Heartbeat International Defends Abortion Pill Reversal in California

The case filed by California Attorney General seeks $20 million in fines.

Last month, the final evidence was presented in a civil lawsuit that the State of California brought against Heartbeat International for its promotion of Abortion Pill Reversal (APR).

Photo by Holly Santos / Unsplash+

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is seeking nearly $20 million in penalties and an injunction against the pro-life ministry. The trial began on June 24 and the evidence stage wrapped up July 30.

The lawsuit alleges that Heartbeat International and RealOptions Obria, a network of five pregnancy clinics, use “fraudulent and misleading claims to advertise” APR in violation of California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.

Bonta argues that APR is “an unproven and largely experimental procedure.”

APR is used to try to reverse a chemically-induced abortion, which involves two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol.

In the reversal process, a medical provider prescribes bioidentical progesterone to outnumber and outcompete the mifepristone in order to reverse the effects.

According to Heartbeat’s president Jor-El Godsey, the reversal process was pioneered by Dr. Matthew Harrison and Dr. George Delgado.

Godsey said 75% of the women who contact APR Network do so within 24 hours of taking the first dose. And if doctors are able to intervene within 72 hours of the first pill, women have the best chance of success — between 64% and 68% — Godsey told MinistryWatch in 2022.

Access to MinistryWatch content is free. However, we hope you will support our work with your prayers and financial gifts. To make a donation, click here.

Heartbeat International believes that, under the First Amendment, it has the right to speak to women who want to hear about the available option to reverse chemical abortion drugs.

According to attorneys with the Thomas More Society, which is representing Heartbeat International and RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics, the California Attorney General “failed to prove his case.”

“For years, the California Attorney General has sought to silence pregnancy help ministries for telling women a simple truth: a woman who regrets taking the abortion pill may still have a chance to save her pregnancy,” said attorney Peter Breen. “This trial was Rob Bonta’s chance to prove his claims that APR is ‘unsafe’ and ‘ineffective.’ Bonta couldn’t find a single victim to put on the stand, and his own witnesses refused to endorse those claims.”

California’s lead expert Dr. Mitchell Creinin was supposed to provide testimony supporting the State’s claim that APR is dangerous and unproven.

However, Thomas More Society lawyers, on cross-examination, questioned Creinin’s 2020 study of APR, which was stopped early. The study results were published as though it were a double-blind placebo study when it was not, the Thomas More Society said.

Attorney Paul Jonna asked Creinin if he could swear under oath that APR doesn’t work or that it is unsafe. He could do neither.

Nor did Creinin review the Heartbeat dataset including over 8,800 cases of APR.

“What the Attorney General is really attacking is free, truthful information that women asked for, and every word of it is protected by the First Amendment. The truth is a complete defense, and we expect our clients to be fully vindicated,” Jonna said.

Bonta also issued a statement at the end of the evidence, expressing confidence in the state’s case.

“Every Californian deserves truthful, accurate information when making deeply personal healthcare decisions,” he said. “Our lawsuit alleges that Heartbeat International and RealOptions promoted APR despite knowing that there is no scientific evidence that shows it is effective or safe. After several weeks of testimony, we remain confident in the strength of our case and look forward to the court’s decision. We will continue holding accountable those who undermine reproductive freedom, including by spreading dangerous, baseless claims.”

By August 27, both sides must file their post-trial briefs, summarizing the evidence and why the law supports their position.

On September 17, the court will hear the parties’ closing arguments.

The decision should be issued by December 16, 2026.

TO OUR READERS: The mission of MinistryWatch is to help Christian donors become more faithful stewards of the resources God has entrusted to them. Do you know of a story that will help us fulfill our mission, or do you want to give us feedback about this or any other story? If so, please email us at [email protected].