An effort to make Colorado the first state in the nation to prohibit so-called “abortion reversal” treatment secured a major victory on Thursday. 

The Colorado Medical Board unanimously passed a rule declaring abortion reversal treatment using certain medications outside of the “generally accepted standards of medical practice.” 

This comes after a draft rule released in July proposed the board should review individual complaints of abortion reversal treatment on a case-by-case basis. The new rule clarifies a specific method of abortion reversal as unprofessional conduct: when a medical provider uses the hormone progesterone to try to stop a medication-based abortion after a patient has completed the first part of the two-step process.

“Although the board will not treat medication abortion reversal as a per se act of unprofessional conduct, the board does not consider administering, dispensing, distributing, or delivering progesterone with the intent to interfere with, reverse, or halt a medication abortion undertaken through the use of mifepristone and/or misoprostol to meet generally accepted standards of medical practice,” the rule’s new language states. 

It continues: “For other conduct that could meet the definition of medication abortion reversal, the board will investigate such deviation on a case-by-case basis.”

Senate Bill 190, passed by the state legislature in April, classifies abortion reversal treatment as unprofessional conduct, subjecting medical workers who provide the treatment to professional discipline. But the bill allowed abortion reversal to be reclassified as professional conduct if the state medical, nursing and pharmacy boards all agree that it’s a valid medical practice. 

But with the medical board now stating that it is not a valid medical practice, the three boards cannot be unanimous in support for abortion reversal. So, regardless of the findings of the nursing and pharmacy boards, abortion reversal’s status as unprofessional conduct under SB 190 will remain intact. 

The question is whether regulators and prosecuting attorneys will enforce the new law. After a Catholic health care clinic sued to stop the ban in April, Attorney General Phil Weiser wrote in a court filing that the ban wouldn’t be enforced until all three boards pass their rules. 

The two remaining boards have until Oct. 1 to adopt their final rules. The nursing board will meet on Sept. 20 and the pharmacy board will meet on Sept. 21. 

“I’m very happy,” said Sen. Faith Winter, D-Westminster, sponsor of SB 190. “The (medical board’s) rule is very clear that it’s unprofessional conduct and that was the intent of the legislation. … Doing it on a case-by-case basis and putting the burden on the patient was unacceptable to me.” 

The rule’s new language isn’t as broad as SB 190, applying only to progesterone being used to “reverse” abortions using mifepristone and/or misoprostol. By naming specific medications, the rule does not automatically lend to other or future abortion reversal treatments. 

Members of the board said this was intended to protect medical providers who aren’t trying to perform abortion reversals. For example, board members offered a hypothetical situation of a woman trying to self-terminate her pregnancy with medications, such as beta blockers or calcium channel blockers. Under broader language, doctors could be concerned about treating her overdose because they might interrupt a medication abortion. 

Rep. Karen McCormick, another sponsor of SB 190, said the board’s decision is reasonable. 

“I can understand the logic behind that and I’m OK with that,” McCormick, D-Longmont, said. “And they’re still saying they can look into other conduct on a case-by-case basis. … That makes sense.” 

Abortion reversal treatment has been hotly debated in the medical community for years. 

Supporters of the treatment point to a small-scale 2012 study, which found that four of six women who had begun medication abortions were able to carry their pregnancies to term after taking progesterone. Subsequent research has concluded there is insufficient evidence to support abortion reversal treatment, attributing successful pregnancies to the results of simply not taking the second abortion pill. 

A larger 2019 University of California study attempted to test the effectiveness of abortion pill reversal, but the study was ended prematurely due to safety concerns after three participants required ambulance transport to a hospital for treatment of severe vaginal bleeding, NPR reported. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also rejects prescribing progesterone to reverse abortions, saying it is “not based on science and do not meet clinical standards.”

Proponents of abortion reversal argued that the board should preserve an option for women who change their minds after starting the process of a medication abortion.

“It is a very sad day in Colorado,” said Dr. Thomas Perille, president of Democrats for Life of Colorado. “The proponents of ‘choice’ are taking away choice from women who believe they have made a tragic mistake and desperately want to save their baby after taking the first abortion pill, mifepristone.”

Opponents of abortion reversal celebrated the rule, saying the board must protect women from being pushed into partaking in a medically-unfounded practice. 

“This ruling is a huge win for reproductive rights and justice,” a joint statement from New Era Colorado and COLOR said. “We are proud to be the first state in the nation to ensure that our communities will no longer be deceived into an unethical, experimental practice, and that providers of this so-called treatment will be held accountable for their actions.”