Life

FDA Approves Generic Abortion Pill Despite Ongoing Safety Review

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a generic abortion pill just days after it confirmed its new investigation into the safety of chemical abortions.

The FDA approved Evita Solutions’ application for a generic mifepristone pill on September 30 after finding it “bioequivalent and therapeutically equivalent” to the name brand pill, Mifeprex.

Mifepristone starves preborn children of essential blood flow and nutrients by blocking the pregnancy hormone progesterone. It is the first chemical women ingest in the two-step chemical abortion regimen.

Watch Focus on the Family’s broadcast about the abortion pill.

The FDA’s authorization of another abortion pill seemingly contradicts its commitment to reevaluate mifepristone’s safety.

Just eleven days before its letter to Evita Solutions, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Robert F. Kennedy Jr. confirmed the FDA is conducting an evidentiary review of the abortion pill.

“HHS — through the FDA — is conducting its own review of the evidence, including real-world outcomes and evidence, relating to the safety and efficacy of the drug,” the wrote in a letter to 22 concerned state attorneys general.

The AGs had requested HHS and FDA reinstate stringent restrictions on mifepristone in July.

When the FDA legalized mifepristone in 2000, it required:

  • The patient be less than seven weeks pregnant.
  • The patient visit the doctor three times before ingesting the drug.
  • The drug be prescribed by a doctor in a doctor’s office.
  • The drug be ingested in a doctor’s office with a doctor’s supervision.
  • The patient follow up with the doctor at least once after ingesting the drug.

Scientists used the same stringent restrictions in mifepristone’s clinical trials.

Today, the FDA requires none of these safety precautions. Women can be prescribed pills by doctors online or order them from legally-dubious websites. They do not have to get a sonogram to determine the age of their child or whether they have an ectopic pregnancy.  Most go through the painful abortion in their bathrooms alone.

In April, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) released data showing just how dangerous taking mifepristone has become.

The bombshell report analyzed insurance claims from a representative sample of more than 865,700 chemical abortions. It indicated nearly 11% of women experienced a severe or life-threatening adverse event within 45 days of taking mifepristone, including:

  • Sepsis – 0.10% of cases (824 women)
  • Infection — 1.34% (11,707)
  • Required blood transfusion – 0.15% (1,257)
  • Hemorrhage – 3.31% (28,658)
  • Required hospitalization for complications related to the chemical abortion – 0.66% (5,699)
  • Required ER visit for complications related to the chemical abortion – 4.73% (40,960)
  • Ectopic pregnancy — 0.35% (3,062)
  • Other life-threatening adverse events related to the chemical abortion, including cardiac and pulmonary complications, anaphylaxis, thrombosis and surgery – 0.22% (1,956)
  • Repeated surgical abortion to complete the chemical abortion – 2.84% (24,563)
  • Other complications related to the chemical abortion, including life-threatening mental health diagnoses – 5.68% (49,169)

These findings indicate women are up to 22 times more likely to experience severe or life-threatening harm after taking mifepristone than the FDA had previously claimed.

HHS and FDA promised to investigate the discrepancy. In their September 19 letter, Kennedy and Makary wrote:

Recent studies — such as the study by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) … — indicate potential dangers that may attend offering mifepristone without sufficient medical support or supervision.”

They further revealed the FDA itself had documented thousands of mifepristone-related adverse events before it eliminated the drug’s safety protocols:

FDA’s own data collected between 2000 to 2012 indicated 2,740 adverse events, including 416 events involving blood loss requiring transfusions.
Since then, safeguards for women regarding the administration of mifepristone have been significantly reduced.

Members of the House Values Action Team (VAT) team are among the legislators asking why, if mifepristone is dangerous enough to warrant a safety investigation, the FDA is approving more of the drug to hit shelves.

“The FDA’s approval of a new generic version of the abortion pill, mifepristone, endangers women’s health and disregards the value of life,” Congressman and VAT Chairman Robert Aderholt wrote in a statement.

“By approving another generic iteration of this pill while a safety review is ongoing, the FDA risks undermining women’s health and safety across the United States.”

Read more statements from more VAT members.

Neither Makary nor Kennedy had commented on the issue as of October 8.

The FDA has an urgent problem on its hands. Upwards of 11% of women may be suffering severe harm from chemical abortions, which are only growing more common. Meanwhile, the abortion industry claims mifepristone is safer than Tylenol.

The FDA should never approve drugs used to end human life. Barring a complete prohibition on mifepristone, the FDA should not approve generic abortion pills while investigation the drug’s safety.

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

If you are experiencing an unexpected pregnancy and want to learn more about your options, visit My Choice Network.

Some women, after taking the first abortion pill (mifepristone) come to regret their decision. Thankfully, there is a way to reverse the pill’s effects if prompt action is taken. To learn more about the abortion pill reversal protocol, visit abortionpillreversal.com or call 1-877-558-0333 to be connected with a medical professional who can guide callers through the process of reversing the pill’s effects.

To learn more about pro-life legislation in your state, contact your state Family Policy Council.

To learn more about the consequences of a chemical abortion, visit the links below.

Additional Articles and Resources

FDA Launches Review of Abortion Pill and the Harms it Causes Women

Pro-Abortion States Beef Up Protections for Abortion Pill Prescribers

Texas Father Sues Out-of-State Abortionist for Killing His Preborn Children

Shield Laws Enable Chemical Abortion in Pro-Life States

Shield Law Abortion Providers Advertised Alongside Black Market Abortion Pills

Texas Sues New York Doctor for Prescribing Abortion Meds

New Abortion Pill Study Confirms Danger to Mothers

Woman Nearly Dies from Abortion Pill, Story Reflects Disturbing EPPC Data

Focus on the Family Broadcast: Abortion Pill Reversal

#AbortionChangesYou: A Case Study to Understand the Communicative Tensions in Women’s Medication Abortion Narratives (Health Communication)

The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event (Ethics and Public Policy Center)

The VA Predicted Abortion Demand Would Increase Post-‘Dobbs.’ It Didn’t.

The Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) justified covering veterans’ elective abortions three years ago after predicting pro-life laws would supercharge abortion demand.

They were wrong — really wrong.

When the Supreme Court reversed Roe v. Wade in 2022, the VA expanded its abortion coverage to include elective abortions. Until then, it had only covered abortions to save the life of the mother.

Last month, the VA proposed repealing the 2022 abortion expansion rule, arguing it violates the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxes from paying for abortions, and improperly subverts the judiciary.

The objectional abortion expansion was only approved, the current VA explains, after the 2022 VA predicted more than 1,000 veterans and their family members would “need” elective abortions every year once states started banning abortion.

In reality, the VA has provided about 140 abortions per year since the Supreme Court reversed Roe. That means the 2022 VA’s prediction overshot reality by a whopping 86%.

The overinflated prediction allowed the VA to jerry-rig a “right to abortion” for veterans and their family members. The 2025 VA explains:

The stated reason for [expanding abortion rights] was a reaction to a Supreme Court decision…that was itself intended to prevent overreach.

Yet, the last administration used [the decision] to do the exact opposite, creating a purported Federal entitlement to abortion for veterans where none had existed before and without regard to State law.

In doing so, the administration predicted a high demand for VA abortions that never materialized.

The 2022 VA’s convenient “miscalculation” illustrates how the abortion industry benefits from making it seem like women, everywhere “need” abortions. The illusion of popularity makes policies supporting unregulated, elective abortions seem like “the will of the people.”

They’re not — and the VA proves the point. For three years, it has offered veterans and their families elective abortions on the cheap. If lack of abortion access has become such a crisis for women, why aren’t more taking advantage?

Take claims of ballooning abortion demand with a hefty grain of salt.  If abortionists in the government can juke the stats, you can bet pro-abortion organizations are doing the same.

Additional Articles and Resources

VA Moves to Rescind Taxpayer-Funded Abortion for Veterans

Pentagon Ends Paid Travel Expenses and Time Off for Abortion

Gen Z Women Rejected Pro-Abortion Messaging in 2024, Election Data Shows

Trump Signs Executive Order Limiting Taxpayer Funds for Abortion

U.S. Military to Receive Time Off and Travel Expenses to Obtain Abortions

BREAKING: Trump Administration Moves to Freeze, Cut Funding to Planned Parenthood

My Choice Network

Counseling Consultation Request Form

Considering Abortion?

Focus on the Family Pro-Life

Planned Parenthood Cashes In on Medicaid Money Meant for Elderly and Disabled, Report Shows

Abortion providers like Planned Parenthood are cashing in on Medicaid money meant for elderly and disabled Americans, a new report from the American Family Association (AFA) shows.  

States receive tens of billions of dollars from the federal government every year to run Medicaid programs; state taxpayers contribute several billion more.

But according to AFA’s “Displacing the Disabled: How Medicaid funds abortion providers and leaves disabled kids waiting,” thousands of Americans and their families across forty states are languishing on waitlists for Medicaid-funded Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS).

State HCBS programs subsidize in-home care for the elderly, disabled and mentally ill. For parents like Anja and Nate Baker, they are a necessity.

The Bakers are proud parents of three boys — six-year-old Locke, four-year-old Herschel and one-year-old Fulton. Herschel suffers from cerebral palsy, epilepsy and several other conditions related to brain injury.

Baker family photo courtesy of Anja Baker

“[Herschel] requires a wheelchair and g-tube feeding and cannot independently sit, stand, use the bathroom or speak,” Anja tells the Daily Citizen. “As a result, he requires around the clock care for all his needs.”

Without Mississippi Medicaid’s Disabled Child at Home program, Anja says she and Nate would not be able to afford the fifteen different medical providers and therapists Herschel needs to thrive.

“As a family, we have reorganized our lives around Herschel’s medical care,” she explains. “Without his Medicaid coverage, we could never afford to care for him.”

With Medicaid’s help, the Bakers get to watch Herschel grow and impact the people around him.

“Herschel loves time at church, especially music and fellowship time with friends.” Anja tells us. “We know he has impacted the faith of many people and will continue to do so as long as he’s able to share his light with the world.”

“We pray that we can keep Herschel’s life as comfortable and joy-filled as possible for as long as the Lord lets us have him.”

Baker boys courtesy of Anja Baker

Families like the Bakers can’t financially, physically or emotionally afford to be waitlisted for Medicaid. But that’s what happens when Medicaid funding is spread across an increasingly broad array of services — including those offered by abortion giants like Planned Parenthood.

AFA’s “Displacing the Disabled” report compiles data on twenty states with HCBS waitlists and abortion providers that accept Medicaid. The findings highlight an unacceptable incongruency: While vulnerable Americans await critical Medicaid support, Planned Parenthood entities and other abortion providers are collecting two streams of government income — federal grants and Medicaid reimbursements.

These funds free up millions of dollars Planned Parenthood and company use not only to perform abortions, but to lobby for pro-abortion policies, indoctrinate children into gender ideology and pay their executives’ six-figure salaries.

“For [HCBS programs] to be deprived of resources while the money instead funds the abortion industry is sickening,” Anja says.

“The abortion lobby sees no value in a child like Herschel; Planned Parenthood would rather see [him] and his school and church friends never born.”

She concludes:

This funding issue highlights a stark reality — the abortion industry neither wants to see disabled children born, nor their lives extended or cared for while they are here.
This contrast [proves] they aren’t just anti-life, they are pro-death.

AFA hopes the “Displacing the Disabled” report and stories like the Baker family’s will hammer home the importance of ensuring welfare programs serve the people who need them most.

“Healthcare resources are not infinite,” Dr. Jameson Taylor, the Director of AFA’s Center for Governmental Renewal explains.  “Medicaid can’t cover everything or everyone.”

He continues:

When you look at the services Medicaid could cover in each state, I believe providing care for vulnerable individuals should be a priority while funneling money to abortion providers shouldn’t be on the list.

The Daily Citizen categorically agrees.

To read AFA’s full report, click here.

Additional Articles and Resources

Senate Unveils Budget Bill to Defund Planned Parenthood

Proposed Budget Bill Defunds Abortion Providers Like Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood Uses Taxes to Pay for Abortion, Radical Sex Ed

Planned Parenthood Receives Millions of Dollars Through Federal ‘Family Planning’ Grants

Planned Parenthood Earns $2 Billion Killing Over 400,000 Babies, Annual Report Shows

Planned Parenthood Offers ‘Sexual Health Resources’ for All, Aided by Sacramento Libraries

Surprise, Surprise — Planned Parenthood Gave Children Explicit Coloring Books

Montana Supreme Court Strikes Down Abortion Laws, Pro-Life Group Challenges Decision

Montana’s Supreme Court recently struck down three pro-life laws, deeming them “unconstitutional.”

The laws included:

  • House Bill 136, which would have outlawed abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy (except if necessary to protect the mother’s health).
  • House Bill 140, which would have required abortion providers to give patients the option of hearing their baby’s heartbeat or seeing an ultrasound.
  • House Bill 171, which would have limited access to abortion pills.

All three laws were initially signed by Montana Governor Greg Gianforte in 2021, but Planned Parenthood was quick to oppose them.

Justice Beth Baker argued the bills violated Montana women’s right to privacy. She claimed the Armstrong Decision (a 1999 Montana Supreme Court ruling), protected mothers’ access to abortion before a fetus is viable,

“Armstrong thus explicitly and unequivocally acknowledged that the right of individual privacy — encompassing the right to personal and procreative autonomy — is protected separately under Montana’s right to privacy, a broader provision independent of federal law.”

However, the state previously argued this 1999 ruling was wrongly decided and has tried to overturn it several times. Gov. Gianforte and Attorney General Austin Knudsen are continuing that fight in this case.

In a statement criticizing the ruling, Gov. Gianforte said:

Clinging to a shaky, outdated ruling and failing to account for the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions, these activist justices aren’t interpreting the law. They’re overreaching, making law from the bench and rejecting the will of Montanans’ duly-elected representatives who make laws.

Montana Representative Amy Reiger, who sponsored the bill giving mothers the option to view an ultrasound, said the law aimed to provide women with “good, informed consent.”

She added, “I would say this bill does protect women … My question to Planned Parenthood is, ‘What are you afraid of expecting mothers seeing?'”

In 2024, 58% of Montana voters approved the decision to include abortion rights in Montana’s constitution, ultimately leading to these three laws being struck down.

The Montana Family Foundation (MFF), a Focus on the Family-allied state family policy council, filed a lawsuit on June 9 challenging the addition of abortion rights to the Montana constitution.

The MFF claims that voters who registered on Election Day did not receive enough information on the issue, as the ballot only contained a summary. The full text describing the inclusion of abortion rights had been previously mailed to registered voters.

Let us hope truth will prevail in this case, and the rights of preborn babies and their mothers will be protected by Montana lawmakers.

Related Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

Pregnancy Resource Centers Fight Against Mandatory Abortion Referrals in Illinois

Pro-Life, Free Speech Win: Federal Appeals Court Blocks Kentucky ‘Buffer Zone’ Ordinance

Proposed Budget Bill Defunds Abortion Providers Like Planned Parenthood

Arkansas Allocates $2 Million to Pregnancy Help Organizations

Image from Shutterstock.

Pregnancy Resource Centers Fight Against Mandatory Abortion Referrals in Illinois

The hard-fought battle to protect the rights of pregnant mothers and their preborn babies continued last week in National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Treto.

NIFLA disputes an Illinois law that forces pro-life pregnancy resource centers to refer pregnant women for abortions, arguing it violates their right to free speech.

Illinois courts have hotly debated the free speech rights of pregnancy resource centers for some seven years.

Attorneys from Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) appealed NIFLA’s case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit on May 29 following an April court ruling declaring that forcing pro-life pregnancy centers to refer their clients for abortions does not violate speech or conscience rights.  

In the same ruling, however, the court permanently blocked an Illinois law requiring pro-life pregnancy resource centers to promote abortion and its possible “benefits.” Judges found the law an unconstitutional infringement on the pregnancy centers’ freedom of speech – a stark contradiction to their previous assessment of pregnancy resource centers’ free speech rights.

“No one should be forced to express a message that violates their convictions, and compelling people to refer others for abortions does that,” said ADF Senior Counsel Erin Hawley. She continued, “The U.S. Supreme Court held in NIFLA v. Becerra that forcing people to promote abortion is unconstitutional.”

Pro-life pregnancy centers must be free to continue their life-affirming work without fear of government punishment.

While the lower court correctly ruled that these centers can’t be forced to advertise the so-called ‘benefits’ of abortion, it failed to protect them from being compelled to refer for abortion.

In their appeal, NIFLA’s attorneys explain the district court erred by arguing mandatory abortion referrals are standard healthcare practice, and do not implicate “speech” at all.

Yet, to refer pregnant women for abortions, healthcare professionals must provide the expecting mothers with written information on abortion providers and procedures. These documents constitute speech.

The appeal states:

Laws that compel individuals to speak when they’d prefer to remain silent “pose the inherent risk that the Government” may seek to “manipulate the public debate through coercion.”

This is especially so when government-coerced speech compels individuals to be complicit in a medical procedure that violates their most deeply held beliefs.

In situations such as these when the court contradicts itself, we can be thankful truth never changes — especially when it comes to believers’ duty to protect the rights of preborn children and their mothers.

This case is National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Treto.

Related Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family: Pro-Life

Become An Option Ultrasound Life Advocate

My Choice Network

Stepping Up to Defend Life

Alternatives to Abortion: Pregnancy Resource Centers

America Needs Convictional Pro-Life Politicians

Planned Parenthood Earns $2 Billion Killing Over 400,000 Babies, Annual Report Shows