Lawyers Charge Attorney General With Silencing Pro-Life Voices

Legal Battle Over Abortion Pill Reversal Information

A legal battle is unfolding in the United States over the right of pro-life pregnancy centers to inform women about a medical treatment known as Abortion Pill Reversal (APR). The Thomas More Society, a national not-for-profit law firm, is representing Culture of Life Family Services, a pro-life clinic based in San Diego County. This case centers on the clinic’s efforts to share information about APR with patients, despite opposition from California’s Attorney General, Rob Bonta.

In July 2024, Culture of Life Family Services filed a Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, seeking permission to provide information about APR to its patients. However, almost a year later, a U.S. district court denied the clinic’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The decision has now been appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which is based in San Francisco.

The Thomas More Society argues that Bonta’s actions violate the First Amendment by restricting speech based on content and viewpoint. According to a press release, the lawyers claim that Bonta’s censorship also infringes on patients’ rights to have their babies. They emphasize that APR is a treatment designed for women who have already begun the two-pill abortion process by taking the first pill, mifepristone. The treatment involves using progesterone to counteract the effects of mifepristone, potentially allowing pregnant women to continue their pregnancies and give birth.

The success rate of APR is reported to be approximately 64% to 68%, according to the Thomas More Society and the Abortion Pill Rescue Network. Despite this, Bonta has taken steps to prevent pro-life pregnancy centers from sharing this information with patients. The Thomas More Society claims that there is no evidence of consumer complaints or patient harm related to APR.

Peter Breen, executive vice president and head of litigation at Thomas More Society, criticized Bonta for targeting pro-life pregnancy centers and their speech. He stated that these centers aim to inform women in crisis about APR, while Bonta is allegedly prioritizing the interests of his campaign donors over public health. Breen argued that Bonta’s actions could put women and their babies at risk by silencing pro-life voices.

Bonta has a history of promoting pro-abortion policies, according to Katie Clancy, a spokeswoman for the Thomas More Society. For example, he established the Reproductive Justice Unit within the state Department of Justice and a statewide Reproductive Rights Taskforce to coordinate the unit's work with sympathetic local councils across California.

The legal challenge highlights broader concerns about the regulation of medical information and the rights of healthcare providers. Breen emphasized that if Bonta’s directive is upheld, it could threaten the lives of hundreds, if not thousands, of babies whose mothers regret starting a chemical abortion. He stressed that these mothers and babies deserve access to the potentially life-saving APR protocol.

As the case moves forward, the outcome could have significant implications for the rights of pro-life organizations and the availability of medical information for women facing difficult decisions. The Thomas More Society remains committed to fighting for the rights of these centers and the patients they serve, advocating for the protection of free speech and the right to make informed choices.