Originally published in Ms. Magazine.
On January 14, the US Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee will hold a hearing framed as an inquiry into the safety of medication abortion. In reality, it will be an opportunity for the committee’s anti-abortion majority to showcase junk science and misleading narratives to undermine access to mifepristone—the first of two drugs in a commonly used medication abortion and miscarriage care regimens.
Mifepristone has been used safely and effectively for more than two decades, supported by an extensive body of evidence and endorsed by major medical organizations including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American Medical Association, and numerous other leading medical societies. In the United States, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved mifepristone in 2000 and has repeatedly reviewed the medication since, each time reaching the same conclusion that it is safe and effective.
Globally, mifepristone is approved in roughly 100 countries and recommended by the World Health Organization in its abortion-care and self-care guidelines. These endorsements reflect decades of research and millions of uses worldwide, with serious complications occurring in far less than 1% of cases. In short, mifepristone’s safety profile is well-established and strong.
Yet the anti-abortion movement has launched a coordinated campaign to cast doubt on that safety—not because credible new evidence demands it, but because medication abortion now accounts for about two-thirds of abortions in states without total bans, and up to 95% of abortions in more rural states. Medication abortion is also instrumental in realizing the potential of critical state policy innovations like shield laws, which protect clinicians who provide medication abortion via telehealth to patients in states with total bans and other severe restrictions. Limiting access to mifepristone is a way to restrict abortion overall, and the Senate hearing will amplify that strategy.
At Wednesday’s hearing, expect a flood of junk science from anti-abortion Senators and their witnesses. Anti-abortion advocates have leaned heavily on deeply flawed papers that fail to meet the standards of high-quality, rigorous science. These studies—some of which have been retracted by the journal that published them over methodological concerns—create the illusion of danger where decades of research show that serious complications are exceedingly rare.
One paper you may hear about was self-published by the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC). Experts have flagged fundamental flaws in this report, including conflating emergency room visits with severe adverse events, using opaque methods and data sources, and failing to undergo standard scientific vetting. As a result of these serious flaws, the EPPC paper significantly overstates risk and does not change the scientific well-established, decades-long consensus that mifepristone is safe and effective.
It is also likely that the committee will platform false claims that abortion pills threaten water safety. There is no evidence to support these claims, yet anti-abortion policymakers are increasingly weaponizing these false assertions to advance their agenda of restricting medication abortion. Singling out mifepristone while ignoring well-documented sources of water contamination like agricultural runoff is a transparently political tactic that serves no purpose other than to further restrict abortion access.
These narratives aren’t just rhetorical—they shape policy. Calls to reinstate outdated restrictions on mifepristone to block people from getting the medication via mail or pharmacies would make care harder to access, especially for people in rural areas or in states with abortion bans. Anti-abortion politicians and activists have already bullied the FDA into “reviewing” mifepristone’s approval with the goal of imposing medically unnecessary restrictions to reduce access. This is a naked attempt to politicize drug regulation and undermine evidence-based standards.
In short, at the hearing, watch for distorted data masquerading as science, inflated complication rates resulting from fatally flawed methodologies, and policy proposals that ignore mifepristone’s robust evidence of safety and effectiveness. Expect rhetoric about “polluted water” that lacks scientific grounding while doing nothing to solve actual problems with access to safe drinking water. And anticipate demands for the FDA to put politics over public health and roll back access to mifepristone.
Medication abortion is safe, effective, and essential. That conclusion is supported by leading clinical authorities, FDA’s longstanding approval, clinician and patient experience, and extensive international experience. Efforts to restrict it through junk science and false narratives threaten not only abortion access but the integrity of evidence-based policymaking. The Senate HELP Committee should be a forum for facts, not fearmongering. When junk science drives the conversation, the result is junk policy—and patients pay the price.