first to result in a permanent federal injunction against a state APR ban, making it a landmark case at the intersection of abortion policy and religious freedom.

Broader Implications: Legal, Social, and Political Fallout

This ruling has immediate and potentially far-reaching consequences. In the short term, Bella Health and similar faith-based clinics in Colorado can continue to provide APR services without fear of legal retaliation from the state. Long-term, the decision could serve as a blueprint for religious organizations in other states to challenge similar abortion-related regulations, especially as state legislatures nationwide revisit abortion policy in light of the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

The legal basis for Judge Domenico’s decision—religious liberty—does not resolve the ongoing dispute within the medical community about APR’s safety or effectiveness. Instead, it curtails Colorado’s ability to regulate the practice in religious contexts. Pro-life advocates and religious liberty champions have hailed the decision as a victory for both choice and conscience rights, while pro-choice groups and medical organizations warn that it undermines the role of evidence-based medicine in protecting patient safety.

Stakeholders React: Praise from Pro-Life, Criticism from Medical Establishment

Kevin Theriot, Senior Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, applauded the ruling, stating that “the court is right to rule that the state can’t force women to follow through with a chemical abortion when a safe alternative is available.” Bella Health and Wellness has echoed this sentiment, emphasizing their commitment to serving women in accordance with their faith and conscience. Colorado officials and medical experts remain at odds with the ruling, contending that the APR procedure is unproven and that state oversight is necessary to protect women from potentially misleading or unsafe medical practices.

Legal scholars agree that while the case’s immediate impact is limited to Colorado, it could influence future federal court decisions on the balance between state authority and religious freedom in healthcare. The ruling also raises questions about how far religious exemptions should extend in the regulation of medical care and whether similar legal strategies may be used to challenge other state-level abortion restrictions or mandates.