A Colorado district court has permanently blocked a state law that prevented medical providers from offering an alternative treatment to reverse the effects of a chemical abortion.

According to WorldNetDaily, Judge Daniel D. Domenico ruled on August 1, 2025, that the law known as SB23-190 could not stand, citing that the state failed to prove a substantial interest in banning the abortion pill reversal method.

The case originated in Bella Health and Wellness v. Weiser, a lawsuit filed by a faith-based pregnancy center and other plaintiffs who argued that their right to offer women an alternative to continuing a medication-induced abortion was being infringed upon by the 2023 law.

Senate Bill 23-190 was signed into law in April 2023 and labeled abortion pill reversal, or APR, as a type of "unprofessional conduct" for licensed medical professionals in Colorado. The law’s passage quickly prompted legal challenges from Bella Health and Wellness, represented by the legal groups Alliance Defending Freedom and the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.

APR involves the administration of progesterone, a hormone that has been used for years to support pregnancies, especially in cases of preventing miscarriage. The process is typically considered when a woman takes the first pill in a two-drug chemical abortion regimen—mifepristone—but then chooses not to take the second drug, misoprostol.

APR's Role in Chemical Abortion Reversal

Supporters of APR, including OB/GYN Dr. Christina Francis, argue that giving high doses of progesterone after mifepristone can help maintain the pregnancy and give women a chance to change their minds. Dr. Francis explained that the treatment has successfully resulted in continued pregnancies about 70 percent of the time in such cases.

However, abortion-rights advocates and the Colorado Board of Nursing have disagreed, claiming APR is unproven and may carry risks to women’s health. Those opposing the practice supported the law’s intent to restrict it, citing a lack of sufficient scientific validation.

During litigation, Bella Health operated under a temporary preliminary injunction that had permitted them to continue APR treatments while the case proceeded. However, that order applied only to Bella Health, not to any other clinics or personnel offering similar care.

Nurse Midwife Under Investigation Joins Case

In February 2024, Chelsea Mynyk, a certified nurse midwife at Castle Rock Women’s Health, came under investigation by the Colorado State Board of Nursing after an anonymous complaint alleged she had administered abortion pill reversal.

Mynyk joined the lawsuit after the investigation began, and the court extended the preliminary injunction to include her and her clinic, granting her temporary protection from state disciplinary action.

Following the full trial, the court decided to issue a permanent injunction in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing both Bella Health and Castle Rock Women’s Health to continue providing APR treatments without fear of regulatory penalties.

Judge Cites Lack of Compelling State Interest

Judge Domenico stated that the state had failed to demonstrate a strong enough reason for regulating or banning the practice. He ruled, “The Defendants have thus failed to show that they have a compelling interest in regulating this practice, and Plaintiffs' motion must therefore be granted.”

In response to the ruling, Bella Health co-founders Dede Chism and Abby Sinnett celebrated the decision, claiming it upheld their constitutional rights and the freedom of women to make informed decisions about their pregnancies.

“Colorado tried to deprive pregnant women of the life-affirming care that is best for them and their babies. We are overjoyed that the court has recognized our constitutional right to continue offering this support,” said co-founders Chism and Sinnett.

Legal Advocates Respond to Victory

Kevin Theriot, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, also welcomed the court’s ruling, saying it defends the freedoms of caregivers who want to help women who regret starting a chemical abortion.

“Government officials can't silence medical professionals and prevent them from saving lives,” Theriot said. “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—one that Chelsea and the pro-life plaintiffs in this case can skillfully provide.”

Colorado officials now have 30 days from the court's August 1 ruling to appeal the permanent injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, where the case may continue in a higher court.