logo
Millions of women use abortion drugs safely. Experts warn anti-abortion groups are pushing ‘bogus' science to get them banned

Millions of women use abortion drugs safely. Experts warn anti-abortion groups are pushing ‘bogus' science to get them banned

Yahoo24-05-2025

A dubious report from anti-abortion activists that casts doubt on the safety of a widely used abortion drug is now in the hands of top health officials in President Donald Trump's administration.
Abortion rights advocates and public health researchers have roundly condemned the report as an unscientific and politically motivated attempt to undermine the drug approval process for mifepristone, commonly used in medication abortions, which make up a vast majority of all abortions in the United States.
Anti-abortion activists and influential right-wing legal groups have spent years suing the federal government in an attempt to cut off Americans' access to mifepristone, which was approved by the Food and Drug Administration more than 20 years ago.
Now, those groups appear to have launched a backdoor effort to replace the FDA's data altogether.
'This is one paper based on shoddy research methods to replace decades of safety and efficacy research,' according to Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for reproductive health research group the Guttmacher Institute.
'It's absolutely not legitimate for that one paper to displace decades of medical research,' she told The Independent. 'Can the FDA do it? I mean, an FDA that followed science and rigor absolutely would not do that. I think the question here is, how politicized will the FDA get?'
Last month, Trump's FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said he had no plans to change the government's position on mifepristone unless new data discovered a safety concern.
Days later, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, a right-wing think tank, released a report claiming serious complications from mifepristone use were 22 times higher than previously reported. It called on the FDA to 'further investigate the harm mifepristone causes to women' and 'reconsider its approval altogether.'
Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley – whose wife, Erin Hawley, is a senior counsel with the right-wing legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom, which is suing the government over mifepristone — then called on Makary to 'follow this new data.' Hawley also recently introduced legislation to 'reinstate safety regulations on the chemical abortion drug mifepristone.'
Most abortions in the United States are medication abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute
Under questions from Hawley in a Senate committee hearing this month, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr called the report's alleged findings 'alarming.'
'Clearly, it indicates that, at the very least, the label should be changed,' Kennedy said.
He asked Makary 'to do a complete review and to report back.'
During a Senate hearing on May 22, Democratic Sen. Patty Murray told Makary that the administration is 'laying the groundwork to rip away access to medication abortion across the country.'
This 'has not gotten enough attention, and I know you'd prefer to keep it that way,' she said.
Makary said he still has not read the center's study, which was not peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal.
Dozens of peer-reviewed studies over the last two decades have shown that fewer than 0.5 percent of patients who take mifepristone have serious adverse reactions. The center's report claims that number is more like 11 percent.
The study, first disseminated by conservative and religious media outlets last month, was authored by a group that aims to push back against the 'extreme progressive agenda while building a consensus for conservatives.' The center was on the advisory board of Project 2025, which provided a blueprint for the Trump administration.
Its authors include the center's Director of Data Analysis Jamie Bryan Hall and President Ryan Anderson. Hall was a research fellow at The Heritage Foundation: the think tank that organized Project 2025.
Anderson is the co-author of five books, including Tearing US Apart: How Abortion Harms Everything and Solves Nothing. The pair cited the work of a 'team of data scientists, analysts, and engineers' who were assisted by their own 'clinical team of board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists.'
Members have a 'history of academic research and peer-reviewed publication,' Hall and Anderson wrote.
They claimed to have reviewed 865,727 insurance claims from women who were prescribed the drug, but the report does not disclose which database was used. According to The Washington Post, the center said the reason was tied to a confidentiality agreement with the vendor.
Public health researchers speaking to The Independent noted that the report's definition of a 'serious adverse event' could include minor side effects, including routine bleeding, unrelated sexually transmitted infections, and routine follow-up visits. The report also lists ectopic pregnancies, which do not result from mifepristone use, as serious adverse events.
Citing insurance data, they said their analysis had found 10.93 percent of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging or another 'serious adverse event' within a period of 45 days following a mifepristone abortion. 'This study is the statistical equivalent of a category 5 hurricane hitting the prevailing narrative of the abortion industry,' Anderson said in a statement.
'Calling it a study would be too generous,' said Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, a professor in the University of California-San Francisco's Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences.
'The fact that it's not peer-reviewed means that a lot of the methodological flaws were not corrected or were not addressed in the paper,' she told The Independent.
The Independent has requested comment from the center.
There were 36 reports of deaths associated with mifepristone since the product was approved in September 2000, according to the FDA. Those include two cases of pregnancy outside of the womb and several cases of sepsis. 'The adverse events cannot with certainty be causally attributed to mifepristone because of concurrent use of other drugs, other medical or surgical treatments, co-existing medical conditions and information gaps about patient health status and clinical management of the patient,' the agency noted.
A spokesperson for GenBioPro, the manufacturer of mifepristone, said the report is 'clearly flawed.'
'If this study isn't recognized widely for what it is – just another attempt by the anti-abortion movement to spread misinformation about the safety of the abortion pill using a bogus and biased study – Americans will be left with misleading information when they need to make critical health care and life decisions,' Emma Thomas told The Independent in an email.
'This is a report with no peer review, no transparency of methods. It comes out, and within days is cited at our highest levels of government to the person who makes decisions around regulation of medications,' said Heidi Moseson, a senior research scientist at Ibis Reproductive Health.
'And that suggests a very different pipeline of the way information is traveling with sort of egregious political motivation,' she told The Independent.
A medication abortion typically involves a two-part protocol: mifepristone, which blocks the hormone progesterone to stop a pregnancy from growing, followed by misoprostol, which helps the uterus contract. The medication is also frequently used for miscarriage treatment.
Mifepristone was first approved for use by the FDA in most cases in 2000, and the drug is approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. A vast majority of all abortions occur within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. Roughly 63 percent of all abortions in the United States are medication abortions, the Guttmacher Institute says.
From 2019 through 2020, nearly 93 percent of all abortions were performed before the 13th week, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
In 2021, the FDA under President Joe Biden permanently lifted the in-person requirement for medication abortion prescriptions, allowing patients to access the drugs via telehealth appointments and online pharmacies so patients can take the drugs at home.
In the years that followed, anti-abortion state legislators filed more than 100 bills to restrict access to abortion drugs, or sought to ban them altogether. After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022, more than a dozen states effectively outlawed all abortions in most circumstances.
Months after that ruling, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a federal lawsuit targeting mifepristone with a court in Amarillo, Texas, on behalf of a group of anti-abortion physicians, claiming the FDA wrongfully approved mifepristone and then improperly eliminated requirements that the drug should only be dispensed in person.
Trump-appointed District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who had formerly worked as a chief counsel with right-wing Christian legal activist group First Liberty Institute, later issued a ruling to suspend the FDA's approval of the drug, but the Supreme Court unanimously rejected his decision.
Whether the FDA under the Trump administration can now simply swap underlying data with another is 'the million dollar question,' according to Upadhyay.
'As a scientist, it's really concerning and devastating to see what is meant to be a system to keep people safe and understand true health risks weaponized in this moment to further restrict people's access to really essential healthcare,' Moseson said.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Clean or Contaminated? The Best Time To Wash Your Bath Towels
Clean or Contaminated? The Best Time To Wash Your Bath Towels

CNET

time28 minutes ago

  • CNET

Clean or Contaminated? The Best Time To Wash Your Bath Towels

Cleaning ourselves comes as a no-brainer for most. It is deeply ingrained in us that in order to eliminate germs, it's best to bathe or take a shower often. But that habitual mindset doesn't always translate when determining when we should wash our bath towels. There are ongoing debates about when's the best time to change your toothbrush and how often you should clean your bathroom, but no one really stresses the proper etiquette for clean bath towels. If you're intrigued like me, go down this rabbit hole to get to the bottom of this hunch. Trust me, if you believe you're washing your towels enough, reports would beg to differ. Why is proper towel maintenance important? When you dry off with towels, they get moist. This porous, damp environment is the perfect breeding ground for bacteria. A common bath towel can have yeast, mold and E. coli growing on it without you ever knowing it. Gross, right? Regular washing prevents bacteria from growing. Read More: Want to Clean Your Bathroom in 10 Minutes or Less? Here's How LG's WashTower will function as one combined washer and dryer unit. LG When should you reuse or wash? There are some variables regarding how often you should wash your towels. Consumer Reports says that under normal circumstances, a towel can be used three or four times before it needs to be tossed in the hamper. Now notice, I said "times" not "days." So if you have multiple family members using a towel (like hand towels), it needs to be washed on the third or fourth use. Also, the condition of the person using the towel matters too. If they're sick, toss it in the laundry after one use. If it's flu season, it's best that every family member have their own towel -- even if they aren't exhibiting symptoms -- to prevent the potential spread of germs. How often you wash towels also depends on how they're dried after usage. If towels find themselves on the floor, the lack of air circulation will cause bacteria to grow quickly. To prolong the life of your towel, be sure to place damp towels on a towel rack. Better yet, crack open a window or turn on the fan to reduce moisture in the room. Downy brought in a dog to add some cuteness to its mystery-celebrity Super Bowl ads. Video screenshot by Amanda Kooser/CNET What temperature is best for washing? The Infection Control department of Mid-Western Regional Hospital of Ennis, Ireland, recommends washing towels in water that is at least 140 degrees Fahrenheit (60 degrees Celsius) or more to kill bacteria. So if you have a sanitize mode on your washing machine, use it. If not, you may consider raising the temperature on your water heater while washing that load. Be sure young children are supervised around sinks, tubs and showers while you do laundry, though, to prevent burns. And, before you reach for the fabric softener, don't. Fabric softener leaves residue on towels that makes them less absorbent.

Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis
Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis

Associated Press

time31 minutes ago

  • Associated Press

Opioid settlement plan allows millions to be spent on purposes other than the public health crisis

In the fallout of over 9,000 Mississippians dying of overdoses since 2000, lawyers and lawmakers have set up a plan to distribute the hundreds of millions of dollars from corporations that catalyzed the crisis. But public health advocates and Mississippians closest to the public health catastrophe worry the setup could enable these dollars to be spent on purposes other than ending the overdose epidemic. Mississippi is expected to receive $370 million from pharmaceutical companies that profited while people struggled with addiction. That payout is set to be split between the state and local governments, with 85%, or about $315 million, being controlled by the Legislature. For years after the state attorney general's office helped finalize the first settlements in 2021, it was unclear how the state would distribute its share and how much would be used to prevent the crisis from persisting. State senators and representatives took a major step toward answering these questions earlier this year. They nearly unanimously passed Senate Bill 2767, a law that outlines a general framework for how about $259 million of the funds will be distributed. A 15-person advisory council — made up of representatives for state government agencies, elected officials and law enforcement officials — will develop a grant application process for organizations focused on addressing the opioid addiction crisis. After evaluating the applications and making a list of which grants should be funded, the Legislature will decide whether to approve or deny each of the council's recommendations. The state lawmakers can spend the remaining $56 million they control for any purpose — related or unrelated to addressing addiction. House Speaker Jason White and Lt. Gov. Delbert Hosemann, who wield massive power over lawmakers and how state funds are spent, did not respond to questions from Mississippi Today about their priorities for the funds. Sen. Nicole Boyd, a Republican from Oxford and the bill's lead sponsor, said she and other senators borrowed some ideas from surrounding states to determine how these funds could best prevent more fallout from the opioid crisis. 'It involves everything, from child welfare services to the judicial system to medical care to mental health services,' she said. 'It is a crisis that has affected every aspect of society, and we needed a comprehensive group of people making those recommendations.' However, the bill leaves some questions unanswered, like how the application process will work, when it will open to the public and how grants will be evaluated. Public health advocates and Mississippians impacted by addiction expressed concern about the advisory council's makeup, the $56 million carveout for expenses unrelated to the opioid crisis and the Legislature's final decision-making power. They said those provisions could cause some of the corporate defendants' dollars to be spent on issues other than addressing and preventing overdoses. Jane Clair Tyner, a Hattiesburg resident, lost her 23-year-old son Asa Henderson in 2019 after he struggled for years with substance use disorder. Until last month, through her former job with the Mississippi overdose prevention nonprofit End It For Good, she worked to ensure that fewer parents have to go through the pain her family experienced. She said the only ways these state settlement dollars should be spent are on improving Mississippi public health and keeping people who are at risk of overdosing safe. 'That's what it should go towards, but not to the Legislature,' she said. 'This is not a rainy day slush fund.' An evolving plan It wasn't always the plan for the Legislature to control so much of the settlement dollars. In 2021, when Mississippi and other states were in the midst of negotiating settlements, State Attorney General Lynn Fitch published an agreement between the state and local governments that would send only 15% to the Legislature's general fund. The agreement said that the bulk of the money – 70% – would be sent to the University of Mississippi Medical Center to build a new addiction medicine institute. But Mississippi law says the Legislature is the ultimate decision maker for how this type of state settlement money gets spent, according to Fitch's Chief of Staff Michelle Williams. So lawmakers passed their bill to change the plan. The Legislature changed the arrangement to make sure the money goes to where the state's most pressing addiction needs are, said Boyd. The advisory council, which will be supplemented by at least 22 additional nonvoting members, is a good way to have those needs captured, she said. As for the Legislature having final approval power, Boyd said that and other provisions were put into the bill to keep some power with lawmakers if the council becomes ineffective or political. It's the highest percentage of any state's opioid settlement share that will be controlled by a Legislature, according to the Vital Strategies Overdose Prevention Program and state guides. Dr. Caleb Alexander, an epidemiology professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, served as one of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses for some of the opioid lawsuits. Alexander has also helped U.S. cities and counties develop blueprints for how to use the settlements to quell their opioid crises. He said using the money on a variety of prevention, treatment and recovery strategies, rather than one big project, is likely a better way to save lives and prevent more addiction. But having the Legislature, rather than an apolitical body of addiction experts, play such a large role is not the setup he would suggest. 'I would have some concerns that it may gum things up,' he said. Additionally, Alexander said creating ways for funds to not be used to address the opioid epidemic, as the 2025 bill does, is 'a shame.' While the settlement agreements say that 70% of the funds must be spent on addressing addiction, there is nothing that prevents all the money from being used for the crisis, and most statesare doing that. He said the settlements define a wide variety of uses as addressing the epidemic — from first responder training to medication research and development — and he doesn't see a scenario where it makes sense to spend the money on other uses. 'The costs of abatement far outweigh the available funds for every city or county that I've examined,' he said. Boyd said she believes her colleagues in the House and Senate are all motivated to use this money to address addiction as a mental health condition. She said the new bill categorizes some funds as 'nonabatement' to free them up for ways to address addiction that may not fit neatly into the settlements' list of uses. The attorney general's original plan was the first to categorize a percentage of the funds as not needing to be used to stop the opioid crisis. Williams said it was written that way to match the terms of the national settlement agreements, although the settlement for the largest payout says spending on purposes other than addressing the opioid crisis is 'disfavored by the parties.' She said Fitch would love to see all the funds be spent on addiction response and prevention, like the One Pill Can Kill campaign the office runs. 'But it's the Legislature's prerogative,' she said. 'Where are the people in recovery?' Jason McCarty, the Mississippi Harm Reduction Initiative's former executive director, said he's glad the plan is no longer to send such a large portion of the settlement funds to UMMC. Organizations like the Initiative, he said, also could use additional support to keep Mississippians from dying. And he's concerned that while a peer recovery specialist will serve as a nonvoting member, none of the committee's 15 voting members must be people who've experienced addiction. 'Where are the people in recovery?' he asked. 'We're the subject matter experts.' Boyd said many of the voting committee roles are representatives of state agencies that she expects will help administer the settlement grants, like the Department of Mental Health. And there were only so many people who the Legislature can assign spots. 'It was no slight to anybody,' she said. 'It's just, this is a completely complex issue.' The Mississippi governor, lieutenant governor and speaker of the house will each assign two people to the committee, and Boyd said it's possible they will choose people in recovery. The bill says council members need to be appointed by early June. However the process plays out, McCarty hopes all the state's funds go to reputable organizations focused on preventing more opioid-related harm. In Mississippi, he sees a lack of housing and treatment options, especially for new parents, as areas that this money can help address. And as hundreds of Mississippians continue to die from overdoses each year, he said the state government has to move quickly and responsibly to make these funds available. 'We don't have a year to wait. It needs to go out quicker.' ___ This story was originally published by Mississippi Today and distributed through a partnership with The Associated Press.

After Ukraine's surprise drone assault on Russia, new attention drawn to sensitive sites stateside
After Ukraine's surprise drone assault on Russia, new attention drawn to sensitive sites stateside

Fox News

time31 minutes ago

  • Fox News

After Ukraine's surprise drone assault on Russia, new attention drawn to sensitive sites stateside

After Ukraine launched a sudden drone assault on Russian installations, it brought new attention to the U.S.' own vulnerabilities, regardless of which side the U.S. stood on Kyiv's attack. In recent years, Chinese Communist Party-linked entities have commercially targeted land around the U.S., including in the vicinity of sensitive installations like the Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota. The Fufeng Group's 300-acre farmland purchase in 2021 first raised the collective antennae of Congress to such under-the-radar transactions – and even Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis swiftly banned them in his state as a result, among other efforts around the country. On Tuesday, North Dakota's senators agreed that the U.S. must remain vigilant for any malign activity, whether it be from relatively novel drone assaults to potential espionage through real estate transactions. "When adversaries can buy our land, attend our universities, photograph silos in our prairies, perform aerial surveillance, park their ships near our military bases, or even just join our PTAs, they have more opportunities to be nefarious," Republican Sen. Kevin Cramer told Fox News Digital. "Our posture must always be vigilant, never assuming foreign actors are benign or have the best intentions," he said. "Whether it's directly spying, indirectly influencing, or sending drones to blow up aircraft, the ability of the enemy increases when we allow them easy access near our national interests." Cramer's Flickertail State counterpart, Sen. John Hoeven, joined an effort to prevent such land-buys and has worked with federal partners to update the process in which foreign investment is analyzed for approval and decided upon. "We need to remain vigilant against China and other adversaries," said Hoeven, who is co-sponsoring South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds' bill banning individuals and entities controlled by China, Russia, Iran and North Korea from purchasing farmland or commercial land near sensitive federal sites. "At the same time, we're working to update the CFIUS process [which governs federal approval of foreign investments] to ensure proper reviews are taking place as well," Hoeven said. "We also are working to develop the technology we need to protect our domestic military bases from potential drone threats." Rounds' bill also has bipartisan support, including from Sen. Catherine Cortez-Masto, D-Nev., whose state also hosts sensitive government sites like Nellis Air Force Base and Area 51. "It is common sense that we should not allow our foreign adversaries to buy agricultural land next to these locations," Masto said in a statement. Rounds added in a statement that America's "near-peer adversaries… are looking for any possible opportunity to surveil our nation's capabilities and resources." Even private-sector entities have expressed concern, including the South Dakota Soybean Association, which said farmland must be protected from foreign purchase for both agricultural and national security purposes.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store