California anti-abortion group sues to protect access to ‘abortion pill reversal’
The federal lawsuit is a response to a lawsuit filed last year by AG Rob Bonta in Alameda County Superior Court alleging that the national anti-abortion group were engaging in false advertising by claiming that “abortion pill reversal” is safe and effective.
A San Diego-based Catholic nonprofit filed a lawsuit this week against California Attorney General Rob Bonta that seeks to protect access to a treatment that’s said to reverse medication-induced abortions if taken quickly enough.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in San Diego, is a response to a state lawsuit Bonta filed last year alleging that a national anti-abortion group and five crisis pregnancy centers in Northern California were using “false and misleading statements” to advertise and promote what they call “abortion pill reversal,” or APR.
The federal lawsuit seeks an injunction against Bonta’s efforts to sue the crisis pregnancy centers, alleging that the attorney general is violating their First Amendment rights.
“Bonta has no business butting into the intimate medical decision of an expectant mother, in consultation with the medical professional of her choice, to carry her pregnancy to term and save her unborn baby from the disastrous effects of mifepristone while there is still time to undo the effects of that powerful chemical,” the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of the Catholic nonprofit Culture of Life Family Services, which operates COLFS Medical Clinic at three locations in San Diego County, by attorneys from the Thomas More Society, which has often represented religious groups in cases involving abortion and same-sex marriage issues.
“Attorney General Rob Bonta refuses to recognize a woman’s right to reverse an abortion in progress when she has changed her mind about the procedure,” Peter Breen, the executive vice president and head of litigation at the Thomas More Society, said in a statement. “… In his quest to silence pregnancy help ministries, Bonta is violating Culture of Life Family Services’ right to speak and aid women in exercising their reproductive privacy rights.”
The fight over “abortion pill reversal” is centered around mifepristone, the first of two drugs typically prescribed to a person seeking to end an early pregnancy. Mifepristone works by blocking the important pregnancy hormone progesterone from being absorbed by the womb. The second pill, misoprostol, makes the uterus contract to complete the abortion.
An “abortion pill reversal” seeks to counteract the effects of mifepristone with a large influx of progesterone before the second pill is taken. The American Pregnancy Association says the reversal treatment is not approved by the Food and Drug Administration and is only effective within 24 hours of taking mifepristone.
Several reproductive and women’s health groups oppose the use of abortion reversal procedures, according to the American Pregnancy Association. That includes Planned Parenthood, Reproductive Freedom for All and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The OB-GYN group calls abortion reversal procedures “unproven and unethical” because the few studies that have been undertaken involved too few subjects or ended early due to safety concerns.
“Claims regarding abortion ‘reversal’ treatment are not based on science and do not meet clinical standards,” the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists says on its website.
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists supports the abortion reversal procedure.
Last September, Bonta filed his lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court alleging that the national anti-abortion group Heartbeat International and five RealOptions clinics were engaging in false advertising by claiming that “abortion pill reversal” is safe and effective. The lawsuit also alleges that the group and clinics falsely stated that an abortion could be reversed even after a patient had taken misoprostol, the second of the two abortion drugs.
“Instead of offering vulnerable pregnant people accurate information, Defendants … provide them with false and misleading statements,” Bonta’s lawsuit alleged. In a statement when that lawsuit was filed, Bonta’s office said abortion reversal “has no credible scientific backing, and has potential risks for patients who undergo it. Given the lack of credible scientific evidence supporting APR’s safety and efficacy, it is crucial that pregnant patients are provided with accurate information before deciding whether to undergo this experimental procedure.”
Bonta’s office, asked about the new lawsuit, told the Union-Tribune on Friday: “The Attorney General is committed to ensuring that Californians have access to accurate, comprehensive information on abortion and other reproductive healthcare services. We look forward to continuing to fight against fraudulent and misleading claims about APR and to protecting reproductive freedom for all.”
The new lawsuit filed this week in San Diego argues that “Bonta’s attack against APR is merely the latest development in his politically motivated campaign against pregnancy help organizations in general” — and that it violates those organizations’ constitutionally protected free speech rights.
“The idea that the speech of purely charitable pregnancy help organizations amounts to ‘fraudulent misrepresentation’ by offering women no-cost services is incongruous,” the lawsuit argues. “The subtext of Bonta’s argument is that pregnancy help organizations may speak, but only if they speak the State’s message.”
The competing lawsuits filed by Bonta and Culture of Life Family Services are part of an increasing focus on abortion reversals, and their related freedom of speech and religion issues, in the wider fight over abortion. Last October, a federal judge in Colorado temporarily blocked a state law that banned abortion reversal treatment, ruling that the law likely violated the Constitution’s guarantee of religious freedom. About a week later, a judge in Kansas temporarily blocked a state law that would have mandated that doctors tell their patients that a medicated abortion can be reversed. That judge ruled the law violated doctors’ rights to free speech and Kansas patients’ right to abortion.