California bishops slam state for targeting abortion pill reversal: ‘Everyone should oppose this’
Two California bishops, Salvatore Cordileone and Michael Barber, condemned the state attorney general's lawsuit against Heartbeat International and RealOptions for offering abortion pill reversal services. The lawsuit seeks to stop the ministries and imposes up to $20 million in fines, labeling the reversal procedure as experimental and false advertising. The bishops highlighted testimonies, including that of Elizabeth Barrett, who used the reversal to give birth to a healthy baby after initially feeling pressured to abort. They argue the state action removes women's choices and call for religious support for women seeking to reverse the abortion pill. The case mirrors a similar lawsuit filed by New York's attorney general against the same organization.
2 months ago
California’s top Catholic leaders have denounced the state’s legal action against nonprofit groups that offer abortion‑pill reversal, calling the move an attack on women’s right to choose life and urging people of all political persuasions to oppose it. 1
Archbishop Salvatore Cordileone of San Francisco and Bishop Michael Barber of Oakland issued a joint op‑ed condemning California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s request that a court halt the activities of Heartbeat International and RealOptions. They argue the state is trying to “take away choices from women” by labeling the reversal method as “unproven and largely experimental.” 1
The procedure involves giving a woman who has taken the first pill of a medication abortion a dose of progesterone, which some claim can counteract the effects of the abortion drug and allow the pregnancy to continue. The bishops cite personal testimonies, such as that of Elizabeth Barrett, who used the reversal service, later gave birth to a healthy baby, and said she had felt pressured by Planned Parenthood to abort. 1
California’s attorney general is seeking up to $20 million in fines against the nonprofits for alleged false advertising. The bishops note that New York’s attorney general has filed a similar suit, suggesting a broader national effort to suppress reversal ministries. 1
Cordileone and Barber stress that, as priests, they hear many women regret their abortions and that the Church has a “particular call to support women” in these situations. They frame the dispute as a test of the conscience of those who identify as “pro‑choice,” urging a united moral response across the political spectrum. 1*
Investigate Catholic doctrine on abortion reversal and state regulation
Catholic doctrine treats direct abortion—the deliberate killing of an innocent human being—as intrinsically evil, and therefore no civil law can make an intrinsically illicit act licit. At the same time, Catholic teaching also distinguishes moral questions by intent and by whether a proposed medical action aims to protect life or to enable/complete abortion.
Because the specific modern practice commonly marketed as “abortion reversal” is not directly addressed by the sources provided here, the Church’s teaching can be applied only through its general moral principles (intent, cooperation, and the duty of civil authority to protect life), rather than a verdict “pro or con” on the particular protocol.
The Church teaches that “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder” because it is “the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.”
The Catechism states that the Church has taught “the moral evil of every procured abortion” and that “direct abortion … is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
Evangelium Vitae adds that “no circumstance, no purpose, no law whatsoever can ever make licit an act which is intrinsically illicit,” because such acts are “contrary to the Law of God.”
Evangelium Vitae notes the Church’s canonical discipline: “a person who actually procures an abortion incurs automatic (latae sententiae) excommunication.” (It is presented there as part of the Church’s way of highlighting the seriousness and fostering conversion.)
Catholic moral reasoning repeatedly turns on whether a proposed action is willed as an end or as a means to killing (direct abortion) versus an action that is intended to avoid killing or mitigate harm without choosing evil.
Evangelium Vitae also frames abortion as “unspeakable” precisely because life is sacred and inviolable “including the initial phase which precedes birth.”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) teaches that certain “interception” and “contragestation” methods—because they interfere with an embryo after conception, and because intent is typically to bring about abortion—“fall within the sin of abortion” and are “gravely immoral.”
In particular, the CDF states that anyone who seeks to prevent implantation “generally intends abortion.” And it states that the use of contragestatives results in “the abortion of an embryo which has just implanted,” and therefore they fall under abortion’s sin.
Relevance to “abortion reversal”: Many real-world debates about “reversal” revolve around whether the protocol functions as a means of terminating a pregnancy versus attempting to protect life after a prior medication. Using the CDF’s approach, the Church would ask for:
But with only the sources provided, a confident moral classification of “abortion reversal” as such cannot be made, because no provided document evaluates that exact practice.
When discussing legislative strategy, the U.S. bishops emphasize that sometimes the legal process can only restore justice partially “limiting the harm,” but Catholics “must never abandon the moral requirement to seek full protection for all human life from the moment of conception until natural death.”
So even where the “best achievable” legal outcomes are imperfect, Catholic teaching does not allow moral drift away from protecting life.
Catholic social teaching (drawing on Aquinas via the Catechism) holds: “A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason…” and “Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence.”
Catholic social doctrine also frames abortion legislation within questions about the proper role of civil authority in protecting life and responding to unjust law.
Evangelium Vitae’s principle is direct: “no law whatsoever” can make licit what is intrinsically illicit.
Applied to abortion-related regulation: the state may not use law to normalize or authorize direct abortion as a permissible act (or to compel citizens/medical providers into intrinsically evil acts).
The U.S. bishops teach that if morally flawed laws already exist, Catholics may apply prudential judgment and work incrementally—e.g., improving protection for unborn life “limiting the harm done by such a law” (citing Evangelium Vitae 73).
Yet this remains subordinate to a firm moral boundary: the requirement to seek full protection “never” can be abandoned.
Given the above principles, Catholic reasoning about state regulation would likely focus on three areas:
If a state action (or policy framework) effectively supports or facilitates abortion as such, Catholic teaching says that cannot be morally legitimate because intrinsically evil acts are not legalized into goodness.
If instead a policy is framed as protecting life by preventing the destruction of the embryo and providing truthful, life-affirming care (and without intending abortion), it would still need moral scrutiny—especially regarding intention and cooperation—but the Church’s principles are more compatible with policies aimed at life protection.
The moral foundation for public authority in Catholic social teaching is the protection of the common good and the alignment of law with right reason.
Therefore, regulation that treats abortion as a “right” or normal social practice would be contrary to the Church’s account of justice and the common good.
The U.S. bishops have argued that public funds should not be used “for the deliberate destruction of unborn human life,” urging application of the Hyde Amendment principle to health spending.
So if “abortion reversal” were regulated in a way that effectively channels public resources into processes that are morally judged to be abortion, Catholic teaching would oppose that.