In the brief, Liberty Counsel noted the context makes clear that AG Bonta rejects pro-life speech related to saving unborn children and conveys a message that because most women allegedly do not regret their abortions, then none of his constituents should have the choice to reverse an abortion, wrote Liberty Counsel.
AG Bonta supports women having the choice to seek a chemical abortion, yet wants to prohibit the same women having the knowledge of the choice to potentially reverse the abortion with progesterone.
“That unconstitutional dichotomy is plainly viewpoint discrimination and violates the First Amendment,” wrote Liberty Counsel.
Liberty Counsel also stated that APR-related speech is not based on commerce, and to classify it as both “commercial” and “false or misleading” contradicts 80 years of commercial speech precedent.
Notably, when the district court allowed AG Bonta’s censorship to stand, it not only treaded over First Amendment protections, but essentially outlaws off-label pharmaceutical use. While the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved progesterone about 50 years ago to help maintain healthy pregnancies, prevent miscarriages, and for other uses, the district court took issue with this approval because there are not many studies assessing progesterone’s safety for use in APR. Despite decades of safe progesterone use, the district court deemed it unsafe for APR.
However, as Liberty Counsel explains, the FDA does not need to approve progesterone for every conceivable use, and healthcare providers can generally prescribe the drug for an unapproved use when they judge that it is medically appropriate for their patient.