Oakland, CA - In the ongoing bench trial of The People of the State of California v. Heartbeat International & RealOptions, mothers at the heart of the case are now telling their stories under oath. This week, Erika Carrillo—a mother of three from San Mateo—testified about the intense pressure she faced to abort her child, her immediate regret after taking the first abortion pill, and her late-night search for a way to save her baby’s life.

Carrillo told the court her partner was “adamant” she could not have the child and was in the room when she received the abortion pill. She twice told the nurse practitioner she was not sure she wanted to proceed—and never said she was sure—but took the pill under her partner’s pressure because she “felt like I had no other option.”  

She went home, refused to take the second pill in the chemical abortion regimen, and within hours was searching online at 2:00 a.m. for any way to save her baby. She found a website referencing Abortion Pill Reversal(APR), called the Abortion Pill Rescue Network’s helpline, and was quickly connected to a RealOptions clinic.

At RealOptions, Carrillo testified she was “nervous” but that she “felt warm and welcome”—that the staff treated her “without judgment.” She received an ultrasound confirming her baby was still alive—the first time she had seen her child—and began the progesterone treatment at no cost. She was told the treatment was “not a guarantee” and was never pressured to initiate it. Carrillo was a single parent without a vehicle, so RealOptions arranged volunteer transportation to get her to appointments. As the pregnancy continued, staff members “were always warm and reassuring,” even surprising her with a take-home fetal heartbeat monitor so she could hear her baby’s heartbeat at home when she was worried.  

Carrillo gave birth to a healthy boy, now approaching his tenth birthday. Carrillo told the court she chose to share her story because “every woman should be able to advocate for themselves” and because she believes women in similar situations—pressured, isolated, and without support—deserve to know that APR “is an option for them.” On cross-examination, her account was not materially challenged.

As trial proceeds, two more mothers—who began the abortion pill regimen but were able to save their babies after starting the APR protocol—will testify. Elizabeth Barrett and Uyen Pham are scheduled to take the stand in the coming weeks.

Barrett has stated in court filings that she took the first abortion pill at a Planned Parenthood clinic despite telling staff she was ambivalent—then received a text from her boyfriend while still at the clinic saying he wanted to keep the baby. She and her boyfriend found information about APR on the third or fourth page of Google results, a doctor called her back within fifteen minutes, and she began progesterone treatment that day. She gave birth to a healthy daughter, and the clinic continued supporting her after delivery—even sending a car seat to the hospital.

Pham has stated in court filings that she regretted her decision almost immediately after taking mifepristone in July 2024, before taking the prescribed misoprostol. A friend stayed up all night researching her options and provided a phone number. Pham was connected to Heartbeat International, then to RealOptions, and was seen that same day—less than 24 hours after taking mifepristone. She gave birth to a healthy son with no complications.  

These success stories of courageous mothers who chose life could cease to exist if California prevails in suppressing the speech of Heartbeat International and RealOptions.