California Attorney General Rob Bonta failed to meet his burden on every element of the case he brought against Heartbeat International and RealOptions Medical Clinics, according to attorneys for the defendants, contradicting the AG’s claim of being a champion of women’s right to choose. Further, Heartbeat leadership notes, Bonta’s efforts, if successful, would negatively impact women and the pregnancy centers that serve them the most.
Thomas More Society, representing the two pregnancy help organizations, filed its closing trial brief in The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & RealOptions Aug. 27, arguing that Heartbeat and its affiliate RealOptions’ communications about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) are not commercial speech, the science backs up APR, and Bonta’s lawsuit is unconstitutional.
Bonta sued Heartbeat, the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the U.S. and globally, which manages the Abortion Pill Rescue Network, and RealOptions, a network of faith-based medical clinic that provides both men’s and women’s health services through four licensed medical clinics in the San Francisco Bay Area, in 2023 over their communications about APR. The California AG seeks some $20 Million in damages and to bar the two pregnancy help non-profits from making certain statements about the safety and efficacy of the Abortion Pill Reversal protocol.
“He did not prove Defendants’ speech is commercial,” Thomas More Society said of Bonta in a statement, “did not prove any challenged statement is false or misleading, and did not identify a single woman harmed by APR, a protocol which remains legal in California and is approved for continuing education by the California Board of Registered Nursing.”
The Supreme Court has recognized that the First Amendment's protections extend to individual and collective speech, which have more protection under the First Amendment, according to Congress.gov. Additionally, the government website says, commercial speech “proposes a commercial transaction or relates solely to the speaker's and the audience's economic interests” and has less First Amendment protection.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
After the six-week APR trial, Thomas More Society says the trial record shows no evidence any woman was harmed by APR and strong scientific support for APR.
“This case was built on a discredited study and a testifying expert who couldn't bring himself to say under oath that Abortion Pill Reversal is unsafe or ineffective,” said Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “What the record shows instead is an Attorney General’s office that set out after Dobbs to punish pro-life pregnancy centers for the content of their speech and the viewpoints they hold.”
“The Constitution does not allow the government to silence charities for offering women free, religiously motivated information about a legal, safe medical option,” Breen said.
Tweet This: The record shows the Calif. AG's office set out after Dobbs to punish pregnancy centers for their speech and the viewpoints they hold.
His colleague on the defense legal team concurred, also noting how the AG’s case falls short and conflicts with a women’s right to choose.
“After six weeks in trial, and three years of investigation, the Attorney General never produced a single woman harmed or deceived by Abortion Pill Reversal — not one,” said Paul Jonna, special counsel at Thomas More Society. “He also can’t get around a basic fact: these charities give APR information away for free, and California’s advertising laws only reach speech that sells something.”
“The evidence showed more than a thousand California women chose APR — a legal treatment — and the women who testified were grateful someone told them it existed,” Jonna said. “California protects a woman’s right to continue her pregnancy just as fully as her right to end one. That’s the irony: an Attorney General who claims to champion the right to choose spent three years attacking a reproductive choice women make in consultation with their doctors but that he disagrees with.”
“If he wins, he won’t have protected anyone,” Jonna added. “He’ll have made sure the next woman who changes her mind never finds out she has options.”
Jor-El Godsey, president of Heartbeat International, pointed out as well that it would be women who would be most harmed should Bonta prevail in his lawsuit.
“The California Attorney General is seeking a punishment intended to bully Heartbeat out of existence, but the greatest cost would be borne by the women and pregnancy centers we serve,” Godsey said.
“When a woman changes her mind after beginning a chemical abortion, she deserves immediate answers, compassionate care, and the freedom to fight for her child,” he said. “Our network will not abandon her nor fail to offer hope for her and her baby.”
Danielle White, general counsel for Heartbeat, commented about the specter of the government silencing a non-profit’s speech and thwarting life-affirming service to women.
“What the Attorney General seeks here is extraordinary,” White said. “Not a single woman has come forward claiming harm from Abortion Pill Reversal, and multiple mothers have testified under oath about their gratitude for the treatment. Yet the Attorney General asks this court to silence our truthful, non-misleading speech about a lifesaving option.”
“Such a ruling would mark the first time in California history that a court punished a nonprofit (offering free help) under state consumer protection laws,” she said.
“No woman should lose access to help simply because the government would rather she complete an abortion she doesn’t want,” said White. “Heartbeat will continue to defend our right to serve pregnancy centers, speak truthfully about Abortion Pill Reversal, and stand beside every woman who chooses to continue her pregnancy.”
Thomas More Society said its closing trial brief backs up the defendants’ arguments with extensive evidence, specifically:
- Heartbeat and RealOptions’ APR communications not meeting the criteria of “commercial speech” - Heartbeat International and RealOptions give this information away for free — they don’t sell anything — and their reason for doing it is religious and charitable, not financial. California’s advertising laws only apply to speech tied to selling a product or service.
- The science backs up APR - Multiple published studies, plus Heartbeat’s and RealOptions’ own patient outcome data, show women who use progesterone after taking the abortion pill are significantly more likely to continue their pregnancies than those who don’t.
- Bonta’s lawsuit itself is unconstitutional - The brief argues the state is punishing these organizations for their religious beliefs and viewpoint, violating their free speech and free exercise rights, and interfering with California’s own law protecting a woman’s right to continue a pregnancy.
Closing arguments are scheduled for September 17 and following that the judge will have 90 days under California law to issue a decision.
Defendants’ closing trial brief in the case is available HERE.
An open letter in support of the Abortion Pill Rescue Network is available HERE.
Additional case resources are listed below.
Thomas More Society Case Details & Documents
State of California’s Complaint against Heartbeat International & RealOptions
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages the Abortion Pill Rescue® Network (APRN) and Pregnancy Help News. Heartbeat is currently the subject of two lawsuits brought by state attorneys general concerning sharing information about Abortion Pill Reversal.
