Oakland, CA - In People v. Heartbeat International, the California Attorney General put forward Dr. Mitchell Creinin as its lead expert to argue that Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) is dangerous and unproven. Creinin is a UC Davis OB-GYN, a founding member of the Society of Family Planning, and a self-described abortion researcher who has admitted in court to performing more than 5,000 abortions. His 2020 UC Davis study—which was halted early, never completed, and since used to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of APR—serves as the scientific backbone of the AG’s complaint.

Under cross-examination by Thomas More Society Special Counsel Paul M. Jonna, Creinin’s testimony raised serious questions about the reliability of that study and the case built around it. Among the key admissions:

He privately called his study “pseudo-blinded,” not double-blind: Internal UC Davis emails discovered by TMS attorneys show that Creinin was warned repeatedly that a matching placebo could not be produced—the pharmacist wrote it would “look absolutely nothing like the active.” Creinin privately acknowledged this, writing to his team: “Guess this is pseudo-blinded.” He published the study as double-blind and testified in court that blinding was never a concern.

His own private estimate on pregnancy continuation after mifepristone-without-misoprostol undermines his central theory: Creinin argues that continuing pregnancies in APR data may simply be pregnancies that survived mifepristone on their own, since misoprostol (the second pill in a chemical abortion) was never ingested. But he privately calculated that the continuing pregnancy rate after mifepristone alone is “most likely just 8 percent”—then kept that figure out of his published article, noting he would “prefer not to bring it up.” Real-world APR data shows a much higher percentage of pregnancies continuing after progesterone treatment, suggesting efficacious treatment.

The only “severe hemorrhage” in the APR group wasn’t: According to medical records uncovered by TMS attorneys, the only patient in the progesterone group characterized as having “severe hemorrhage” was never diagnosed with hemorrhage by the hospital, presented with “vaginal bleeding minor,” and needed no transfusion or intervention. If the characterization doesn’t hold, the study’s own data shows zero hemorrhages in the APR group, contrary to the study’s initial findings.

He confirmed APR does not cause birth defects: The AG’s complaint calls it “misleading” to tell women the birth defect rate after APR is comparable to the general population. Under oath, Creinin confirmed there is no evidence any component of APR causes birth defects. His own consent form told participants the same thing.

He can’t back up the AG’s claim that chemical abortion is “safer than Tylenol”: The AG’s complaint asserts chemical abortion is “safer than penicillin, Viagra and even some over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol.”Creinin couldn’t agree to that claim under oath.

At the close of cross-examination, Creinin was asked directly whether he could swear under oath that APR does not work. His answer: “No.” Asked whether he could swear it is unsafe, he answered: “Qualified, no.”

The trial in People v. Heartbeat International is ongoing before Judge Patrick McKinney of the Alameda County Superior Court. Thomas More Society attorneys are serving as lead counsel for the defendants, Heartbeat International and RealOptions.

Full article on revelations from the cross-examination of Dr. Mitchell Creinin is available at https://www.thomasmoresociety.org/news/10-moments-californias-case-against-abortion-pill-reversal-collapsed--during-its-own-abortion-experts-testimony.