California Wraps Six Weeks of Testimony in Case Seeking $20 Million From Pregnancy Centers Over 'Abortion Pill Reversal' Claims

Six Weeks, No Verdict Yet

A bench trial in Alameda County Superior Court wrapped its evidentiary phase this week, capping six weeks of testimony over whether two anti-abortion organizations broke California law by promoting a procedure called "abortion pill reversal."

Attorney General Rob Bonta's office sued Heartbeat International and RealOptions, a five-clinic chain of crisis pregnancy centers in Northern California, in September 2023. The lawsuit, filed under California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law, claims the groups advertised abortion pill reversal, or APR, as a safe and effective way to stop a medication abortion after a woman takes mifepristone but before she takes the second drug, misoprostol.

Bonta said in a statement issued Thursday, July 30, that the evidence presented over six weeks showed APR claims are "unsupported by scientific evidence." He said his office remains confident the court will rule for the state, though no decision has been issued. "We will continue holding accountable those who undermine reproductive freedom, including by spreading dangerous, baseless claims," Bonta said.

What the State Is Asking For

California wants the court to bar Heartbeat International and RealOptions from making further claims about APR's safety and effectiveness. The state is also seeking civil penalties of up to $2,500 per violation, which its own filings put at roughly $20 million for Heartbeat International and more than $600,000 for RealOptions, according to Courthouse News Service.

The state's theory, laid out by Deputy Attorney General Gillian Hannahs during testimony, is straightforward: APR is not FDA-approved, has not been tested in a randomized controlled trial, and the groups didn't adequately warn women about risks like severe bleeding when promoting it.

The Defense's Expert and His Concessions

The defense called Dr. Michael New, an associate professor in the business department at Catholic University of America, to testify that his statistical analysis of existing studies showed APR "does increase embryo survival rates" and does so "clearly significantly," according to Courthouse News. New's testimony came under questioning from defense attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, the conservative legal group representing Heartbeat International.

Under cross-examination, New made concessions that matter. He acknowledged his sample size wasn't large enough to fully analyze whether APR carries serious health risks. He also admitted that relying on Heartbeat International's own hotline call data, rather than the state's independent sourcing, was "problematic," telling the court "pregnancy centers aren't research institutions" and that many callers never followed up. Hannahs also raised, during cross-examination, that New had been denied tenure at prior institutions, including the University of Michigan-Dearborn and the University of Alabama, and pointed to flawed research as a factor in at least one of those denials, according to Courthouse News.

A statistician's data limitations and tenure history are factors in a bench trial. The state used both to try to undercut his conclusions.

The Other Side of the Ledger

The defense pushed back with its own critique. Thomas More Society attorney Joe Barnas criticized the state's expert witness, pointing out the doctor had performed more than 5,000 abortions over his career. "These are not the views of a disinterested scientist," Barnas said, arguing the expert's background "place the AG's expert squarely within an ideological tradition that has long advocated population control in developing nations through expanded abortion access," according to the New York Post.

That's a pointed allegation about bias, not a proven fact, and no court has ruled on whether the state's expert's background undermines his findings. Both sides in this case have experts with clear points of view. Neither side has a truly neutral witness.

According to the state's own filing, only a small fraction of women who start a medication abortion reconsider partway through. The state's court filings put that figure around 0.004%. Both sides agree those women exist and face a decision with limited medical guidance either way. The dispute isn't over whether they deserve accurate information. It's over what "accurate" means when the underlying science is contested.

What Happens Next

Heartbeat International, in a statement, said "no woman should ever be forced to complete an abortion she no longer wants" and continued defending its work, according to the New York Post, which also cited the case of Elizabeth Barrett, a Southern California woman who says she used the Abortion Pill Reversal Network after regretting her abortion pill and later gave birth.

There is no FDA approval for APR, and no large-scale randomized controlled trial establishing its safety or efficacy, a point neither side in this case disputes. What remains unresolved is whether Judge Charles Smiley in Alameda County Superior Court sides with the state that the absence of such evidence makes the marketing illegal, or with the defense that existing observational data justifies telling women the option exists. A ruling has not been scheduled as of July 31, 2026.