Attorneys from the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) appeared before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit on Thursday in the case of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Bonta, arguing that California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s legal actions against pro-life pregnancy centers violate their First Amendment right to free speech.
The appeal seeks to overturn a lower court’s decision that denied a preliminary injunction against the state’s efforts to restrict the centers’ ability to advertise and provide information about “abortion pill reversal” (APR). The procedure involves administering supplemental progesterone to a woman after she has taken mifepristone, the first drug in the two-step chemical abortion regimen. READ: ADF Mulls Legal Action Against Seattle After Violence Breaks Out At Christian Rally
The Heart of the Dispute: Censorship vs. Informed Choice
ADF attorneys, representing NIFLA and the SCV Pregnancy Center, contend that AG Bonta is attempting to censor “scientifically backed speech” regarding a “lawful, life-saving treatment.” ADF Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton, who argued before the court, emphasized the importance of access to information for medical decisions.
“Every woman should have the option to reconsider going through with a chemical abortion, and the pro-life pregnancy centers we represent truthfully inform women about that choice,” Dalton stated. “We will urge the court to affirm the pregnancy centers’ freedom to tell the public about this lawful, life-saving treatment and end the attorney general’s censorship.”
The centers maintain that APR, which uses the natural hormone progesterone, offers women who regret starting a chemical abortion a second chance to continue their pregnancies, provided they seek treatment within a 72-hour window. Supporters cite data suggesting the treatment has a 64-68% success rate in one study and has saved over 6,000 unborn lives.
AG Bonta’s Legal Challenge
The legal battle stems from a September 2023 lawsuit filed by Attorney General Bonta against Heartbeat International and RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics, accusing the organizations of using “fraudulent and misleading claims” to market an “unproven and potentially harmful” procedure.
Bonta’s office argues that the claims of APR’s safety and effectiveness are not supported by credible scientific evidence and that the advertising violates California’s consumer protection laws. The state’s position suggests that advertising an unproven medical procedure endangers vulnerable patients and taints the informed consent process.
The Ninth Circuit hearing focused heavily on whether the pregnancy centers’ communications about APR should be categorized as commercial speech, which receives less First Amendment protection and can be regulated if it is false or misleading. Attorneys for the centers argued their speech is not commercial, as the services and treatment—often including free or insured progesterone therapy—are offered at no out-of-pocket cost to the women. READ: FDA Approves Generic Mifepristone Tablet, Expanding Access To Abortion Pill
Impact and Next Steps
The outcome of the appeal in NIFLA v. Bonta could have significant implications for the nationwide network of pro-life pregnancy centers and their communication practices, particularly in states where chemical abortion is widely accessible.
The case is one of the first federal court challenges regarding the regulation of speech about abortion pill reversal treatment since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade in 2022.
READ :VP Vance: Illinois Gov. Pritzker ‘Should Suffer Some Consequences’ Amid ‘Jail’ Calls
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox.
