Chuck Darwin<p>The US health secretary, Robert F Kennedy Jr, said on Wednesday that he had directed the FDA to review the regulations around the abortion pill <a href="https://c.im/tags/mifepristone" class="mention hashtag" rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">#<span>mifepristone</span></a>.</p><p>The review, he said, was necessary due to “new data” <br>– data that emerged from a flawed analysis that top US anti-abortion groups are now using to pressure the Trump administration to reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, <br>- if not pull it from the market entirely.</p><p>The analysis, which has not been peer-reviewed or published in a medical journal, <br>came after the Food and Drug Administration commissioner said he was open to reviewing new safety data on the pills, which are used in nearly two-thirds of abortions nationwide.</p><p>The conservative organizations are rallying behind a paper published on April 28 by a rightwing thinktank, the "Ethics and Public Policy Center", <br>which claims there are higher complication rates from taking mifepristone than previously known.</p><p>The paper has attracted scrutiny for appearing to dramatically overstate what it characterizes as “serious adverse effects” associated with the pill, according to medical experts. <br>For example, it counts ectopic pregnancies – when an embryo implants somewhere other than the uterine lining – as a serious complication.<br>Mifepristone does not cause an ectopic pregnancy <br>and taking it will not harm someone with an ectopic. <br>It also claims that needing an <br>in-clinic procedure to complete the abortion is a complication, <br>when patients are counseled in advance about the pills’ failure rate of about 3 to 4%.</p><p>The data, the authors say, means the FDA should reinstate earlier restrictions on mifepristone, <br>including a ban on telemedicine and limiting use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy – but they do not intend to stop there.</p><p>The authors note that restoring the limits could lead to better monitoring that could help “determine whether this drug should remain on the market”, <br>statements that echo proposals found in Project 2025, the 900-page playbook published by the Heritage Foundation and for which the EPPC was an advisory board member.</p><p>Project 2025 calls to end telemedicine prescriptions of abortion pills <br>as an “interim step” to revoking mifepristone’s approval altogether.</p><p>More than 100 scientific studies have found the medications cited in the paper are safe and effective for ending a pregnancy.</p><p>Telehealth, plus blue-state “shield laws”, have enabled thousands of people living in states where abortion is banned to continue to access mifepristone and misoprostol, <br>which frustrates abortion opponents. <br>One in five abortions nationwide are done via telemedicine, <br>and in spring 2024, mail providers facilitated more than 7,700 abortions per month in states with total or six-week abortion bans.</p><p>Anti-abortion leaders said during a private Zoom call that they intend to use the EPPC paper to pressure the FDA and lawmakers to dramatically roll back access to the drug, <br>“if not suspend” their approval entirely, Politico reported.<br> It is part of a plan they are privately calling “Rolling Thunder”.</p><p>Activists on that call <br>– which included representatives from Americans United for Life, <br>Live Action, Students for Life, <br>and Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America <br>– stressed that they viewed ending telemedicine prescriptions only as a “first step”.</p><p>According to the Politico report, the EPPC president, Ryan Anderson, argued on the call that <br>this plan aligns with Donald Trump’s stated desire to leave abortion policy to the states <br>because, he said, “you’re not leaving it to states if California can mail pills to Texas”.</p><p>Activists tried to push back on criticism that the paper was not peer-reviewed by arguing that academia is “broken” <br>and they could not trust journals or reviewers not to “sabotage” their effort or leak it to the press. <br>Politico reported that one medical professional on the call, <br>Christina Francis, the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, <br>warned her colleagues not to misrepresent the paper, acknowledging that the report was “not a study in the traditional sense” <br>and “not conclusive proof of anything”. <br>Still, Francis argued that it warranted government action and more research.<br><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/may/14/rfk-jr-fda-abortion-pill-mifepristone?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other" rel="nofollow noopener" translate="no" target="_blank"><span class="invisible">https://www.</span><span class="ellipsis">theguardian.com/us-news/2025/m</span><span class="invisible">ay/14/rfk-jr-fda-abortion-pill-mifepristone?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other</span></a></p>