Missouri AG sues Planned Parenthood for allegedly lying about dangers of abortion drugs
Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Jefferson City arguing that Planned Parenthood's claims that the abortion drug is safer than many other medications including penicillin and Tylenol are untrue and violate the state's consumer-protection law.
Bailey claims that the nonprofit organization has lied about the safety of the drug to 'cut costs and boost revenue,' according to the lawsuit. The complaint also requests a court order to stop Planned Parenthood from 'continuing to promote the falsehoods,' in Missouri and for the organization to pay more than $1.8 million in civil penalties.
The attorney general's office is also asking for the organization to be fined $1,000 in damages to every woman in the Show-Me State that has received abortion medication through one of is providers in the past five years.
On top of this, it asks that the organization reimburse the state for Medicaid and other tax-payer-funded emergency care provided to people who suffered complications after taking mifepristone.
'We are going to hold these charlatans and death dealers accountable,' Bailey wrote in a post on social platform X about the suit.
The crux of the lawsuit's argument comes down to a disagreement over how many people suffer adverse health effects after taking mifepristone.
On the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) warning label for the drug, it states that between 2.9 percent and 4.6 percent of people who have taken it along with misoprostol report visiting an emergency room afterwards.
There are two drugs typically needed for a medication abortion: mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone stops the pregnancy from growing while misoprostol induces cramping and bleeding to empty the uterus.
More than 100 scientific studies across decades have looked at the efficacy and safety of the pair and all of them have found the drugs safe for use, according to an analysis from The New York Times.
Bailey's lawsuit claims that the FDA's label is inaccurate and that 'recent studies' suggest the complication rate is much higher. The lawsuit does not cite a specific study to back up its claim and a spokesperson for the attorney general's office did not answer questions from The Hill about what data was used to back up its claim.
The lawsuit does echo findings outlined in a deeply flawed study published in April by the conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) which states that after analyzing more than 865,000 prescribed mifepristone abortions, it determined that nearly 11 percent of women experienced a 'serious adverse event.'
That's nearly 22 times higher than what the FDA reports.
Bailey's lawsuit references a 'dataset' of more than 850,000 mifepristone abortions that identified 'serious adverse events' in more than 10 percent of women who took the drug.
Medical researchers have criticized the EPPC study for its lack of transparency and for flaws in its methodology. One of the largest hiccups of the study is its inclusion of emergency room visits as one of the 'serious adverse events' that can happen after taking the abortion pill, health experts say.
The EPPC study breaks down 'serious adverse events' into categories including hemorrhage, sepsis and emergency room visits. It looks as if emergency room visits were counted as adverse events even if health care workers determined the patient was healthy and released them without treatment.
Some people might go to an emergency room after taking the abortion pill to confirm that they are no longer pregnant or to make sure that the bleeding they are experiencing is normal, two principal research scientists at the Guttmacher Institute noted in an op-ed last month.
The lawsuit is the latest attack from conservative lawmakers on Planned Parenthood. Under the GOP's new tax and spending bill, the organization would lose its ability to receive Medicaid reimbursements for health services it provides for one year.
The nonprofit sued the Trump administration over the provision and a federal judge granted the organization's request for a temporary injunction earlier this week.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
29 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Ice Cream Recalled Nationwide As Warning Issued Over Products
Tropicale Foods, based in Ontario, California, announced on Friday a voluntary recall of select Helados Mexico and La Michoacana ice cream products. The decision followed a label audit which revealed that although the products list "cream," they do not explicitly declare "milk"—that could endanger those allergic to milk. Newsweek contacted the company for comment on Sunday via email outside of usual working hours. Milk is a major allergen under federal labeling laws, and its accidental presence in products poses a risk to consumers with allergies or severe sensitivities. Undeclared ingredients can trigger life-threatening reactions, making accurate labeling a critical public health requirement. The company announcement, published on the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s website on Saturday, states: "Tropicale Foods of Ontario, CA is recalling certain Helados Mexico and La Michoacana products with specific best by dates, as detailed below because these products contain undeclared milk. "Though these products include 'cream' in the product ingredient lists, the common name 'milk' is not declared. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products." Affected items include single-flavor offerings (such as Coconut, Strawberry, Bubble Gum, Cookies and Cream, Mango), as well as multi-packs (6‑pack, 12‑pack, 16‑pack varieties). The recalled products are as follows: Photos of the affected products are available on the FDA website. The recall covers a wide range of "best by" dates from May 2026 through July 2027. Distribution spanned retail locations nationwide across the U.S. As of the FDA announcement, one consumer illness has been reported. Consumers with affected items who are allergic or sensitive to milk are advised not to consume the products and to properly dispose of them. Food Allergy Research and Education (FARE) states on its website: "When a person with a milk allergy is exposed to milk, proteins in the milk bind to specific antibodies made by the person's immune system. This triggers the person's immune defenses, leading to reaction symptoms that can be mild or very severe." Consumers who have the affected product should dispose of and not consume this product if allergic or sensitive to milk, and consult medical advice if symptoms arise. Anyone with queries may contact the company at 909-563-3090 between 8 am and 5 pm Pacific, Monday to Friday. The FDA will continue oversight and monitor any additional consumer reports or updates. Related Articles Is the FDA Doing Enough About Food Additives?Nationwide Ritz Cracker Recall Update as FDA Issues Risk WarningCanned Fruit Recall Sparks Nationwide Warning to CustomersFDA Issues Highest Risk Warning for Tofu Recall 2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
The Hill
39 minutes ago
- The Hill
Medicaid changes will hurt family caregivers, experts warn
Medicaid cuts under President Trump's sweeping tax and spending package will harm family caregivers, experts warn, by reducing access to health care for themselves and the people they care for, which could then lead to more caregiving responsibilities. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the package will reduce Medicaid spending by roughly $911 billion over the next 10 years and increase the number of uninsured Americans by up to 10 million. Some of those who could lose coverage are among the 8 million — or 13 percent — of family caregivers in the United States who receive their health insurance coverage through Medicaid, according to the National Alliance of Caregiving. 'We are very concerned of the impact of the just finalized Medicaid cuts on the community of family caregivers,' Jason Resendez, president and CEO of the alliance, said during a call with reporters earlier this week. Medicaid recipients will be subject to more frequent eligibility checks, in part, due to revised work requirements for the joint state and federal program. Now, adults between the ages of 19 and 64 will need to work or participate in community service activities for at least 80 hours a month to be eligible for health care coverage under Medicaid. There are some exceptions for parents with dependents as well as for those deemed 'medically frail' or who are pregnant or postpartum, according to the health care policy nonprofit KFF. Many caregivers cannot work outside the home because of the intense care their family members need, or can only work limited hours, which can make fulfilling Medicaid work requirements difficult to impossible. This was the case for Lisa Tschudi, host of caregiving podcast 'Love Doesn't Pay the Bills,' who stayed home full time to take care of her daughter who has ataxic cerebral palsy and epilepsy. 'We really did not have other options,' she said. 'I, many times, tried to line up some non-me care for her during the workday and a job for myself, and I never really got my start in a paid job in that way.' Her daughter's epilepsy was poorly controlled for years as a child and teen, which required her to travel for frequent doctors' appointments on top of taking care of her younger daughter. 'It was a lot to manage,' she said. Work requirements might force some family caregivers to look for outside help, if that is an option, which represents a new expense and, potentially, a new challenge to navigate. 'Even if you can find outside providers to come in … families often find that they are not reliable,' said Elizabeth Edwards, senior attorney at the National Health Law Program. 'Some of that inconsistency of how people show up as providers can mean it's very hard to hold a job.' Family caregivers also already spend huge amounts of time navigating numerous bureaucratic hurdles, and new work requirements will add to the paperwork they have to fill out to prove they are eligible for health care under Medicaid. This extra administrative work also increases the likelihood of errors occurring in the eligibility system, which could delay coverage or prevent some from being enrolled altogether, according to Edwards. That is what happened to many Medicaid recipients in Arkansas and Georgia when the two states implemented work requirements in 2018 and 2023, respectively. More than 18,000 people in Arkansas lost Medicaid coverage over the 10-month period the state rolled out work requirements without increasing employment, according to a KFF analysis. Georgia still has one of the highest uninsured rates in the country at 12 percent, according to the Commonwealth Fund. 'We anticipate [them] not just being faced with these eligibility issues, but family caregivers losing Medicaid coverage because of these additional hurdles that they'll be forced to traverse,' Resendez said. About 11 million family caregivers in the U.S. receive payment for the care they provide, according to Resendez. Those payments primarily come through home and community-based services and consumer-directed programs at the state level. But those programs will likely start to lose funding as states are forced to decide what to fund with fewer Medicaid dollars, experts told The Hill. 'When states have less money and are forced to make decisions, home and community-based services are the first optional benefits to get cut,' Resendez said. Tschudi, as well as her husband and second daughter, are all paid family caregivers under a home and community-based service their home state of Oregon's Medicaid program provides. Without that program, her family would likely have to go back to unpaid caregiving, which would not be financially possible at this time. 'I don't wish it on anyone,' Tschudi said about the struggles that come with unpaid caregiving. 'I really think you leave families in an impossible situation when you don't pay for caregiving.'
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Coke with cane sugar may not be that big of a MAHA victory
Coca-Cola is going to offer a cane sugar version of its signature beverage, rather than one sweetened with corn syrup. Major segments of the food industry, including General Mills and Heinz, have pledged to remove certain colored dyes from their products. The fast-food chain Steak 'n Shake is making french fries in beef tallow rather than vegetable oil. Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has claimed them all as significant victories for his 'make America healthy again' (MAHA) movement as part of its quest to reform the U.S. food supply. 'Froot Loops is finally following its nose — toward common sense,' Kennedy said on social platform X after cereal-maker WK Kellogg Co. agreed to remove synthetic dyes from its cereal by 2027. 'I urge more companies to step up and join the movement to Make America Healthy Again.' But nutrition and food policy experts say the moves are a far cry from actually making America healthier. While they praised the administration and MAHA for drawing attention to what they said is a broken food system, the victories touted thus far have been largely symbolic and rely on the goodwill of an industry that is eager to appear helpful to avoid strict government regulation. 'I think if we're really curious about improving public health, some of the small health initiatives, like … replacing high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar, are really not where the administration should be channeling their efforts and leveraging the power that they do have,' said Priya Fielding-Singh, director of policy and programs at the George Washington University Global Food Institute. 'I think they should be focusing their efforts on initiatives that actually address the root of the problem, which is essentially a food system that promotes excess sugar, salt and fat,' Fielding-Singh said. Health officials and GOP lawmakers have taken to conservative media in recent weeks to tout the commitments from food and beverage companies to remove synthetic dyes. According to the HHS, nearly 35 percent of the industry has made such a commitment. But there's been no force behind the companies' actions, which experts said is an issue. 'Simply switching from synthetic to natural colors will not make these products less likely to cause obesity,' said Jerold Mande, a former senior official during three administrations at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Agriculture and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Barry Popkin, a nutrition professor at the University of North Carolina Gillings School of Global Public Health, said Kennedy could make a major statement by banning all colors and dyes. It wouldn't directly make Americans healthy, but it would go a long way toward making ultra-processed food look less appealing. 'All this voluntary stuff only goes so far. It really does minimal impact,' Popkin said. 'Unless he goes to the FDA and has the FDA change a regulation … there's nothing.' Kennedy has also singled out the use of high-fructose corn syrup as a major contributor to diabetes and obesity. He has previously called it 'poison,' an epithet he repeated in late April when talking about sugar. When Steak 'n Shake said earlier this month it was going to sell Coca-Cola with real cane sugar, Kennedy praised the move. 'MAHA is winning,' Kennedy posted on X. But experts said there's no substantial difference in the benefits of using cane sugar as a substitute for high-fructose corn syrup. 'At the end of the day, a Coke is still a can of Coke. It's not a fruit or a vegetable, right? And so if you're not shifting consumption away from these higher calorie, lower nutrient processed foods, toward nutrient dense, health promoting foods, then you're not actually going to be shifting the health of Americans in the right direction,' Fielding-Singh said. But if Kennedy thinks sugar is poison, 'they're both sugar and would both be poison, in his words,' said Mande, who is now CEO of Nourish Science. Health officials argue industry cooperation is key to the MAHA agenda. 'Working with industry is the best place to start. And we believe in industry to do the right thing when called upon,' Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Administrator Mehmet Oz wrote in a joint op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. 'Our agencies are in a strong position to show Americans which companies are doing the right thing when it comes to popular reforms. By the time we're done, we will have built new relationships and be better positioned to hold them accountable,' Makary and Oz wrote. Yet there is plenty the agency can, and should do, that industry has pushed back against. Aviva Musicus, science director of the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest, said MAHA is wasting its political capital. 'It's striking that we haven't seen the administration use policy to improve the food system. It's solely relying on voluntary industry commitments that we've seen repeatedly fail in the past,' Musicus said. 'In pushing the food industry to change, Trump and RFK Jr. have a chance to live up to their promises to fight chronic disease. Coca-Cola is at the table, but they're wasting the opportunity to actually improve health. The administration should focus on less sugar, not different sugar,' Musicus added. Popkin said he would like to see warning labels on ultra-processed foods high in sodium, added sugar and saturated fat. Kennedy 'hasn't tackled ultra-processed food yet. That'll be where he could make an impact on health in the U.S. and all the non-communicable diseases, including obesity. But he hasn't gone there yet,' Popkin said. The coming months will reveal more on the MAHA movement's plans to change how Americans eat. New dietary guidelines will be released 'in the next several months,' Kennedy said recently. In addition, a second MAHA report focused on policy recommendations is expected in August. 'We have to be considering that there could be real potential down the road,' Popkin said. 'But [there's been] nothing yet. That document will tell us if there ever be.'
