A California deputy attorney general questioned two religious organizations’ witness about his credentials and his analysis of studies on abortion pill reversal.<\/p>\n
OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) \u2014 A lawyer for the state of California faced off against a statistician testifying on behalf of two anti-abortion organizations Tuesday, attempting to poke holes in his position that abortion pill reversal treatment is safe and effective.<\/p>\n
At a bench trial,<\/a> now in its fourth week\u00a0at Alameda County Superior Court in Oakland, Dr. Michael New, an associate professor in the business department at Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., told the court his findings based on a statistical analysis of several studies. Abortion pill reversal treatment, he testified, has a high probability of continuing a pregnancy without major consequences.<\/p>\n \u201cAPR does increase embryo survival rates, it does improve survival rates that are clearly significant,\u201d he said under questioning by defendant\u2019s attorney Peter Breen of the Thomas More Society, a conservative law firm.<\/p>\n Abortion pill reversal treatment is a pharmaceutical regimen not approved by the Food and Drug Administration, which requires dispensing a large dose of progesterone after the first mifepristone pill in a medication abortion is administered.<\/p>\n Two religious organizations, Heartbeat International and RealOptions Inc., provide access to abortion pill reversal protocol, but California says their portrayal of the treatment as safe and effective is\u00a0false and misleading.<\/a><\/p>\n California Deputy Attorney General Gillian Hannahs questioned New\u2019s testimony and expertise Tuesday, bringing up how he didn\u2019t receive tenure at a few of his former college employers, including the University of Michigan-Dearborn and the University of Alabama. She pointed to faulty research as the reason for at least one denial.<\/p>\n When asked by Hannahs about possible adverse side effects of abortion pill reversal, including heavy bleeding, New said his analysis showed the treatment didn\u2019t pose a serious health risk to pregnant people, though he admitted the sample size wasn\u2019t large enough to do a more thorough analysis.<\/p>\n Hannahs pushed back, noting he didn\u2019t use Heartbeat\u2019s own data to form his opinion, which relied on calls made to hotlines about abortion pill reversal. New said \u201cpregnancy centers aren\u2019t research institutions\u201d and often people called in without follow up, ultimately conceding that using Heartbeat\u2019s data was \u201cproblematic.\u201d<\/p>\n California is asking the court to stop the false and misleading statements by the two groups and impose a penalty of up to $2,500 per violation against each group, which equals approximately $20 million for Heartbeat International and more than $600,000 for RealOptions. The state accuses the organizations of violating California\u2019s False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law.<\/p>\n A small percentage of people \u2014 about .004% \u2014 may reconsider their decision to have an abortion in the middle of a medically induced procedure. Those people likely would experience emotional turmoil, be anxious and not know what choices they have. They deserve accurate information, the state said.<\/p>\n Heartbeat International and RealOptions say abortion pill reversal is a valid option. A website<\/a> for RealOptions has a part of its site dedicated to the procedure.<\/p>\n Currently in California, crisis pregnancy centers \u2014 like the ones operated by RealOptions \u2014 outnumber abortion provider facilities. Crisis pregnancy centers don\u2019t provide abortions or refer people to them. They also have no comprehensive reproductive healthcare.<\/p>\n