Whether or not making false claims is covered by the First Amendment was one of the topics of contention argued in District Court in California on February 7, 2025. Also discussed was if one of the sides had the right to be part of the discussion at all.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta (represented by Erica Connolly) and Culture of Life Family Services Inc. (COLFS), a Catholic clinic based in California (represented by Paul Jonna) recently argued their respective cases in federal court in California.
At stake is a block against Bonta from using the state’s Unfair Competition or False Advertising Law against Heartbeat International (HBI), an anti-abortion trade group promoting a chemical abortion reversal method. The state contends that COLFS shouldn't be involved in the litigation at all.
How a Chemical Abortion Works
The chemical method for facilitating an abortion follows a two-step procedure. The patient first takes a mifepristone pill, which stops the pregnancy growth by blocking progesterone and allowing the blastocyst, embryo, or zygote to detach from the uterine wall. This is followed 24-48 hours later by a dose of misoprostol. The second pill causes the uterus to contract, the cervix to dilate, and the pregnancy to be terminated.
Anti-abortion advocates have touted an alleged reversal method from Dr. George Delgado, who is the medical director at HBI. It calls for giving a patient the hormone progesterone after they've taken the mifepristone pill but before receiving misoprostol. Claims of both the safety and efficacy of this procedure led to the attorney general's filing against HBI.
Disputed Science or Misleading Claims?
On September 21, 2023, Bonta filed a civil suit against HBI on behalf of California. It alleged that HBI was guilty of making false and misleading advertisements about the "abortion pill reversal" (APR) process attributed to Dr. Delgado.
The suit lists eight separate allegations accusing HBI of making claims that lacked proof. These included unsubstantiated claims, exaggerated success rates, and misinformation about the dangers involved with the process, such as stating there were no life-threatening side effects.
Ideally, medical procedures undergo rigorous testing that includes large sample sizes along with double-blind and randomized controlled studies. APR lacks this sort of research and relies on mostly anecdotal numbers to support its claims of efficiency and safety. In 2020, a study intended to evaluate APR in a controlled setting before an institutional review board was ended early due to safety concerns. Dr. Mitchell Creinin, who led the study, noted that patients "in early pregnancy who use only mifepristone may be at high risk of significant hemorrhage." Due to ethical considerations, Dr. Delagdo has never used a control group in his own research, meaning there isn't clear evidence that progesterone helped reverse mifepristone, or whether simply failing to take the second scheduled medication led to continued pregnancies. Dr. Creinin said in an interview that "‘Yes, there is a possibility it works. Is there any evidence that it works? None.”
Filings Galore
California's suit against HBI isn't about determining whether or not APR is a legitimate medical procedure. The claims against HBI were for falsely advertising what the process could and couldn't do.
To date, the court rulings haven't gone the way that HBI and COLFS had hoped. HBI's demurrers for dismissal of California's action was overruled before they filed a joint answer in July 2024. HBI claimed immunity under California’s Reproductive Privacy Act and protection through the Fourteenth Amendment’s substantive due process protections and the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause and Free Speech Clause.
COLFS threw its hat in the ring with a complaint against the attorney general and a request for a preliminary injunction. The court granted California's motion to dismiss due to lack of standing and denied the injunction. COLFS refiled both an amended complaint and another injunction request. A bench trial is set for November 3, 2025.
Abortion remains a contentious issue and patients have the right to try any medical procedure they wish to. The California Office of the Attorney General is arguing they should know the truth before taking that step.
Related Resources
- What Does an Attorney General Do? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- Abortion Laws: What It Takes To Get an Abortion (FindLaw's Reproductive Rights)
- Unfair Competition (FindLaw's Business Laws and Regulations)
