National Review
Chemical abortion is the new challenge for life defenders
As part of a broader effort to expand access to chemical abortion, House Democrats are demanding that the Food and Drug Administration remove safety protocols for mifepristone, a drug most commonly prescribed for abortions during the first three months of pregnancy. . Under its current policy, the FDA requires women to obtain the first of two chemical abortion pills personally from a healthcare professional, rather than via telemedicine. The face-to-face mandate is intended to be a safety precaution to ensure that women are monitored and have access to follow-up care as needed. Last week, several Democratic congressmen on the House Oversight Committee wrote to FDA acting commissioner Janet Woodcock, demanding that the agency “immediately eliminate the need for unnecessary medical dispensing of mifepristone.” Congressmen say that “imposing this requirement in the midst of a deadly pandemic – which has disproportionately affected communities of color in the United States – unnecessarily endangers patients and providers and further reinforces old health inequalities.” The letter is the latest move in a year-long effort by Democratic politicians and pro-abortion groups to eliminate the safety requirements of chemical abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic, pushing to allow women to obtain the drug via telemedicine. Last March, a coalition of Democratic attorney generals urged the FDA to undo security guidelines during the pandemic. In May, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump administration on behalf of a coalition of abortion advocacy groups, demanding an emergency order to suspend the FDA’s security policy, which the groups said was “medically unnecessary”. Over the summer, a federal judge supported the ACLU, calling the FDA’s safety standards an unconstitutional “substantial obstacle” to the alleged right to abortion because of the conditions created by the pandemic and related blockades. “When making certain patients decide between giving up or substantially postponing abortion care, or risking exposure to COVID-19 for themselves, their children and family members, personal requirements represent a serious burden for many abortion patients,” US district judge Theodore Chuang wrote in his decision. That decision lasted until last month, when the Supreme Court overturned Chuang’s decision and determined by 6–3 that the FDA could restore its safety standard. The Court’s reversal sent progressives back to the drawing board, now leading efforts – like this letter from House Democrats – to lobby the newly installed FDA commissioner. The debate is especially interesting because the data suggests that an increase in the rate of chemical abortion is a central reason for the recent increase in the overall rate of abortion in the United States. As Michael New recently pointed out in the National Review Online, the number of chemical abortions that women have had increased steadily since the FDA first approved mifepristone for abortions in 2000. “Between 2015 and 2018, the percentage of total abortions that were chemical abortions increased from 25% to 40% ”, new notes. “Among the 42 states that reported data on the type of procedure in 2017 and 2018, the number of chemical abortions increased by more than 10 percent.” This increase in the number of chemical abortions is probably one of the main reasons why the Centers for Disease Control reported a rare increase in the overall abortion rate in 2018, although the abortion rate in the U.S. has dropped steadily since 1980. Meanwhile , the democratic campaign to undo the safety requirements of mifepristone ignores the risks for women taking the drug, especially without adequate supervision or access to follow-up care. Many of the possible side effects and complications of the drug require subsequent personal care or emergency treatment, which can be especially difficult to access during the pandemic. According to one study, between 5% and 7% of women who undergo a chemical abortion will need a follow-up surgical abortion. Another survey found that more than 3% of women who took mifepristone needed to be admitted to an emergency room to deal with complications. A recent article in Issues in Law and Medicine, cataloging FDA reports of adverse events following chemical abortion, found that “significant morbidity and mortality occurred after using mifepristone as an abortion” in the past two decades. While abortion rights activists are pushing to loosen FDA security protocols, life advocates are starting to push in the opposite direction, correctly observing the potentially serious risks to women’s safety. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a citizen petition with the FDA in 2019, emphasizing the serious risks of mifepristone. The petition noted that abortion-related injuries are underreported, because most treatments are provided in emergency rooms, not abortion clinics. Last September, a group of Republican senators asked the FDA to “classify the abortion pill as an ‘imminent danger to public health’ that poses a ‘significant threat of danger’ and remove that pill from the US market.” “We believe that this deadly pill should never have been approved, but the abortion industry has been politically rewarded with an accelerated approval process normally reserved for high-risk drugs that treat fatal diseases like AIDS,” added the letter. “As you certainly know, pregnancy is not a life-threatening disease, and the abortion pill does not cure or prevent any disease.” As Democrats step up their efforts to remove all drug precautions from chemical abortion, the pro-life movement must focus its attention on this new challenge in the struggle for abortion, which takes the lives of unborn children and puts their mothers at risk.