One in ten women experience a “serious adverse event” after taking the abortion pill, according to a study released this week by the US based Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC). The study found that 10.93% of women experienced sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days after a mifepristone abortion. The findings suggest that serious adverse events after mifepristone abortions are at least 20 times as high as the stated figure of “less than 0.5%” in clinical trials reported on the drug label. Mifepristone, when used together with the medication misoprostol, is used to have an abortion during the first ten weeks of pregnancy, according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Danco Laboratories, a pharmaceutical distributor based in Manhattan, distributes mifepristone under the brand name Mifeprex, and claims on their website that the drug is “safe and effective.”
The EPPC study claims to be the largest-known review of the abortion pill conducted in the U.S. is based on analysis of data from an all-payer insurance claims database that includes 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023.
“Danco Laboratories markets Mifeprex as ‘the safe and effective abortion pill,’ but our research shows that mifepristone abortion, as currently practiced in the U.S., is not safe and effective,” the EPPC study claims. “The manufacturer and the FDA rely on the results of 10 clinical trials with a total of 30,966 participants, less than 0.5% of whom reportedly experienced serious adverse reactions. In contrast, we analyzed real-world insurance claims data for 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions, broadly representative of women who obtain mifepristone abortions in the U.S. today, and we find a serious adverse event rate of 10.93% – at least 22 times as high as the summary figure reported on the drug label.”
“Simply stated, mifepristone, as used in real-world conditions, is not ‘safe and effective,’” the EPPC says.
The alarming findings produced by the long established and highly reputable EPPC deserve to be properly debated and reflected upon, yet the immediate reaction of pro-abortion advocates and their political allies was to vilify the authors by indulging in ad hominem attacks rather than engage with the content. Regrettably, it once again demonstrates that, in their worldview, rigid ideology takes precedence over genuine concern for women's health and the sanctity of life.