Abortion Opponents Target Mifepristone with ‘Junk Science,’ Experts Warn

Opponents of abortion are leveraging flawed studies to challenge the safety of mifepristone, a critical medication in abortion procedures. This effort emerges amid federal discussions about potentially revising the drug’s approval and implementing new restrictions.

Critics, including mainstream medical researchers, have condemned these studies for methodological flaws, emphasizing that the established research indicates mifepristone and misoprostol are safe and effective. Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco, noted a growing surge in anti-abortion propaganda targeting mifepristone.

A paper from the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) claimed that mifepristone leads to serious adverse events in 10% of patients, a figure starkly higher than the widely accepted 0.3% complication rate. Critics argue it inaccurately categorizes non-threatening occurrences as adverse effects, and its lack of peer review raises further concerns regarding its credibility.

This week, another paper challenged the assertion that mifepristone has a lower complication rate than acetaminophen. The author, Cameron Loutitt, a biomedical engineer affiliated with the anti-abortion Charlotte Lozier Institute, aimed to inspire more rigorous scrutiny within the medical community regarding unfounded claims surrounding abortion drug safety.

A related study suggested that emergency rooms often identify medication abortions as miscarriages, potentially inflating reports of serious complications. Upadhyay pointed out that a similar paper by the Lozier Institute was recently rejected for publication due to methodological issues. She criticized the continued circulation of unreliable research findings aimed at undermining mifepristone’s established safety.

Despite these claims, the scientific consensus remains largely unchanged, with over 100 studies validating the safety of mifepristone and the overall medication abortion regimen. Abortion opponents are increasingly focused on restricting mifepristone, which accounts for approximately two-thirds of abortions in the U.S., especially as more individuals turn to telehealth for medical consultations.

Recent statements from Health and Human Services officials indicated a willingness to review mifepristone’s approval, citing the controversial EPPC paper. Reproductive health organizations affirmed the soundness of the FDA approval process, reiterating that mifepristone has been safely used for years.

Amidst these discussions, the International Institute for Reproductive Loss has explicitly sought to bolster research supporting stricter medication abortion restrictions. Their representatives have suggested strategies to discredit studies illustrating mifepristone’s safety.

Despite persistent claims of prevalent complications, anti-abortion lawmakers are rallying around the recent research to justify further limitations on mifepristone. Senator Josh Hawley has cited the EPPC paper in calls for revisiting the FDA’s safety measures concerning the drug.

Legal experts, including David Cohen from Drexel University, have indicated that the current surge in questionable “science” stems from a lack of substantiated evidence for the anti-abortion movement’s claims.

As the debate continues, efforts to reverse FDA decisions on mifepristone’s distribution via telehealth are ongoing, although federal action appears uncertain. The future of medication abortion remains at a critical juncture as opposing forces engage in a battle over scientific integrity and public policy.