A Second Chance at Choice?: Challenging Abortion 'Reversal' as Law and Medical Practice

Abstract

In 2012, a pro-life family physician named George Delgado started claiming that he had developed a technique to “reverse abortion.” The technique, which involves administering high doses of progesterone to patients who have taken the first drug in a two-step medication abortion regimen, has never been proven safe or effective. Nevertheless, between 2015 and 2021, over two dozen states proposed, passed, or enforced bills that require abortion providers to tell patients about this untested pseudo-medical technique that “reverses” medication abortion. Impact litigation against these laws have been enormously successful, and multiple courts have enjoined reversal mandates on First Amendment grounds. However, litigation only targets reversal as law, while the medical practice of progesterone “therapy” persists, putting patients at risk. This Article considers “abortion reversal” as both law and medical practice and proposes alternative ways to challenge reversal, including medical practice and human subjects research regulation and informed consent legislation.

Note:
Funding: None.

Declaration of Interests: None.

Keywords: abortion, abortion reversal, First Amendment, George Delgado, Mary Davenport, progesterone therapy, undue burden, human subjects research, research ethics, medical ethics, informed consent, decisional certainty, professional speech, First Amendment, compelled speech, compelled listening