Countering the Rising Tide of Misinformation

Guttmacher experts know that there is no scientific evidence behind this spurious environmental narrative. Municipal water systems are heavily regulated to minimize trace amounts of common medications. People miscarry and menstruate at home every day.

The claims are baseless, but they are not aimless, since they go to the heart of contemporary abortion access. It was Guttmacher’s research that first documented that mifepristone, which more than 100 rigorous studies have shown to be safe and effective, is now used in the majority of abortions in the United States. Through telehealth services under shield law protections, medication abortion using mifepristone has become a major lifeline for people in states where abortion is banned or otherwise restricted.

The real goal behind these environmental claims is making mifepristone and medication abortion harder to access. An anti-abortion organization described this environmental approach as “using the devil’s tools against them” and it is clear that the movement is attempting to co-opt progressive causes like environmentalism to advance abortion restrictions.

Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy advisor for Guttmacher, has seen this campaign of mis- and disinformation build. “Any environmental scientist knows this is bogus. They’re just using any rhetoric they can to restrict access to abortion.”

The anti-abortion movement has also taken the language of “reproductive coercion,” long used to refer to a form of intimate partner violence, to distort the facts and call for restrictions on abortion access. Anti-abortion groups claim abortion pills must be restricted to stop abusers from secretly ending the pregnancies of their abused partners. But these arguments misrepresent the reality of most cases of reproductive coercion. According to Bernstein, “Restricting access to a person’s reproductive choices is itself a form of coercion. And research shows that most cases of reproductive coercion actually involve attempts to force someone to become or stay pregnant against their wishes.” She points to hotline data showing calls about coercion have climbed where abortion bans have taken hold.

“We’re really just seeing attacks across the board escalate on medication abortion because it’s become such a crucial lifeline for patients and providers,” says Bernstein.

It easy to see why misinformation and disinformation around medication abortion is intensifying. But some of the most damaging narratives begin with legitimate research, which is then twisted to support anti-rights and misogynistic goals.

For example, when a team of Guttmacher researchers released an abortion incidence study in Kenya last year, they deliberately highlighted one finding that was meant to normalize care: most abortions in the country are among married women. But as Guttmacher Principal Research Scientist Ann M. Moore found, in collaboration with a Kenyan journalist and the African Population and Health Research Center, that data point was soon picked up and distorted across the social media platform X.

Soon a critical data point showing how common abortion care is had been funneled through misogynistic “manosphere” hubs, where it was taken as evidence of women’s unfaithfulness and duplicity.

“Social media gives everyone the same megaphone,” Moore says. “Ideas that are not evidence-based are easily picked up and shared.”

The ease with which mis- and disinformation spreads raises the question of how to identify and counteract it in time. That’s why countering these threats to factual integrity is a key priority laid out in Guttmacher’s 2026–2029 strategic plan.

To achieve this goal, programmatic teams in research, policy and communications concurrently track where false claims surface—whether in a bill, a viral post, or junk science publications. When news breaks, colleagues collaborate to counter false claims, based on their specific areas of expertise.

Take a widely cited, self-published paper from an anti-abortion organization. The paper claimed a far higher complication rate for mifepristone than rigorous peer-reviewed research supports. Guttmacher’s researchers pulled apart the paper’s methodology while policy and communications experts turned that scientific analysis into plain-language talking points. Bernstein says the teams worked together to “debunk these bad stats quickly in a way that’s not repeating the false claims.” The aim is to correct the record without giving the lie more oxygen.

From there, Guttmacher’s experts work quickly to establish the facts. Bernstein’s team routes responsive resources to allies on the Hill, where they circulate among reproductive-rights champions and get put to work. When lawmakers move to counter false claims around reproductive rights, they often point to Guttmacher’s research. Through coalition partners, the same materials reach advocates fighting mis- and disinformation at the state level. The fight extends globally, where Moore’s team studies how data gets distorted and weaponized so partners on the ground can counter it.

This work shows how mis- and disinformation is employed in service of ideology, not science, ultimately harming the health of women who seek care. Guttmacher takes all of it apart, piece by piece, with data, evidence and targeted interventions designed to disrupt the spread of these ideological campaigns.

“The opposition is becoming more and more desperate because they have no real argument to hang their hat on,” Bernstein says. “The facts, the evidence and the values are all on our side.”