A federal judge has fewer than five days to decide whether to expand his narrow order blocking a new Colorado law against “abortion reversal” treatment, with the state insisting on Monday that an Englewood-based clinic will not face any near-term consequences from continuing with the disputed practice.

U.S. District Court Judge Daniel D. Domenico heard from representatives of the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, the state’s medical and nursing boards, and Bella Health and Wellness, a faith-based clinic that is seeking long-term relief from legislation deeming its abortion reversal treatment unprofessional conduct.

“We’re here because the Colorado legislature decided to shoot first and ask questions later,” Mark L. Rienzi, an attorney for Bella Health, told the judge. “Your protection right now is worth an awful lot.”

But Domenico repeatedly referenced the government’s assurance that it will not take action against Bella Health until three regulatory boards decide sometime this fall whether to follow through on the legislature’s directive or, in their professional judgment, deem abortion reversal medication acceptable after all.

“It’s at least possible that this will spring back into life,” he said. However, “if the defendants have said, ‘We’re not going to do any of the things you claim to fear now,’ what is the justification for me to say, ‘Yes, don’t do any of the things you said you’re not gonna do?'”

While Domenico will issue a written order sometime this week, he appeared receptive to putting the litigation on pause until the rulemaking process concludes, when the parties will know with certainty whether abortion reversal treatment carries professional sanctions for medical providers.

On April 14, Gov. Jared Polis signed Senate Bill 190, a Democratic-backed measure addressing the practice of reversing or nullifying medication-induced abortions by prescribing progesterone between the first and second steps of the abortion process.

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has concluded the purported reversal treatments are “not based on science and do not meet clinical standards.” Supporters of abortion reversal insist it is safe, that taking the “reversal” pill does not result in side effects for either babies or mothers, and that children born after taking the medication are healthy.

Under SB 190, administering abortion reversal medication is unprofessional conduct in Colorado unless the state’s medical, nursing and pharmacy boards agree it is, in fact, a generally accepted practice.

Bella Health, a Catholic healthcare provider, applied for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction soon after the law took effect, arguing SB 190 violated its right to religious exercise and its patients’ rights to receive treatment. Domenico quickly granted a narrow restraining order lasting 14 days that blocked SB 190’s enforcement only against Bella Health.

In considering whether to issue a preliminary injunction extending relief to the clinic, there were three primary questions before Domenico. First, does the state’s promise of short-term non-enforcement mean Bella Health is facing no imminent harm? Second, does a different provision of SB 190 – making it a deceptive trade practice for a facility to represent that it provides abortion care when, in fact, it does not  – apply to Bella Health? Finally, is there any legal weight to the legislature’s statement that advertising for medication abortion reversal is a deceptive practice?

Domenico appeared inclined to believe the bill’s statement against advertising, on its own, did not provide grounds to prosecute Bella Health. He also heard evidence that, even though some legislators intended to crack down on “crisis pregnancy centers” that claim to offer comprehensive care but do not actually provide abortions, SB 190’s terms do not apply to facilities that simply call themselves “comprehensive,” as Bella Health does.

The remaining arguments centered around the legislature’s designation of abortion reversal medication as unprofessional conduct, absent further regulation to the contrary.

Samuel Delt, a representative of the nursing and medical boards, stated that both entities had taken votes in the past week against enforcing SB 190 until the rulemaking process takes its course. He acknowledged that the current scenario is unusual – with the legislature declaring a practice unprofessional then directing the boards to review its conclusion.

“The legislature in a lot of ways just procedurally didn’t do you a lot of favors the way they structured this bill,” Domenico agreed.

Bella Health’s attorneys pressed Delt about whether, in the event the boards agree abortion reversal treatment is unprofessional conduct, they could hold the clinic liable for its current dispensation of medication.

“I’ve never seen the board declare something unprofessional conduct today and go back in time and discipline somebody,” he responded.

Domenico asked the government when would be the appropriate time to revisit Bella Health’s request for an injunction, if he were inclined to wait out the rulemaking.

“We’d need rules,” answered Senior Assistant Attorney General Michael T. Kotlarczyk.

But Reinzi, Bella Health’s lawyer, argued the legislature clearly established abortion reversal medication as unprofessional, effective now. Even if the government believed an injunction would not change anything, Reinzi said his client was entitled to that protection.

“The legislature found that the stuff we do every day – and it’s protected by the First Amendment – that it’s false and deceptive, and that’s a target on our back,” he said.

Domenico’s temporary restraining order will expire on Saturday.

The judge also alerted the parties that, as Colorado’s former solicitor general before his appointment to the bench, he had personal relationships with several of the defendants – including Attorney General Phil Weiser, Denver District Attorney Beth McCann and Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty. Domenico also mentioned having a minor connection to Bella Health’s law firm. He did not believe he was required to recuse himself from the case, but reminded the parties they could make such a request if they saw a problem.

The case is Bella Health and Wellness et al. v. Weiser et al.