Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys filed an appeal May 7 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit to protect pregnancy centers’ right to inform women about the abortion pill reversal (APR) procedure.
In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Bonta, ADF is asking the court to halt California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s censorship of pro-life pregnancy centers that inform women about the option of progesterone therapy to reverse the effects of taking mifepristone—the first drug in the two-drug chemical abortion regimen—and potentially save their unborn babies’ lives.
The reversal procedure allows expectant mothers to seek treatment within 72 hours of taking the first drug. ADF attorneys contend that the pro-life pregnancy centers’ scientifically proven speech about the abortion pill reversal treatment is chilled by the attorney general’s censorship campaign against similar speech.
“Access to information is a hallmark of a free society and is essential to making informed medical choices,” said ADF Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton. “Every woman should have the option to reconsider going through with a chemical abortion, and the pro-life pregnancy centers we represent truthfully inform women about that choice. We urge the court to affirm the pregnancy centers’ freedom to tell the public about this lawful, life-saving treatment and end the attorney general’s censorship.”
In September 2023, Bonta sued Heartbeat International, a national network of pregnancy centers, and RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics, a chain of five pregnancy centers in California, for publishing information about abortion pill reversal, including that progesterone therapy is considered safe and can be an effective treatment.
Bonta’s lawsuit threatens other pregnancy centers in the state that have made, or would like to make, similar statements, including SCV Pregnancy Center in Santa Clarita. A federal district court denied the pregnancy centers’ original motion to stop the censorship while the case continues, prompting the appeal to the 9th Circuit.
“Progesterone therapy offers these women hope and their babies a second chance at life,” the appeal explains. “No one knows this better than Atoria Foley and Desirae Exendine, California mothers who immediately regretted taking mifepristone and frantically sought an alternative to completing their chemical abortions. After searching for terms like ‘abortion pill reversal,’ Atoria and Desirae were connected with a NIFLA-member pregnancy center with an OBGYN on staff who ran diagnostics, obtained informed consent, and proscribed progesterone treatment for free. The treatment worked: Atoria gave birth to a healthy daughter, and Desirae to a healthy son.”
Bonta has alleged that the pro-life organizations violated the Unfair Competition statute, targeting language—which the pro-life groups say is scientifically verified—which included:
- Use of the term reverse or reversal.
- “We are here to help. It may not be too late.”
- Saying that “APR has been shown to increase the chances of allowing the pregnancy to continue” and that studies have shown a 64-68% success rate.
- Saying that the reversal procedure has likely saved over 6,000 lives.
In response to Bonta’s lawsuit against Heartbeat International and RealOptions, NIFLA and SCV Pregnancy Center have had to refrain from making statements about the abortion reversal option.
ADF contends that Bonta engaged in content- and viewpoint-based discrimination by censoring pro-life pregnancy centers—with no substantial evidence that their advertising is misleading—simply because he disagrees with their viewpoint, and is selectively enforcing the law to combat pro-life pregnancy centers.
ADF also argues that the pregnancy centers’ publishing of information on abortion reversal procedures is rooted in their Christian beliefs, and that Bonta’s actions burden their free exercise of religion.
Photo: Courtesy of Alliance Defending Freedom