(The Lion) — Alliance Defending Freedom opposed the censorship of the terms “abortion pill reversal” and “progesterone” in oral arguments Thursday before an appeals court, arguing pregnancy centers’ speech is protected under the First Amendment.

“This really shouldn’t be a pro-life versus pro-choice issue,” ADF Senior Counsel Caleb Dalton told The Lion in an interview. “This is a pro-woman and pro-baby issue. If you believe in the pro-choice ethic, you should also support the right of women to hear about this option if they regret their abortion, if they were coerced into abortion.

“Women should have that option to have that treatment, to know about it, to talk with their doctor and see if it works for them.”

ADF’s federal lawsuit comes after California Attorney General Rob Bonta, in a separate action, sued Heartbeat International and RealOptions Obria in state court in September of 2023.

Heartbeat International is a global nonprofit that supports pregnancy care centers and other pro-life agencies, while Obria is a network of medical clinics.

Bonta claims the term “abortion pill reversal” is misleading.

“It’s not misleading,” Dalton says, citing how progesterone has saved “thousands of babies’ lives.”

“It’s actually correct information; that’s the type of information women are looking for – the type of information they have the right to access – and the First Amendment prohibits the attorney general from censoring that information.”

ADF filed a lawsuit against Bonta in federal court to protect additional pregnancy care centers affected by Bonta’s censorship, Dalton said. The case claims censoring the online or medical use of the term “abortion pill reversal” violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

A federal judge denied ADF’s request for an injunction blocking the state’s censorship, and ADF appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, based in California, where Dalton argued Thursday.

ADF represents the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates and two women who used abortion pill reversal (APR). Dalton says California cannot legally “restrict the practice of abortion pill reversal because it’s a lawful life-saving practice.”

Dalton explains how abortion pill reversal involves “supplemental progesterone” to a pregnant woman to “override the blockage mifepristone causes.”

A woman’s body naturally produces the hormone progesterone to sustain a pregnancy, and it “has been used for decades to prevent miscarriage and preterm labor,” according to ADF’s press release.

“This Court should not sanction the censorship of a life-saving term that many women use to find the very therapy about which the Centers desire to give information,” the ADF appellate brief argues.

The first pill of a chemical abortion – mifepristone – blocks the body’s production of progesterone, which in turn starves the developing baby in utero, according to Human Life Alliance.

Administering progesterone to a woman within 72 hours of her taking mifepristone has shown to have a 64-65% success rate and has saved more than 6,000 unborn lives, according to the press release.

“And all the centers here want to do is tell women, ‘Hey, this could be an option. You can go talk with your doctor about it and see if it works,’” Dalton tells The Lion.

“We’re thankful to represent several women who have gone through that process, and their babies are here with us today because of it. And we think all women should be able to hear about that option and make that same choice.”

The two women Dalton represented both googled “abortion pill reversal,” or similar phrases, and eventually found Alternatives Pregnancy Center. The center prescribed progesterone, and both women carried their pregnancies to term and delivered healthy babies.

“If I hadn’t heard about abortion pill reversal, I firmly believe my baby girl would not be alive today,” said Atoria Foley, who took progesterone twice to save her baby girl after taking mifepristone two separate times. “I believe it’s crucial for women to know about the option of abortion pill reversal. Although it is not guaranteed to work (like any medical treatment), they should have the choice to try.”

The two women brought those children – a 2-year-old girl and a 3-month-old son – to the oral arguments as testimonies, Dalton said.

Dalton said the judges at Thursday’s oral arguments “asked probing questions,” but ADF is confident in its argument.

“The Attorney General is censoring the Centers’ progesterone therapy advocacy based on content and viewpoint. Such speech restrictions are ‘presumptively unconstitutional,’” the appellate brief says.

Dalton said the average time for the release of a ruling is six to 12 months, but the court could issue a decision earlier.

In New York, Attorney General Letitia James is also attempting to censor speech regarding APR, and ADF has filed a separate federal lawsuit to protect pregnancy centers there. Dalton said the case differs from California because the New York judge did issue a preliminary injunction to permit centers to discuss APR and progesterone options while the case is ongoing.

“The federal judge enjoined the attorney general there and said that she cannot restrict that speech while the case proceeds,” Dalton told The Lion. “But right now, in New York, the centers are allowed to tell women about this option, whereas in California, the judge initially denied the injunction so that censorship is ongoing until we get a favorable ruling from [appellate] court.”

Dalton said the First Amendment protects Americans from the very thing the California attorney general is attempting – targeting specific beliefs under the guise of “consumer protection laws.”

“The First Amendment is designed to protect speech that the government wants to restrict, and that’s exactly what’s happening,” he says.

“California is censoring pro-life pregnancy centers, simply because they tell women about this option, an option they should have the right to hear about, and an option that’s a completely lawful practice to conduct.”