California Attorney General Rob Bonta is in the middle of a legal battle that pits the state’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws against a pregnancy help network that says it is being punished for sharing information about a medication protocol designed to help women reverse a chemical abortion. Closing arguments in The People of California v. Heartbeat International and RealOptions took place on September 17 in Alameda County Superior Court, according to an account published by the Daily Wire.
At the center of the case is the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) protocol, which involves giving a woman who regrets taking mifepristone — the first drug in a two-part chemical abortion regimen — a high dose of progesterone in an effort to block the drug’s effects. Heartbeat International, the world’s largest network of pregnancy help organizations, operates the Abortion Pill Rescue Network and is a defendant in the case.
Bonta filed suit against Real Options and Heartbeat International three years ago, alleging the organizations engaged in commercial fraud by promoting the APR protocol. The state’s case rests in part on a study that Heartbeat attorneys say actually suggests an 80 percent efficacy rate for the protocol, undercutting the state’s claim that APR is dangerous.
Expert Witness Under Fire
Much of the defense’s closing argument focused on the state’s medical expert, Dr. Mitchell Creinin, a prominent abortion provider and researcher. According to the Daily Wire, Heartbeat’s legal team argued that Creinin admitted under oath he cannot swear APR is unsafe or ineffective, and that he acknowledged behind closed doors that his randomized trial on the protocol was only “pseudo-blinded” and that the worst alleged APR incident involved only minor bleeding.
Defense attorneys also pointed to Creinin’s role as a paid consultant for Danco, the drug company that manufactures and distributes mifepristone, arguing that his financial ties create a conflict of interest. They further noted his past statements describing abortion as a “humane and viable strategy” for population control.
The state’s reliance on Creinin’s testimony, defense attorneys argued, is undermined by the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Chiles, which they say affirmed that medical speech on controversial health topics is fully protected by the First Amendment. Under that framework, they contend, California cannot silence speech about APR even if state officials disagree with the underlying science.
Women Testify About Reversals
Perhaps the most striking element of the trial, according to the Daily Wire, was the absence of any woman who claims to have been harmed or deceived by APR. After more than a decade of progesterone being used to reverse mifepristone in California and three years of discovery and publicized investigations, the state could not produce a single alleged victim.
Instead, several California mothers testified in court, each expressing gratitude for the second chance APR offered. According to the Daily Wire, each witness described experiencing the very outcome Bonta’s office claims has “no evidence”: a safe and effective reversal of mifepristone. The women testified that they were seeking an alternative to abortion, and that while they came for progesterone, they found community and friendship.
Heartbeat International does not administer the APR protocol and does not financially benefit from it, according to the organization. Its role is to share information about the protocol and connect women with medical providers who offer it. The organization argues that its message is free, and the medication it describes is safe and legal.
A Question of Reproductive Freedom
The case raises a broader question about what reproductive freedom means in California, a state whose constitution protects both the right to end a pregnancy and the right to continue it. Bonta has framed his lawsuit as part of a “reproductive freedom” agenda, but the Daily Wire reported that the trial revealed a gap between the state’s professed advocacy for vulnerable women and the experiences of women who say they wanted to keep their pregnancies.
During the trial, Heartbeat’s nurses continued taking urgent calls from women seeking help, connecting them with medical providers in time to receive the protocol. That contrast — between the state’s theoretical woman who might be harmed and the real women calling for help — formed the emotional core of the defense’s case.
The Daily Wire noted that one federal court recently shielded abortion-advertising nonprofits as they explain how to side-step pro-life laws, raising questions about whether California’s action against Heartbeat and Real Options represents an inconsistent application of First Amendment principles.
Closing arguments are now complete, and a ruling is pending. The outcome could have implications beyond California, setting a precedent for how states can regulate speech about controversial medical procedures and whether attorney generals can use consumer protection laws to target organizations whose views they oppose.
Source: www.dailywire.com — https://www.dailywire.com/news/californias-misguided-attack-against-abortion-pill-reversal