Campaign for Accountability

AI Chatbots Point Women to Unproven and Unethical “Abortion Pill Reversal." Experts agree "abortion pill reversal" is unproven and potentially dangerous. But a report shows AI sending searchers to a "helpline" promoting its use.

If this test is indeed emblematic of a larger flaw in AI’s ability to side with the science when an opposing voice is producing a far greater *quantity* of content, this issue may have implications that extend far beyond abortion.

Read the report: campaignforaccountability.org/ai-chatbots-...

Experts say LLMs—which are often “trained on large datasets of text, often scraped from the Internet”—are more likely to advance false information when a topic’s “training data [is] filled with ‘false statements […] or other texts that are not factual or concerned with truth.”

Researchers expose practices of crisis pregnancy centers across the U.S. A new study from scientists at the University of California San Diego introduces a powerful new approach to understanding the operation of crisis pregnancy centers, non-profit organizations dedicated ...

While *some* medical authorities have publicly debunked “abortion pill reversal,” the handful of entries from those sources are vastly outnumbered by content produced by the anti-abortion industry. One study found over 500 CPC websites promoting “reversal." www.news-medical.net/news/2024120...

Although other studies have shown mixed results on AI’s ability to deliver “acceptable” responses to abortion questions, the answers to CfA’s questions on “abortion pill reversal” fall dangerously short. The likely reason? AI may be preferencing quantity of info over quality.

Some also improperly positioned the controversy around “abortion pill reversal” as an equally-weighted disagreement between two sides of the medical community—omitting the fact that only one is backed by science.

The AI responses to CfA’s test queries also advanced several anti-abortion talking points and mistruths, including that abortion providers may not offer women a choice in how to proceed, and that science-following doctors may simply lack “expertise” around “abortion pill reversal."

When CfA tested to see how ChatGPT, Google, Meta AI, Grok, and Perplexity would direct women asking about their options after taking mifepristone, all, in at least one search, gave out the biased "helpline." In 50% of all responses, it was the *only* phone number provided.

Yet, avowed anti-abortion organization Heartbeat International operates an “Abortion Pill Reversal Helpline,” which researchers say uses “coercive, antiabortion messaging […] to transmit misinformation about the possibility and evidence behind reversal.”

Given the lack of evidence and the potential for harm, trusted medical entities like the American Medical Association, the American College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, Planned Parenthood, and more, all advise that “abortion pill reversal” should not be promoted.

More than that, the first time the “reversal” theory was tested in a study with scientifically-accepted standards, the trial had to be halted early for safety after some women experienced serious complications.

Promoters of “reversal” claim that if a woman has taken mifepristone (the first drug involved in a medication abortion), but not misoprostol (the second), taking a high dose of progesterone may raise the odds of the pregnancy continuing.

Yet, no good evidence supports this.

Abortion regret is very rare. In one survey, 95% of women asked 5 years later said their abortion was right for them. Yet, anti-abortion groups use the widespread promotion of “abortion pill reversal” to exaggerate its likelihood—aiming to scare women away from abortion altogether.

NEW: CfA tested 5 top AI chatbots to see how they'd advise women asking questions about options amidst a medication abortion.

In 7/10 tests, the AI gave out the number to a biased anti-abortion “helpline” that promotes unproven and potentially harmful “abortion pill reversal.

CfA Motion to Intervene and Unseal Court Records - Paxton

Read CfA's original motion to unseal the records here: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Ken Paxton Files Brief in Divorce Unsealing Plea, Watchdog Responds Campaign for Accountability issued a statement in response to Ken Paxton's brief, the latest in CfA's motion to unseal Paxton's divorce proceeding.

"Paxton’s constituents can fairly wonder what he is so desperate to hide. It is clearly in the public interest for the public to have full access to the record. (2/2)” campaignforaccountability.org/ken-paxton-f...

“Despite a political career predicated on moral values, Ken Paxton is working overtime to hide the truth about his divorce, arguing the public already has access to all the information required... (1/2)"

NEW: Texas AG Ken Paxton filed a brief arguing that his divorce proceeding—that may reveal relevant information about his conduct and character, and which CfA filed a motion to unseal—should remain hidden from public view.

In response, CfA issued the following statement:

CfA - FL + VA Bar Complaint - Lindsey Halligan

CfA’s complaint outlines Ms. Halligan’s apparent misconduct not only in her presentation of the Comey case, but in her improper pursuit of an indictment against New York AG Letitia James as well.

You can read the complaint here: www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...

Judge Fitzpatrick’s rundown of the timing of the second indictment, returned just minutes after the failed first one, suggests Ms. Halligan may have filed it under false pretenses.

RPC 8.4(b) prohibits committing a “deliberately wrongful act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honest, trustworthiness or fitness to practice law."

RPC 3.8(a) prohibits filing a charge “the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause.” If Ms. Halligan told the grand jury there might not be sufficient evidence now, but the DOJ would have more at trial, she may have known the charges weren't supported by probable cause.

Judge Fitzpatrick also states that Ms. Halligan “suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause but could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial.”

This conduct may also violate RPC 1.1, which requires a lawyer to provide “competent representation.” If Ms. Halligan was unaware that Mr. Comey has a constitutional right to remain silent and that it is up to the government to prove his guilt, she may not be competent.

Judge Fitzpatrick describes one instance where Ms. Halligan suggested to the grand jury that, rather than the government bearing the burden of proving Mr. Comey’s guilt,” it was up to Mr. Comey to prove his innocence.

Virginia RPC 3.3(a)(1) prohibits a lawyer from knowingly making “a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal.” A comment to the Florida rules also explains that lawyers have “special duties” “as officers of the court to avoid conduct that undermines the integrity of the adjudicative process.”

While some of Ms. Halligan’s statements to the grand jury remain redacted, Judge Fitzpatrick describes multiple instances where she made a “fundamental and highly prejudicial misstatement of the law […]”

These revelations bolster the case that Ms. Halligan may have violated bar rules.

Judge William Fitzpatrick acknowledged in his ruling that requiring disclosure of grand jury materials to the defense is “an extraordinary remedy,” but Ms. Halligan’s actions in presenting the case to the grand jury "whether purposeful, reckless or negligent—raise genuine issues of misconduct.”

NEW: In a ruling requiring the DOJ to produce all grand jury materials used to secure an indictment of James Comey, Judge Fitzpatrick found Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan made “fundamental and highly prejudicial” misstatements of the law—echoing concerns raised in CfA’s bar complaint.

Watchdog Group Files Bar Ethics Complaint Against Lindsey Halligan The non-profit group Campaign for Accountability requests investigation of top federal prosecutor pursuing cases against Letitia James and James Comey.

ICYMI: A watchdog group is urging state bars to investigate Lindsey Halligan — Trump’s top prosecutor for the Eastern District of Virginia — over her handling of cases against James Comey and Letitia James.

Read the full complaint on Slip Opinion: annabower.substack.com/p/watchdog-g...

CfA - FL + VA Bar Complaint - Lindsey Halligan

“We are asking the Virginia and Florida Bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior.” www.documentcloud.org/documents/26...