By Jessica Prol Smith, Director of Government Relations for Heartbeat International 

Who can we trust? The question weaves itself into our lives in a million different ways. Trust matters for advertising. For better or worse, 89% of people most trust recommendations from people they know. Trust matters for the pregnancy help organizations opening our doors and arms to women facing the most profound opportunities and challenges of their lives. While clients give us a 98% approval rating after they’ve gotten to know us, what about those who haven’t crossed the threshold?

And “trust” certainly matters when it comes to the bench trial unfolding in our ongoing lawsuit: 

The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & RealOptions. When it comes to the conversations surrounding Abortion Pill Reversal (APR), who do we trust? 

We know that American trust in institutions has generally plummeted over recent years. Gallup polling suggests that certain industries like education and healthcare enjoy a trust rating often exceeding 73%. Conversely, industries with low trust–garnering ratings below 25%-30%–include government, legal, news media, and tobacco companies. 

But what happens when the government uses a medical doctor as an expert witness to buttress their legal arguments? Can we and should we trust the expert? We’ll let you decide: 

As affiliates and supporters of Heartbeat International will know, California Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit against Heartbeat International (HBI) and RealOptions Obria Medical Clinics in California state court. After years of litigation and discovery, the bench trial began on June 24, in Alameda County Superior Court. It is currently expected to continue throughout most of July. 

Early in the trial, the California Attorney General called Dr. Mitchell Creinin as its lead expert to provide testimony supporting California’s claim that APR is dangerous and unproven. Creinin is an OB-GYN at UC Davis who acknowledged he no longer delivers babies and has advocated for family planning (including abortion) as “the most humane and viable strategy for human survival.” Dr. Creinin has admitted in court to performing more than 5,000 abortions over the course of his career. He also serves as a paid consultant for Danco Laboratories–the pharmaceutical company responsible for manufacturing and distributing the brand-name version of mifepristone. 

Should Dr. Creinin be trusted? 

Joe Barnas, Director of Marketing at Thomas More Society (representing Heartbeat in court) put it this way: “California hoped Dr. Mitchell Creinin would dismantle the science behind APR. Under cross-examination, the cracks in their case showed.” 

Barnas’s entire review of the Creinin testimony is an edifying read for anyone remotely interested in APR, the public perception of its efficacy, and the ethics of offering this protocol to a woman who no longer wishes to complete a chemical abortion she has started. (It’s good enough that we’ve reprinted it over at Pregnancy Help News. Seriously, read it.) 

If you’re not able to read the whole thing, here’s Barnas’s list of the ten moments that raised serious questions about Dr. Creinin’s testimony and the case built around it.

1. He privately called his 2020 study “pseudo-blinded”- Then told the public and the court it was double-blind. 
2. His private estimates on mifepristone-only efficacy undermine his theory - So he left them out. 
3. His published study wrongly characterized APR recipient as suffering “severe hemorrhage”
4. He admitted no component of APR is known to cause birth defects
5. He can’t say APR doesn’t work - and he can’t say it’s unsafe
6. He can’t back up the AG’s “safer than Tylenol” claim
7. His published study incorrectly reports a patient arrived by ambulance - and he’s never corrected it
8. The attorney general had access to the largest APR safety dataset - and their expert never reviewed it
9. He’s been cited by the federal government for research violations
10. He believes the world needs more abortions to survive

Barnas closes with these words, “These are not the views of a disinterested scientist—they place the AG’s expert squarely within an ideological tradition that has long advocated population control in developing nations through expanded abortion access.”

As the trial continues, the judge will decide how much he trusts Dr. Creinin. Our legal team continues to provide their own experts with their own testimony–competing for the judge’s trust.

As we watch, from outside the courtroom, we are grateful for the thousands of women who have trusted our messages about APR–and have welcomed their children because of that well-placed trust. We’re grateful for the hundreds of women speaking out. We’re grateful for the trustworthy healthcare professionals who are willing to stand with us. And all others who trust the APRN to continue to provide hope and information to women who ask. If you support this effort, please consider adding your name to An Open Letter in Support of the Abortion Pill Rescue Network. 

Most fundamentally, we trust that our heavenly Father–the divine Judge and Creator of life–will work good things through this ongoing legal battle.