Axios Story on Abortion Pills Describes Ending Unborn Life as ‘Care’
Elizabeth Troutman /
An Axios reporter described abortion drugs as “care” in a news story published last week, apparently doing so with the approval of the news website’s editors.
“40 million more women would lose access to abortion care if a federal court revokes the use of a key drug in medication abortions, data from the abortion rights group NARAL shows,” Axios reporter Oriana Gonzales wrote in the article published Friday.
The Associated Press’ left-leaning Abortion Topical Guide, added between Nov. 20 and Nov. 27, according to The Daily Signal’s search via the WayBack Machine, never instructs journalists to refer to abortion as “care.”
“These terms [medical abortions, abortion pills] describe a method for ending pregnancy that usually involves taking two prescription medicines—mifepristone and misoprostol—days apart, at home or in a clinic,” the AP guide says.
Neither Axios nor Gonzales responded to The Daily Signal’s request for comment about the reason for the word choice.
In the article, headlined “40 million would lose abortion access if court blocks pill, study shows,” Gonzales wrote that if a Texas District Court decides to temporarily block the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s authorization of mifepristone, the ruling effectively would ban chemical abortions nationwide.
Mifepristone is one of two drugs used to “end pregnancies,” Gonzales wrote.
The regimen involves women taking mifepristone, which blocks nutrients to the unborn child, followed by a dose of misoprostol 24 to 48 hours later, which expels the dead baby.
If the Texas judge grants an injunction on the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, the ruling would require manufacturers and distributors of abortion pills to stop selling and shipping mifepristone immediately, “regardless of what state a person is in,” Gonzales wrote.
Chemical abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy are responsible for nearly half of all abortions each year in the United States, making the two-drug regimen the most common way to end an unborn life in America. Chemical abortions have killed 24 women, according to the FDA, and injured thousands more since their legalization in 2000.
Dr. Ingrid Skop, senior fellow and director of medical affairs at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America research branch, said abortion pills benefit the abortion industry to the detriment of women.
“’Abortion care’ is an absurd phrase because almost all abortions are elective procedures that would never fit the definition of healthcare,” Skop told The Daily Signal. “Because few obstetricians are willing to perform surgical abortions, abortion pills give the abortion industry an opportunity to evade both their personnel issues and pro-life state laws, while still maintaining high profit margins.“
“Pro-life state laws protect both mom and baby,” she added. “Abortion pills put both at serious risk.”
The FDA put abortion pills on its “REMS” list of higher-risk procedures in 2000. The classification requires mifepristone and misoprostol pills to be prescribed by a certified health provider and dispensed in person in a health clinic setting.
A federal judge changed the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirements during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration and continued to restrict abortion pills.
The Biden administration, however, announced last February that it no longer would enforce a requirement that women pick up the medicine in person. The Food and Drug Administration finalized the rule change Jan. 3, allowing more retail pharmacies to dispense the pills—including large chains and mail-order companies.
In November, pro-life groups including the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists sued the FDA in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, arguing that the pills aren’t safe for women.
The case will go before U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was appointed in 2019 by President Donald Trump. Kacsmaryk is expected to rule on the injunction as soon as Feb. 24.
This report has been modified within 16 hours of of publication to include Dr. Ingrid Skop’s comments.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email letters@DailySignal.com and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the url or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state.