Heartbeat International

California is challenging the safety and effectiveness of abortion pill reversal treatment in a legal case against two anti-abortion organizations. A statistician testifying for the organizations claims the treatment is safe and effective, but California's lawyer questions his methodology and expertise. The state alleges the organizations violate California's False Advertising Law and Unfair Competition Law by misrepresenting the treatment.

California is challenging claims by Heartbeat International and RealOptions Inc. that a progesterone-based treatment can reverse the effects of the abortion drug mifepristone. A trial in Alameda County Superior Court heard testimony from Dr. Mitchell Creinin, who stated there is no scientific evidence supporting the safety or efficacy of the abortion pill reversal protocol. The state seeks to stop the organizations from making false claims and impose fines.

The U.S. Supreme Court allowed telehealth access to abortion medication mifepristone to continue under current FDA rules while the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decides the case Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, with Thomas citing the Comstock Act as a legal basis to challenge the FDA's rule. Abortion-rights advocates welcomed the decision, while opponents criticized it as endangering patients.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that telehealth access to abortion medication mifepristone can continue under current FDA rules until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decides the case Louisiana v. Food and Drug Administration. Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented, citing the Comstock Act and concerns about irreparable harm. The decision follows a 10-day stay issued after Louisiana officials challenged the FDA's telehealth access rule.