Among the more disturbing recent trends of elected Democratic officials is their weaponization of the government and justice system to target, shut down, or censor political opponents who hold different viewpoints.

New York Attorney General Letitia James did exactly that in a crusade against pro-life pregnancy centers offering an option to reverse the abortion pill procedure, but she was just blocked by an injunction from a federal judge, Fox News reported.

James alleged that the pregnancy centers were engaged in fraud, but the judge determined that the AG's actions constituted a violation of First Amendment-protected free speech rights.

Enforcement actions and counter-lawsuits

In May, AG James announced a lawsuit against a pro-life organization and 11 pro-life pregnancy centers across the state that accused them of fraud, deceptive business practices, false and misleading statements, and false advertising for promoting the abortion pill reversal, or APR, procedure.

That lawsuit prompted a separate pro-life organization and two pro-life pregnancy centers that were not targeted in James' suit to file a lawsuit of their own in federal court because of their concern that they could be targeted and sued next for promoting the APR procedure.

They argued that James' actual and anticipated actions constituted violations of the First Amendment, specifically by chilling their free speech and discriminating against their viewpoints, as well as the free exercise of their religious beliefs and due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The attorney general countered that the court should abstain from taking action on the case while the other lawsuit was pending, that the plaintiffs had not suffered injury and had no standing, and that their claims were not yet ripe for review.

Preliminary injunction granted

In a 36-page order issued on Thursday, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra disagreed with AG James and ruled in favor of the pro-life plaintiffs by granting their request for a preliminary injunction against any future enforcement actions by the attorney general's office.

In sum, on this record, Plaintiffs have standing. No abstention doctrine applies. And no other prudential, discretionary, or equitable obstacle to such relief exists," the judge wrote. "Based on a careful application of the preliminary injunction factors, especially as they relate to Plaintiffs’ First Amendment Free Speech claim, motion for a preliminary injunction is granted."

As such, the judge ordered that James, "in her official capacity, as well as her officers, agents, employees, attorneys and all persons in active concert or participation with her, are enjoined, effective immediately, from enforcing, or seeking to enforce" the relevant state laws against the plaintiffs as it pertained to their public statements about the abortion pill reversal option and procedure.

What is the abortion pill reversal procedure?

According to the American Pregnancy Association, the abortion pill reversal procedure works to counteract the two-drug medication-induced abortion procedure through the use of a naturally occurring hormone that is critical for pregnancy known as progesterone.

The first of the abortion pills, mifepristone, works to block progesterone in the uterus and halt the growth of an unborn baby, while the second drug, misoprostol, is taken days later to force contractions in the uterus and expel the unborn baby. If, however, large doses of progesterone are taken after the first pill but before the second pill, the blocking effect of mifepristone is countered and the odds of survival for the unborn baby, without substantial risk of birth defects, are dramatically increased.

The abortion reversal process is opposed by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, on the grounds that it is not backed by "science" and there have been few studies on its efficacy and safety. It is also unsurprisingly opposed by pro-abortion advocacy groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL, and has not yet been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

However, the APA, along with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, back the reversal procedure so long as it is done under the guidance of a licensed physician with an appropriate prescription for progesterone and monitoring of the dosage and use of the hormone.