Chemical hazard

The FDA says the chemical abortion pill Mifeprex is “safe and effective,” but research shows this drug is neither safe nor effective. It is instead harming thousands of women. 

The Ethics and Public Policy Center is releasing a study series that investigates women’s health and abortion, using real-world data. In its first paper, EPPC reported that the detrimental side effects of the abortion pill are 22 times higher than what the FDA reports. The second paper, released May 12, said one in 19 cases—or 5.26 percent—fail to complete an abortion effectively. In total, EPPC reported 13.51 percent of women, roughly one in seven women, experience either at least one serious adverse event or a repeated abortion attempt within 45 days of taking Mifeprex. 

About 63 percent of abortions in the United States are chemical, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Guttmacher reported 642,700 medication abortions in 2023. Applying EPPC’s reported 13.51 percent to this number results in more than 86,000 women each year who suffer serious adverse events from taking the abortion pill. That reduces to about 240 women a day. 

The drug is deadly. Christians have known this since its inception and legalization in the United States in 2000. Not only is the life of the child at risk, the health and safety of the mother is at risk. Mainstream media want to deny this. The Guardian published a piece seeking to undermine EPPC’s research and report. “The truth is that abortion pills have a lower rate of serious complications than Tylenol, and that the anti-abortion movement is in fact a great danger to American women’s health.” author Moira Donegan wrote.

In her comparison of the chemical abortion pill to Tylenol, Donegan cited AFP Fact Check, which warns that “the over-the-counter pain medication [Tylenol] can lead to liver damage if the recommended dosage is ignored.” 

That final subordinate clause is essential: “if the recommended dosage is ignored.” This is the very issue with the current FDA regulations for mifepristone after the Biden Administration’s abolition of appropriate guidelines. The FDA under the Biden Administration removed in-person appointments, in-person doctor administration of the drug, and follow-up appointments, EPPC reported.

Without these regulations, dangers increase because of the inability to evaluate the pregnancy. If a woman takes mifepristone for an ectopic pregnancy, danger to her life significantly increases. But a woman cannot know if her pregnancy is an ectopic pregnancy without an in-person doctor visit. EPPC recorded more than 3,000 cases of undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies.

For the study, EPPC used the FDA’s definition of a “serious adverse event.” EPPC limited the number of emergency room visits to include only those clearly related to the abortion, within 45 days of a woman taking the pill, and required hospitalization or surgical intervention. 

EPPC’s research excluded 72 percent of emergency room visits 45 days after taking the abortion pill that may not have related to the abortion itself, EPPC reports on a FAQ page. The resulting 4.7 percent of women who visit the ER as a result of taking the abortion pill matches the FDA’s own statistic of 4.6 percent.

Despite these consistent numbers and definitions with the FDA, major news outlets still claim the EPPC report is invalid. The main attack argues the EPPC study is not peer-reviewed. “We should note that, unlike most credible medical studies, the report did not undergo a formal external peer review before publication,” Glenn Kessler wrote in The Washington Post. 

But, as is evident in the opposition and blind rejection of researched data after the release of EPPC’s report, the numbers never would have passed the pro-abortion narrative of the peer-review process. “Given the extensive pro-abortion bias in the peer-review process, there are, effectively, no opportunities to publish peer-reviewed analysis that offer major substantive critiques of the abortion pill or abortion,” EPPC’s FAQ page argues.

The lack of peer review does not imply a lack of accuracy. EPPC released the report with full replicability, so anyone can check the data. The research team included a range of experts to validate the data and conclusions.

“Our research project was conducted and validated by a team of data scientists, analysts, and engineers, with assistance from our clinical team of board-certified obstetricians and gynecologists,” EPPC reported in its first paper. “Members have a history of academic research and peer-reviewed publication.”

Despite every attack, EPPC’s report is valid and accurate. The truth will prevail in time. But with passing time, 240 women still suffer daily from the effects of chemical abortions.