Abortion opponents are coming for mifepristone using what medical experts call 'junk science'
Using flawed studies and scientific journal publications, abortion opponents are building a body of research meant to question the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, a key target for the movement.
The effort comes as federal officials have expressed a willingness to revisit the drug's approval — and potentially impose new restrictions on a medication used in the vast majority of abortions.
Mainstream medical researchers have criticized the studies, highlighting flaws in their methodology and — in the case of one paper published by the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) — lack of transparency about the data used to suggest mifepristone is unsafe. The vast body of research shows that the drugs used in medication abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol, are safe and effective in terminating a pregnancy.
'There's a proliferation of anti-abortion propaganda right now. I think it is a coordinated attack on mifepristone,' said Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco who studies medication abortion.
Released in April, the EPPC paper suggests that mifepristone results in serious adverse events for 1 in 10 patients — substantially higher than the widely accepted figure of .3 percent complication rate most research has attributed to the pill. The paper appears to count what other researchers say are non-threatening events, such as requiring follow-up care to complete the abortion, or visiting an emergency room within 45 days of an abortion — even if the patient did not end up requiring emergency care — as serious adverse effects. That paper also did not go through peer review, a standard process for scientific research in which other scholars review a study's findings and methodology before it can be published.
Another paper, a commentary piece published this week in the journal BioTech, challenges the commonly cited statistic that mifepristone has a lower complication rate than acetaminophen, or Tylenol, tracing the history of the comparison and arguing that it is mathematically flawed. The paper's author, Cameron Loutitt, is a biomedical engineer by training and director of life sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research arm of the anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America.
'My hope is that this paper sparks action in my peers in the research and medical community to more critically evaluate these unfounded claims regarding abortion drug safety,' Loutitt said in a statement.
Days later, a group of researchers from the institute published another study, this one arguing that emergency rooms are likely to identify medication abortions as miscarriages, which they say increases the risk of needing hospital care.
A miscarriage and a medication abortion are medically indistinguishable, and patients will sometimes visit an emergency room to ensure the drugs worked, or if they suspect possible complications. In places where abortion is illegal, patients may also tell health care providers they experienced a miscarriage to minimize their legal risk. Studies like the Lozier Institute paper suggest complications from medication abortions are being undercounted.
That study was rejected by another journal on April 12 before being published this week, noted Upadhyay, who had served as a peer reviewer in that rejection process. A similar paper written by many of the same researchers behind the Lozier Institute's was retracted a year ago by the journal that published it, along with two others suggesting mifepristone was unsafe.
'They keep trying to publish the same junk science,' Upadhyay said.
James Studnicki, the Charlotte Lozier Institute's director of data analytics, who led the second of its new anti-abortion papers and the study retracted last year, did not respond to a request for comment. But a spokesperson for the institute said the organization is challenging last year's retraction through an arbitration process. This March, Studnicki said in a statement that the retraction placed 'politics over publication ethics.'
These studies and papers all fall outside the scientific consensus. More than 100 studies over decades of research have found that mifepristone — and the medication abortion regimen as a whole — has a low complication rate and is very safe to use for abortions. Papers like these aren't new, and their scientific accuracy has long been questioned. But the bevy of new reports and analyses comes at a moment when abortion opponents may have more influence in shaping public policy.
Mifepristone restrictions are a top priority for the anti-abortion movement. About two-thirds of all abortions in the United States are now done using medication. Even in states with abortion bans, pregnant people have increasingly turned to abortion medication, which they receive from health providers in states with laws protecting abortion.
Nationwide, about 1 in 5 abortions are now performed using telehealth; almost half of those are for people in states with bans or restrictions. Mifepristone is currently approved for use through 10 weeks of pregnancy.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before a Senate committee that he has directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the approval of mifepristone, citing the EPPC paper specifically. Jim O'Neill, who is nominated for a deputy secretary role, has also said he is in favor of a 'safety review' of the drug — a move that could result in new restrictions on how it is prescribed.
Meanwhile, physicians and researchers are highlighting the rigor of the FDA approval process.
'FDA approval of mifepristone must reflect the rigorous clinical evidence that has proven unequivocally that it is safe and effective for use in medication,' 13 reproductive medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, said in a statement after Kennedy indicated the drug may undergo a new FDA review. 'Mifepristone has been used for decades for abortion and miscarriage management by millions of patients, and complications are exceedingly rare, minor, and most often easily treatable.'
The International Institute for Reproductive Loss, an anti-abortion nonprofit, has explicitly prioritized the publication of research that supports restrictions on medication abortion. Presenting at an anti-abortion conference last September, that organization's science director, Priscilla Coleman, highlighted strategies that she said could help result in the retraction of studies showing mifepristone's safety, such as finding 'agenda-driven, poorly developed and conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals' and writing to journal editors. Coleman did not respond to a request for comment.
Though no scientific consensus has changed, anti-abortion lawmakers have rallied around the suggestion that complications are common. In a private Zoom meeting reported on by Politico, abortion opponents cited the EPPC paper as a potential tool to justify further restrictions on mifepristone — even while acknowledging that the report is 'not a study in the traditional sense' and 'not conclusive proof of anything.'
Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, cited the EPPC paper in a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who had only a day before the report's publication indicated openness to reviewing mifepristone's approval if new evidence emerged.
'The time to act is now. It is time to revisit and restore the FDA's longstanding safety measures governing mifepristone,' Hawley wrote. His office did not reply to a request for further comment.
'They're producing this terrible 'science' because they don't have any real science that backs them up. And all they've gotten from the administration is, 'Yeah, we'll study it,'' said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who has advised state legislatures on crafting abortion-protetctive laws.
Through the courts and Trump administration, abortion opponents have pushed to reverse a 2021 FDA decision allowing mifepristone to be distributed via telehealth. In addition to calling for the in-person requirement to be reinstated, abortion opponents are asking for restrictions such as the dispensation of the drug to require three in-person visits, and for mifepristone to only be approved for use only in the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Many have also argued the drug should be taken off the market entirely.
The Trump administration said on the campaign trail that it would leave abortion policy up to the states. So far, there has been little indication from the federal government that such changes are imminent.
'Pills are kind of just spreading, as we predicted, without almost any restriction and so far the anti-abortion movement hasn't figured out what to do,' Cohen said.
The post Abortion opponents are coming for mifepristone using what medical experts call 'junk science' appeared first on The 19th.
News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
10 hours ago
- New York Post
Microplastics in your food are contributing to these two health issues: study
You know microplastics are showing up in your take out containers and your junk food. But alarming fresh research indicates they're present in pretty much anything you consume — and the effects of these tiny particles are from far teeny. 3 New research raises red flags about what all that invisible plastic might be doing to the human body. molenira – Advertisement A new study in mice suggests that microplastics found in food and drink could be interfering with blood sugar levels and damaging the liver. Researchers at the University of California, Davis, found that animals who consumed polystyrene nanoplastics — the kind of plastic used in food packaging — developed glucose intolerance and signs of liver injury, two serious health issues that may have long-term consequences. Advertisement The findings — which were presented at the annual meeting of the American Society for Nutrition on Sunday — raise red flags about what all that invisible plastic might be doing to the human body. 'With the growing concern around micro- and nanoplastic exposure, we wanted to evaluate the impact of this exposure on health,' lead author Amy Parkhurst, a doctoral candidate at UC Davis, said in a press release. Parkhurst and her team fed mice a standard diet spiked with a daily dose of polystyrene nanoparticles, mimicking the way people are exposed through food and drinks. 3 The study suggests that microplastics found in food and drink could be interfering with blood sugar levels and damaging the liver. – Advertisement The dose was chosen to reflect real-world human exposures — which could range from tens of thousands to millions of particles per year, according to previous estimates. Compared to their plastic-free peers, the mice that ate nanoplastics had trouble regulating blood sugar — a condition known as glucose intolerance, which can be a warning sign for diabetes. The plastic-dosed mice also had higher levels of a liver enzyme called ALT — a common marker for liver injury. 3 On top of that, the study found that the plastics made the gut more 'leaky,' allowing harmful substances to enter the bloodstream and potentially stress the liver even more. Crystal light – Advertisement On top of that, the study found that the plastics made the gut more 'leaky,' allowing harmful substances to enter the bloodstream and potentially stress the liver even more. While the findings come from mice, not humans, they add to a growing pile of research raising questions about how microplastics — which are now found everywhere from bottled water to seafood — might be affecting our health. 'We can't control for all the plastics the mice are exposed to,' Parkhurst noted, 'However, our study design allowed us to see dose-correlated changes since the nanoplastics-dosed group would have a higher exposure.' Parkhurst emphasized that more research is needed to understand how these particles affect people and whether they pose similar risks in the long term. Still, the message is clear: what's too small to see might not be too small to hurt.
Yahoo
14 hours ago
- Yahoo
Expert mom shares 4 tips to protect against emerging threat to children's health: 'There is certainly enough evidence to take action'
An under-discussed but extremely dangerous problem of modern life is the scourge of microplastics. The word itself is self-explanatory in describing what microplastics are, but what makes them insidious is just how "micro" they are. Formally defined as being less than 5 millimeters long, microplastics are invisible to the naked eye, which enables them to appear in everything from clothing to food to coral reefs. Scientists have declared them a "global emergency" because of their potential to negatively impact human health, and many still seem at a loss for how to combat an invisible enemy. Tracey Woodruff, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco, is not one of those scientists. She studies how microplastics impact fertility and child development, and as a world leader on the topic, she is well-suited to describe how to protect against them, as she did in an interview with Business Insider. Woodruff identifies four areas in which she has effectively reduced her children's exposure to microplastics: Cooking, cleaning, clothing, and heating. With cooking, she describes mostly eating food prepared in the home, often made with fruits and vegetables. "We know that … microplastics can come from packaging that leaches into food," she says. "So it's really important to eat food that's not fast food or packaged food." Another way to protect against microplastics is to stay on top of cleaning. Woodruff says that she dusts once a week and vacuums bimonthly. Her family also takes their shoes off before entering the house, because they can pick up microplastics and potentially track them inside. A major concern with microplastics is how prevalent they are in clothing. Woodruff's solution? Buy natural, and buy old. Organic materials like cotton and linen are far less likely to contain plastics than their artificial counterparts, and older shirts not made via current manufacturing processes are also less likely to contain them. How much effort are you willing to make to reduce the amount of plastic and toxins in your home? I'll do whatever it takes Only if it's an easy swap Only if it's cheaper Not interested Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Heating plastic in the microwave and washing plastic containers in the dishwasher is also rather precarious. "We also don't use dishwashing pods, because those are packaged in plastic," Woodruff stated to Business Insider. "It's basically the same thing as the microwave. Heat causes degradation of the plastic material, and it's super hot in your dishwasher." Overall, Woodruff seems cautiously optimistic about being able to combat the more dangerous effects of microplastics. She acknowledges how damaging they can be, but reminds us that there is still plenty of time to change our ways. "There is certainly enough evidence to take action to prevent future harms." Join our free newsletter for easy tips to save more and waste less, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
Yahoo
17 hours ago
- Yahoo
Researchers develop plants with genetically enhanced roots to help combat global crisis: 'We propose a new approach'
Researchers at the University of California, San Diego, studied genetically enhanced crops as a tool to remove carbon from the atmosphere. The next-generation crops could capture about 1 gigaton of carbon annually, the team of researchers proposed. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world will need to remove 5 to 16 gigatons of carbon from the atmosphere annually to achieve net-zero emissions by the end of the century. This achievement also requires curbing dirty energy and carbon pollution at the source. Not addressing this pollution could result in an increase in extreme weather events, drought, disease, and more. Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) addresses pollution, and the researchers' study that was published in Environmental Research Letters aimed to determine effective CDR strategies and scale these strategies to achieve net-zero emissions. The team discovered genetically enhanced crops could capture carbon on a big scale, making them a promising solution. The crops –– which include soybeans and corn –– are altered to grow larger, deeper roots, the researchers described. These root systems allow the crops to store more carbon in the soil surrounding them since roots can hold about five times more carbon than plant material above ground. Compared to other CDR technologies, the large-rooted crops have more potential to address pollution, the team of researchers argues. Agricultural innovations –– like these crops –– are historically adopted quickly and do not require expensive infrastructure. The scientists suggested "existing seed companies and farmer extension programs" could implement the genetically enhanced crops. While this innovation could face setbacks since genetically modified crops exist on just about 13% of agricultural lands, other agricultural technologies –– like drought detection –– have managed rising temperatures too. These technologies can work together, and determining how to scale them, which the researchers considered, will prove crucial to achieving net-zero emissions. "We propose a new approach for estimating scalability rooted in insights about how technologies emerge and diffuse into service under real-world conditions," the researchers wrote. Which of these factors would most effectively motivate you to buy a heat pump? Lower energy bills Better temperature control Helping the planet I'd never buy a heat pump Click your choice to see results and speak your mind. Join our free newsletter for weekly updates on the latest innovations improving our lives and shaping our future, and don't miss this cool list of easy ways to help yourself while helping the planet.
