California is a land of contrasts. The Golden State holds iconic coastlines and drug-ridden homeless encampments. The land of gold rushes and entrepreneurial genius now ranks among the least tax-competitive states in the country. And while its constitution protects a woman’s right both to end a pregnancy and to continue it, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s “reproductive freedom” crusade offers its own dark lesson in disparity.

Bonta’s lawfare in The People of California v. Heartbeat and Real Options, others have written, suggests he is not actually pro-choice. Bonta’s weaponization of California’s False Advertising and Unfair Competition laws is one of the most stunning examples of the distance between the Left’s professed advocacy for vulnerable women and its dismissal of their hope and health.

Bonta began targeting our speech about the Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) protocol three years ago when he sued Real Options and Heartbeat International. Heartbeat, where we serve, is the world’s largest network of pregnancy help organizations and runs the Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN).

Personnel from Thomas More Society, LiMandri & Jonna LLP Trial Attorneys, Heartbeat International, and RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics gathered along with RealOptions supporters outside the Alameda County Superior Court during testimony in The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & RealOptions.
Photo credit: Lisa Bourne/Heartbeat International

Our offense, in Bonta’s view, is sharing free information about a safe and legal medication designed to help women continue their pregnancies. The APR protocol allows a woman who regrets starting a chemical abortion to potentially reverse the effects of the first drug (mifepristone, a progesterone blocker) by taking a high dose of progesterone. The study California relied on in court for supposedly showing the dangers of APR is the same study that suggests an 80% efficacy rate for the protocol.

Our legal team presented closing arguments on September 17 — dismantling Bonta’s attack on our First Amendment rights and his reliance on a grossly discredited expert witness. But for those outside the courtroom, the contrast between Bonta’s legal crusade and reality is clear.

Our speech is not commercial

First, Bonta’s attack hinges on allegations of “commercial fraud.” Here he’s seeking to silence a religiously motivated non-profit organization. Our message is free, and the medication it describes is safe and legal. It’s worth noting that one federal court recently shielded abortion-advertising nonprofits as they explain how to side-step pro-life laws. We do not administer APR — or financially benefit in any way from those who do.

The science supports APR

Second, Bonta’s “trust the science” mantra unravels under oath. Our attorneys summarized the breakdown. The trial:

… revealed this case is built on the theories of a so-called “expert” who admits he cannot swear APR is unsafe or ineffective — and who got caught acknowledging behind closed doors that his (botched) randomized trial on APR was only “pseudo-blinded” and that the worst alleged APR incident involved only minor bleeding — contrary to the deceptive descriptions of his published (and now thoroughly discredited) report.

The state’s medical expert, Dr. Mitchell Creinin, is a proponent of abortion as a “humane and viable strategy” for population control and a paid consultant for Danco, a drug company that only manufactures and distributes mifepristone. But even if Creinin’s arguments held unbiased scientific water, the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Chiles made it clear that medical speech on controversial health topics is fully protected by the First Amendment. Every major study on APR suggests that taking progesterone increases the chances of the pregnancy continuing. And under Chiles, speech about APR must be protected.

Women seek our help

The most egregious discrepancy in Bonta’s crusade is how he treats the women he professes to protect. Attorneys general usually seek justice for victims. But after more than a decade of progesterone being used to reverse mifepristone in California and three years of exhaustive discovery and publicized investigations, the California AG could not produce a single woman who actually alleges harm or deception. Rather, each California mom who bravely testified in court spoke with immense gratitude for the second chance that APR offered. And each witness experienced the very outcome Bonta claims has “no evidence”: a safe and effective reversal of mifepristone.

This trial has spotlighted the genius and gift of pregnancy help medical clinics and the diverse services our affiliates offer. California women testified that they were looking for something better than abortion. They needed progesterone, but they found community and friendship. Many other women echo that gratitude.

The contrast is clear. Throughout the trial, California’s lawyers sought to undermine APR on behalf of a theoretical woman who might be harmed. But throughout those long days, our nurses kept taking urgent calls from real women and connecting them with a medical provider in time — offering them the hope that Bonta has repeatedly called “harm.” Real reproductive freedom cannot include forcing a woman to complete an abortion she no longer wants by silencing those who are helping her. In this land of contrasts, the right to continue a pregnancy is meaningless if those who assist women in exercising that right are punished.

***

Christa Brown, BSN, RN, LAS, is senior director of medical impact at Heartbeat International and the Executive Director of the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network. Danielle White, Esq., is general counsel for Heartbeat.

Menu

California’s Misguided Attack Against Abortion Pill Reversal