Search Articles
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A lawyer for the state of California faced off against a statistician testifying on behalf of two anti-abortion organizations Tuesday, attempting to poke holes in his position that abortion pill reversal treatment is safe and effective.
At a bench trial, now in its fourth week at Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, Dr. Michael New, an associate professor in the business department at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., told the court his findings based on a statistical analysis of several studies. Abortion pill reversal treatment, he testified, has a high probability of continuing a pregnancy without major consequences.
“APR does increase embryo survival rates, it does improve survival rates that are clearly significant,” he said under questioning by defendant’s attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, a conservative law firm.
Abortion pill reversal treatment is a pharmaceutical regimen not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which requires dispensing a large dose of progesterone after the first mifepristone pill in a medication abortion is administered.
Two religious organizations, Heartbeat International and RealOptions Inc., provide access to abortion pill reversal protocol, but California says their portrayal of the treatment as safe and effective is false and misleading.
California Deputy Attorney General Gillian Hannahs questioned New’s testimony and expertise Tuesday, bringing up how he didn’t receive tenure at a few of his former college employers, including the University of Michigan-Dearborn and the University of Alabama. She pointed to faulty research as the reason for at least one denial.
When asked by Hannahs about possible adverse side effects of abortion pill reversal, including heavy bleeding, New said his analysis showed the treatment didn’t pose a serious health risk to pregnant people, though he admitted the sample size wasn’t large enough to do a more thorough analysis.
Hannahs pushed back, noting he didn’t use Heartbeat’s own data to form his opinion, which relied on calls made to hotlines about abortion pill reversal. New said “pregnancy centers aren’t research institutions” and often people called in without follow up, ultimately conceding that using Heartbeat’s data was “problematic.”
California is asking the court to stop the false and misleading statements by the two groups and impose a penalty of up to $2,500 per violation against each group, which equals approximately $20 million for Heartbeat International and more than $600,000 for RealOptions. The state accuses the organizations of violating California’s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.
A small percentage of people — about .004% — may reconsider their decision to have an abortion in the middle of a medically induced procedure. Those people likely would experience emotional turmoil, be anxious and not know what choices they have. They deserve accurate information, the state said.
Heartbeat International and RealOptions say abortion pill reversal is a valid option. A website for RealOptions has a part of its site dedicated to the procedure.
Currently in California, crisis pregnancy centers — like the ones operated by RealOptions — outnumber abortion provider facilities. Crisis pregnancy centers don’t provide abortions or refer people to them. They also have no comprehensive reproductive healthcare.
“They often look like and are located near real healthcare facilities,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a press conference after filing the complaint in 2023.
At the end of the Tuesday’s proceedings, Alameda County Superior Court Judge Patrick McKinney granted Heartbeat International’s motion to quash a subpoena for documents related to communications between Heartbeat International and Dr. George Delgado, one of the first physicians to advocate for and administer the abortion pill reversal treatment. Delgado is scheduled to testify on July 20.
New’s testimony continues Wednesday.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
