(The Center Square) – Evidence proceedings have concluded in the Alameda County Superior Court following a six-week trial in California’s lawsuit over abortion pill reversal.
Attorney General Rob Bonta filed the lawsuit against Heartbeat International and RealOptions Obria in September 2023. The suit alleges HBI and RealOptions use “fraudulent and misleading claims to advertise abortion pill reversal” in California.
Abortion pill reversal is a process where extra progesterone is administered to reverse the effects of the first pill in a chemical abortion regimen. HBI operates a large network of pro-life pregnancy resource centers and acquired the Abortion Pill Reversal Network. RealOptions is incorporated in California and operates five crisis pregnancy centers in Northern California.
AbortionPillReversal.com says the process is “effective.” According to its website, “medical professionals have been able to save 64-68% of pregnancies through abortion pill reversal.”
Still, Bonta called abortion pill reversal an “unproven and largely experimental procedure” that is in violation of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.
“Every Californian deserves truthful, accurate information when making deeply personal healthcare decisions,” said Bonta in a press release. “Our lawsuit alleges that Heartbeat International and RealOptions promoted abortion pill reversal despite knowing that there is no scientific evidence that shows it is effective or safe.”
After several weeks of testimony, Bonta said the Office of Attorney General is “confident” in the strength of its case and looks forward to the court’s decision.
“We will continue holding accountable those who undermine reproductive freedom, including by spreading dangerous, baseless claims,” said Bonta, whose office did not respond to The Center Square’s request for further comment.
The law firm known as Thomas More Society is representing HBI and RealOptions. Pointing to the evidence presented, Thomas More Society attorney Peter Breen said Bonta “failed to prove” his case.
“This trial was Rob Bonta’s chance to prove his claims that APR is ‘unsafe’ and ‘ineffective,’ said Breen in a press release. “Bonta couldn’t find a single victim to put on the stand, and his own witnesses refused to endorse those claims.”
According to Breen, Bonta has a history of trying to “silence” pregnancy-help ministries for telling women the “truth” that a woman who regrets taking the abortion pill may still have a chance to save her pregnancy.
Both parties will submit post-trial briefs through late August.
Closing arguments before Judge Patrick McKinney are expected in mid-September in his courtroom in the San Francisco Bay Area.
While the Thomas More Society did not respond to The Center Square’s request for comment by publication time, pro-life advocacy groups provided comments.
Mary Rose Short of California Right to Life told The Center Square that the state’s case centers on speech restrictions rather than health risks.
“Doctors frequently prescribe progesterone to stabilize pregnancies at risk of miscarriage,” Short said. “It is striking that this trial is disputing not whether progesterone is dangerous to pregnant women, not how it affects their unborn babies’ lives, not whether the treatment should be allowed at all, but simply whether pregnancy care clinics can speak about the option of progesterone.”
Short added that Bonta’s office pursued a six-week trial for the sole purpose of “limiting what options women know about when they regret their choice” to take the first abortion drug.
“Bonta is championing the apparent priority of California Democrats: more abortions at all costs, even if the mother no longer wants it,” said Short.
