Oakland, CA - Thomas More Society has filed its closing trial brief on behalf of Heartbeat International and RealOptions in their case against the California Attorney General. Closing arguments are set for September 17, 2026, before the Honorable Patrick McKinney in Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, which is the final step before a ruling in a case that has spanned nearly three years and a six-week bench trial.

The brief argues the Attorney General — who sued the two pro-life nonprofits over their communications about Abortion Pill Reversal (APR) — failed to meet his burden on every element of the case. He did not prove Defendants’ speech is commercial, did not prove any challenged statement is false or misleading, and did not identify a single woman harmed by APR, a protocol which remains legal in California and is approved for continuing education by the California Board of Registered Nursing.

“This case was built on a discredited study and a testifying expert who couldn't bring himself to say under oath that Abortion Pill Reversal is unsafe or ineffective,” said Peter Breen, Executive Vice President and Head of Litigation at Thomas More Society. “What the record shows instead is an Attorney General’s office that set out after Dobbs to punish pro-life pregnancy centers for the content of their speech and the viewpoints they hold. The Constitution does not allow the government to silence charities for offering women free, religiously motivated information about a legal, safe medical option.”

“After six weeks in trial, and three years of investigation, the Attorney General never produced a single woman harmed or deceived by Abortion Pill Reversal — not one,” added Paul M. Jonna, Special Counsel at Thomas More Society and Partner at LiMandri and Jonna LLP. “He also can’t get around a basic fact: these charities give APR information away for free, and California’s advertising laws only reach speech that sells something. The evidence showed more than a thousand California women chose APR — a legal treatment — and the women who testified were grateful someone told them it existed. California protects a woman’s right to continue her pregnancy just as fully as her right to end one. That’s the irony: an Attorney General who claims to champion the right to choose spent three years attacking a reproductive choice women make in consultation with their doctors but that he disagrees with. If he wins, he won’t have protected anyone. He’ll have made sure the next woman who changes her mind never finds out she has options.” 

“The California Attorney General is seeking a punishment intended to bully Heartbeat out of existence, but the greatest cost would be borne by the women and pregnancy centers we serve,” said Jor-El Godsey, President of Heartbeat International. “When a woman changes her mind after beginning a chemical abortion, she deserves immediate answers, compassionate care, and the freedom to fight for her child. Our network will not abandon her nor fail to offer hope for her and her baby.”

“What the Attorney General seeks here is extraordinary. Not a single woman has come forward claiming harm from Abortion Pill Reversal, and multiple mothers have testified under oath about their gratitude for the treatment. Yet the Attorney General asks this court to silence our truthful, non-misleading speech about a lifesaving option. Such a ruling would mark the first time in California history that a court punished a nonprofit (offering free help) under state consumer protection laws,” said Danielle White, General Counsel for Heartbeat International. 

“No woman should lose access to help simply because the government would rather she complete an abortion she doesn’t want. Heartbeat will continue to defend our right to serve pregnancy centers, speak truthfully about Abortion Pill Reversal, and stand beside every woman who chooses to continue her pregnancy.”

The brief backs up those arguments with extensive evidence, including:

• It’s not “commercial speech.” Heartbeat International and RealOptions give this information away for free — they don’t sell anything — and their reason for doing it is religious and charitable, not financial. California’s advertising laws only apply to speech tied to selling a product or service.

• The science backs it up. Multiple published studies, plus Heartbeat’s and RealOptions’ own patient outcome data, show women who use progesterone after taking the abortion pill are significantly more likely to continue their pregnancies than those who don’t.

• The lawsuit itself is unconstitutional. The brief argues the state is punishing these organizations for their religious beliefs and viewpoint, violating their free speech and free exercise rights, and interfering with California’s own law protecting a woman’s right to continue a pregnancy.

Briefing is now complete. Once the case is submitted following the September 17 arguments, the judge will have 90 days under California law to issue a decision.

Read the Defendants’ Closing Trial Brief in The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International and RealOptions here.