A Canadian woman is suing a food and beverage business after she became so intoxicated that she ended up causing $10 million in harm to a slew of houses.

The 26-year-old woman, Daniella Leis, was driving home after she had been drinking at a Marilyn Manson concert in London, Ontario, in August of 2019. She was reportedly driving the wrong way on a street. She then crashed the car she was driving into a home, which broke a gas line and set off an explosion that ruined four homes and hurt seven individuals. The people who were injured included first responders. Two police officers were harmed, as well as two firefighters. One of the firefighters needed to be in the hospital for over a week before they were able to go home.

The whole neighborhood was evacuated and gas and water utilities were shut down in the region. The harm done to the homes resulted in a cost of between $9.8 million and $14.7 million.

“The financial impact of Ms. Leis’ actions have been enormous, with a total damage estimate approaching $15 million,” Judge George Orsini reportedly told the court.

Following the incident, in 2020, Leis pleaded guilty to four impaired driving counts and received a jail sentence of three years in 2021. However, she and her father, Shawn Leis, put forward a lawsuit this month going after the business that gave her the alcohol.

They sued Ovations Ontario Food Services, stating that the business is also liable for the explosion because workers kicked Leis out of the site while not taking measures to make sure she would not operate a vehicle to get home.

The statement of claim reportedly claimed that the business also didn’t look into her “intended mode of transportation as she existed [sic] Budweiser Gardens when they knew or ought to have known that she was or appealed [sic] to be intoxicated and/or impaired.” It also said that the group did not have appropriate bouncers and did not keep track of how inebriated people were who were departing.

Leis also claimed that the group gave her alcohol while they knew she was inebriated, with the statement saying that the business or their workers gave her the substance “when they knew or ought to have known that she was intoxicated or would become intoxicated.”

Leis said that they prioritized “profit above safety” and the ensuing harm was “caused or contributed to by the negligence, breach of duty, breach of contract” by the business.

It noted that if Leis and her father are made to pay any money, they are “entitled to contribution and indemnity from the defendant (Ovation).”

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said Tuesday that four city-run health clinics would offer free abortion pills as early as tomorrow in an outlined so-called agenda for “women’s health” across the five boroughs.

“For too long, health and health care has been centered around men,” Adams said in a news release. “If men had periods, pap smears and menopause, they would get a paid vacation. And if men could get pregnant, we wouldn’t see Congress trying to pass laws restricting abortion.”

Adams, who said the city would become the model for women’s health care, detailed in the plan that the clinics dispensing the controversial pill would join public hospitals citywide that already offer medication abortion.

The four sites combined could give away up to 10,000 abortion pills annually designed for women to dodge insurance issues and bills that they could otherwise face in hospitals.

The mayor’s announcement comes just 24 hours after nearly two dozen attorneys general sent a letter to Federal Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Robert Califf urging the agency to reverse its decision to certify retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills.

The letter argues that the distribution of abortion-inducing drugs threatens women’s health.

“The Food and Drug Administration’s decision to abandon commonsense restrictions on remotely prescribing and administering abortion-inducing drugs is both illegal and dangerous,” the letter read. “In direct contravention of longstanding FDA practice and congressional mandate, the FDA’s rollback of important safety restrictions ignores both women’s health and straightforward federal statutes.”

Such medications used to induce abortions, Mifeprex and its generic Mifepristone Tablets, are approved by the FDA for up to 10 weeks gestation, as a woman’s health risk reportedly increases after that time.

When FDA officials first approved mifepristone in 2000, the federal agency admitted that the drug could pose “serious risks for women, including infection and bleeding,” the letter pointed out.

Officials later instituted several restrictions in 2007 as part of a Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy.

In November, four national medical associations and doctors filed a lawsuit against the federal government for illegally approving chemical abortion drugs that “harm” females.

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the case, accused FDA officials of “illegally” prioritizing abortion politics over science when it pushed for the legalization of the chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol in 2000.

The organization alleges the FDA could only authorize the drugs by characterizing pregnancy as an “illness” and arguing that these drugs provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit.”

Lawyers further allege the federal agency never studied the drug’s safety and the potential impacts it could have on blocking hormone development in adolescent female bodies.

“Pregnancy is not an illness, and chemical abortion drugs don’t provide a therapeutic benefit—they end a baby’s life and they pose serious and life-threatening complications to the mother,” Julie Marie Blake, senior counsel of the organization, said in a news release. “The FDA never had the authority to approve these dangerous drugs for sale. We urge the court to listen to the doctors we represent who are seeking to protect girls and women from the documented dangers of chemical abortion drugs.”

Lawyers for the Biden administration told a federal judge Tuesday that the public would be harmed if the abortion pills were made unavailable.

“The public interest would be dramatically harmed by effectively withdrawing from the marketplace a safe and effective drug that has lawfully been on the market for twenty-two years,” the filing by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said, Fox News reported.

Since the historic overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling last summer by the Supreme Court, medication abortions have been sought after as an alternative abortion method.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of all “facility-based abortions” in the U.S. every year have been due to such drugs.