In popular culture, the phrase “pro-choice” is typically used to represent a viewpoint in support of abortion access. Unfortunately, we’ve seen the anti-abortion movement use the language of “choice” to fit their own goals, especially when advertising anti-abortion pregnancy centers and the so-called ‘services’ they offer there.   

Anti-abortion pregnancy centers, or “crisis pregnancy centers,” might appear as medical clinics but are the largely unregulated backbone of the anti-abortion movement. They often attract clients by advertising purportedly free services like pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, or baby supplies, but we know their offerings are given with an ulterior motive: to dissuade people from having abortions. Though they might be religious in nature and appear charitable, anti-abortion pregnancy centers actively cause harm by relying on deception and spreading disinformation. Among the most concerning pieces of disinformation they spread is the unproven and unethical theory of “abortion pill reversal,” which is a claim that has been the subject of several recent lawsuits.  

The theory of “abortion pill reversal” alleges that medication abortion can be reversed by flooding the body with progesterone after the first abortion pill has been taken. To date, there are no scientific studies meeting clinical standards that confirm this theory, nor has the procedure received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. “Abortion pill reversal” is considered by women’s and reproductive health organizations to be “unproven,” “unethical,” and “not based in science.” [1] Thus, it is incredibly baffling how “abortion pill reversal” is legally required to be suggested to abortion patients in eight states. [2] 

Arguments in support of “abortion pill reversal” often rest on ideas of so-called abortion regret. In fact, the overwhelming majority of people do not regret their abortions. In a UCSF study, five years after an abortion nearly 95 percent of women surveyed said it was the right decision. [3] To bolster their false suggestions that people are likely to regret their abortions, the anti-abortion movement has been known to vilify abortion providers, claiming they rush or pressure patients into having abortions, or that abortion pills are dangerous, which they are not. [4, 5] Even though most people do not regret having an abortion, “abortion pill reversal” also perpetuates stigma about abortion as shameful or regretful. It is often framed as another reproductive “choice” that should be available to women, or a way for women to empower themselves. But we know the truth: that true empowerment and choice comes from access to accurate, stigma-free medical information, which “abortion pill reversal” certainly is not.   

Sadly, legal efforts to combat the unproven and unethical theory of “abortion pill reversal” have proven to be tricky. Just last year, a federal judge in Colorado temporarily blocked a state law that would have banned “abortion pill reversal,” citing religious freedom concerns. [6] Similarly, lawsuits in New York and California against the fraudulent advertising of “abortion pill reversal” have been met with lawsuits from anti-abortion organizations claiming censorship, religious discrimination, or violations of reproductive privacy rights. [7, 8] This is yet another way for the anti-abortion movement to co-opt our language, falsely play the the victim, and act like they are the real proponents of choice and freedom.  

Though the outcomes of these lawsuits remain to be seen, the reality is that the anti-abortion movement will likely keep pushing the unethical and unproven theory of “abortion pill reversal” as a solution to the rise in medication abortions post-Dobbs. [9] Between 2019 and 2022 alone, the number of anti-abortion pregnancy centers that offer “abortion pill reversal” more than doubled, and we can expect they won’t stop there. [10] 

We must continue to combat the unethical and unproven theory of “abortion pill reversal” in health care, law, and online. True choice will never come from disinformation such as “abortion pill reversal.” Choice will only come from access to medically accurate information and services, and regardless of the outcome of these lawsuits, we plan on fighting for that until the end.  

Sources 

1. https://www.acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-important/medication-abortion-reversal-is-not-supported-by-science 
2. https://www.guttmacher.org/state-policy/explore/counseling-and-waiting-periods-abortion 
3. https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study 
4. https://www.cureus.com/articles/200722-medication-abortion-and-abortion-pill-reversal-an-exploratory-analysis-on-the-influence-of-others-in-womens-decision-making?email_share=true&expedited_modal=true#!/ 
5. https://www.cnn.com/health/abortion-pill-safety-dg/index.html 
6. https://www.reuters.com/legal/colorado-cannot-ban-unproven-abortion-pill-reversal-treatment-judge-says-2023-10-23/ 
7. https://www.mercurynews.com/2024/08/05/san-diego-anti-abortion-group-sues-to-protect-access-to-abortion-pill-reversal/ 
8. https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2024/aug/8/letitia-james-sued-by-pro-life-pregnancy-centers-o/ 
9. https://www.guttmacher.org/2024/03/medication-abortion-accounted-63-all-us-abortions-2023-increase-53-2020 
10. https://lozierinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Pregnancy-Center-2024-Update-full-1.pdf