Every state allows a woman to seek medication abortion reversal — except Colorado. On April 14, the state’s Democratic governor, Jared Polis, signed into law SB 23-190, which declares it “unprofessional conduct for a person … to provide, prescribe, administer, or attempt medication abortion reversal.”

In principle, this means that a woman may legally be prescribed mifepristone, the progesterone-inhibiting drug that causes a chemical abortion, but may not legally be prescribed progesterone, the natural hormone required for a healthy pregnancy.

In practice, it is unclear how the state plans to enforce the measure. So, Bella Health and Wellness, an independent Catholic medical center founded in 2012 with locations in Englewood, Denver, and Lafayette, Colorado, decided to take the state to court to ensure that it could continue serving women in peace.

Bella’s complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado details the story of a patient who contacted the center hours before SB 23-190 was to take effect, seeking a medication abortion reversal through progesterone. The patient was administered the abortion reversal medication and is under Bella’s care. But if the woman had waited just a few hours, Colorado’s law would have forced Bella Health and Wellness to risk a fine or even the loss of its medical license so it could provide her the care she desired.

The new law is full of inconsistencies. For example, it permits the administration of progesterone for women facing miscarriage, but it explicitly forbids the same medication for women seeking to reverse an abortion. The law also does not offer any distinction between patients who seek progesterone after ingesting mifepristone willingly or unwillingly, with the latter being an all-too-common practice among sex traffickers.

The Colorado bill, which passed largely along party lines, is full of partisan language, including one clause that reads, “[A]nti-abortion centers are the ground-level presence of a well-coordinated anti-choice movement.” Another declares with certainty that advertising services that reverse medication abortion is a “dangerous and deceptive practice that is not supported by science or clinical standards.”

On the contrary, one study published in the spring 2018 issue of Issues in Law and Medicine found that 64% of abortions were successfully reversed among those who received intramuscular progesterone and 68% among those who received high-dose oral progesterone. The medical regimen is far from a sure thing, but it is a viable option for women seeking to reverse a chemical abortion, and it is certainly not distant from the science and clinical standards of which Colorado Democrats claim to be so intimately aware.

If the state’s rebuke of a natural hormone weren’t reason enough to raise eyebrows, its attempt to forbid medical centers from advertising the medication should be. The state now calls it a “deceptive trade practice” for licensed medical professionals to discuss the medical benefits of a common, safe prescription.

The legislation further acknowledges that “[t]ime is a critical factor for individuals seeking abortion care.” I avoid attributing to malice what can be explained by stupidity, so I can only conclude that a governor who would unmask the endgame of pro-abortion advocates like this is being exceptionally stupid. The state says that time is a critical factor for abortions, but it must also recognize that the same is a critical factor in reversing abortions. And not only does the state want to avoid women attempting to reverse a medication abortion, but they also want to avoid women knowing that reversal is possible. Do disparate incentives exist between the state of Colorado and a mother in crisis?

According to some reports, the state promised in court last Monday that it would not enforce the new law. But, as DeDe Chism, the co-founder and CEO of Bella Health and Wellness, put it: “A promise is just a promise. I feel like I need something a little more concrete.”

And something more concrete she deserves. As a steward of care for her employees and patients, Chism is in the position to see this suit through a sound victory in the courtroom and a reversal of the law in the legislature. Anything short of these resolutions would be an injustice.

Unfortunately, Judge Daniel Domenico on Friday denied the preliminary injunctive relief requested by Chism and her co-plaintiffs because of the state’s promise, saying that the harm for Bella that would result if the state broke its promise is “too speculative.” But Becket Law, the public interest firm representing Bella, is branding the judge’s ruling as a temporary win: “Colorado’s attorney general ran away from this law once he realized the legislature had shot from the hip,” Rebekah Ricketts, counsel at Becket, said in a statement released Friday.

Attorneys representing Chism and her medical center defend them on the basis of the First Amendment, and on that basis, they should ultimately win. And while that victory would simply maintain the status quo, it would also be a blow to the abortion movement that harms women and seeks to demonize the organizations, such as Bella Health and Wellness, that help them.

Harry Scherer is an editorial fellow at the American Conservative.