Pregnancy Help Groups Defend Right to Share Abortion Pill Reversal Information

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

Heartbeat International, the largest network of pregnancy help organizations in the U.S. and globally, is defending its right to provide information about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) in two court cases - one in New York and one in California. The cases aim to block Heartbeat and pregnancy centers from sharing details about APR, a protocol that uses progesterone to counteract the effects of the first abortion pill. Heartbeat argues these lawsuits are unconstitutional attempts to silence protected speech about a treatment that has saved over 8,000 lives.

Why it matters

These cases present a significant opportunity to affirm the right of pregnancy help organizations to share truthful, life-affirming information with women, especially as more abortions are being done through telehealth and mail-order abortion pills, often leaving women without immediate, in-person support when they experience regret about their decision.

The details

In the New York case, Heartbeat and a dozen pregnancy centers represented by the Thomas More Society asked the judge to dismiss what they contend is an unconstitutional attempt by the state's Attorney General to silence their protected speech about APR. The judge indicated his decision could hinge on whether the state's anti-SLAPP statute, which protects against meritless lawsuits intended to silence free speech, applies in this situation. In the California case, Heartbeat and the RealOptions Obria clinic are seeking summary judgment to resolve the case without a trial, after the state's Attorney General sued to block them from 'advertising Abortion Pill Reversal as safe and effective'.

• On April 15, Heartbeat defended APR in New York in James v. Heartbeat International, et al.
• A hearing in the California case, People v. Heartbeat International, et al., was originally scheduled for April 15 but has been continued to April 29.
• The New York judge intends to issue a written opinion after May 20.

What they’re saying

What’s next

The judge in the New York case has asked both sides to submit additional briefing on how the Supreme Court's recent decision in Chiles v. Salazar should be applied. The judge intends to issue a written opinion after May 20. In the California case, a hearing on Heartbeat and RealOptions' request for summary judgment has been continued to April 29.