American women are silently suffering while the Food and Drug Administration drags its feet on reviewing the abortion drug mifepristone. Without swift action, an untold number of women will endure unnecessary pain and even potentially death.
On Jan. 14, the Senate HELP Committee held a hearing on the dangers of chemical abortion drugs. The hearing emphasized the need to restore the longstanding regulations on mifepristone which the Biden administration rescinded during the COVID-19 pandemic–most notably, the requirement that women have an in-person doctor’s visit to determine potential pregnancy risks, or gestational age–as well as the termination of mail-order abortion.
The ultimate takeaway of the hearing was clear: if the FDA doesn’t move quickly to protect American women from the dangers of mifepristone, more women will experience potentially life-threatening consequences, leaving doctors scrambling to provide treatment and combat the effects of an unregulated drug.
For years, pro-life advocates, physicians, and lawmakers have urged the FDA to conduct a safety review on mifepristone, and to consider reinstating basic safeguards that previously protected patients.
Just this past September, the FDA announced that they were commencing their long-awaited review. And recently, the American Association of Pro-Life OB/GYNs (AAPLOG) sent a letter to the FDA and Department of Health and Human Services pleading with the agencies to expedite their investigation into mifepristone.
Despite the passing months and growing urgency, however, the FDA’s efforts have been lethargic at best. Meanwhile, I’ve continued my daily practice caring for women afflicted by the pill with growing astonishment at the lack of oversight from our leaders on this public health crisis.
At the recenthearing, a member of the organization I lead, AAPLOG, Dr. Monique Wubbenhorst, shared her firsthand experience working for over thirty years in maternal health across the globe.
Wubbenhorst, who has treated the many serious physical and mental health effects of mifepristone, noted that the drug can cause infection, hemorrhage, the need for blood transfusions, and in extreme cases, death.
Her testimony is buttressed by the FDA’s own data, which admits that about 1 out of 25 women who take mifepristone end up in the emergency room.
Moreover, about 15% of women who take mifepristone experience hemorrhaging while, according to recent reviews of insurance claims data, almost 11% experience serious adverse reactions within 45 days (approximately 22 times higher than the rate that the FDA reports on the drug label). Other studies show that mifepristone’s rate of complications is four times higher than that associated with surgical abortions.
Compounding the inherent dangers of the drugs themselves are the risks associated with deregulating them.
Eliminating the requirement for an in-person doctor’s visit before acquiring the drugs endangers women, who may not know if they have an ectopic pregnancy, or even how far along in their pregnancy they are. During the hearing, even pro-abortion witness Dr. Nisha Verma admitted that she would not distribute mifepristone to a woman at 20 weeks’ gestation.
Yet the current FDA policy allows anyone to acquire the drugs without confirming gestational age, despite the fact that serious complications increase significantly with increasing gestational age and the fact that many women will be wrong about how far along they are without an ultrasound.
Additionally, since mail-order abortions were endorsed by the FDA, numerous abusers, boyfriends and even once trusted husbands have been able to acquire mifepristone by mail in order to force abortions on women.
These horrifying incidents have resulted in the unwanted deaths of preborn babies in addition to severe physical problems and trauma for the women involved.
Despite a growing body of evidence on the harms of these drugs as well as the stories of women and physicians that confirm this harm, pro-abortion lawmakers tried discrediting Wubbenhorst’s testimony–as well as the combined efforts of over 30,000 pro-life medical professionals to demand the FDA expedite its safety review of the drug–by touting the “science” of mifepristone.
As they sat there–in expensive suits and seats won by the backing of their pro-abortion donors – the irony of them correcting a world-celebrated women’s health physician on women’s health was not lost on me.
My mind flooded with memories of my own patients, many of whom have had traumatic experiences with mifepristone. Pro-abortion activists and lawmakers were not there to dry their tears or explain what was happening to them or comfort them when they questioned why no one had warned them. I was.
They were not there to intervene emergently to save these women’s lives through blood transfusions, IV antibiotics for severe infection or emergency surgery for their incomplete abortions. I was.
And they are not there to deal with the aftermath of women poisoned against their will by abusers or prevent this from even happening in the first place. I am.
It’s unlikely that any of the pro-abortion lawmakers pushing to prevent safety regulations on mifepristone will ever have to deal with the fallout of their policies. The women they claim to champion will–often alone, terrified, and bleeding out in their bathrooms.
The pro-abortion activists and physicians haphazardly dispensing these dangerous drugs without appropriate counseling and assessment will not be there to take care of women when they suffer emergent complications–doctors like me and Wubbenhorst will be the ones called to care for them.
And while we are happy to do so, we are opposed to the system that creates this scenario in the first place, and allows those responsible to escape any accountability. The last we heard, the FDA was in the data acquisition stage of their review. Let’s hope that the recent hearing was another piece of evidence of the mail-order abortion crisis unfolding across America and incentivizes them to finally do something about it.
We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.
