America’s primary abortion pill causes serious complications for 1 out of 10 women

Mifepristone, one of two pills used in facilitating chemical abortions, gained FDA approval twenty-five years ago after a study of just under thirty-one thousand participants showed that less than .5 percent experienced serious adverse reactions. That statistic has since been cited to defend not only the use of the pill but also the removal of almost every safeguard that was put in place when it was first introduced to the public.

Initially, women could not obtain the drugs until going to three in-person visits, after which only a physician could prescribe and dispense the pills, which had to be taken in the doctor’s office. An in-office follow-up visit was also required, and any adverse events that resulted from the pills had to be reported.

Now none of what I just described is still the case. All that is required today for a woman to receive the pills necessary to end a pregnancy is a Teladoc appointment and a mailing address. So, perhaps it should not come as a surprise that mifepristone is not nearly as “safe and effective” as originally thought. And the reality is far worse than you might imagine.

A recent analysis by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) of more than 865,000 cases since 2017 has shown that “10.93 percent of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious adverse event within 45 days following a mifepristone abortion.” That means serious complications are twenty-two times more likely to occur than either the FDA or the pill’s makers have claimed.

How the EPPC study was done

The EPPC came to these conclusions by analyzing “real-world insurance claims data for 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions, broadly representative of women who obtain mifepristone abortions in the US today.” As such, where the initial study revolved around a closely monitored and selected group of women who took the pills under the care of a doctor, this latest study is far more representative of how this kind of abortion is actually obtained and administered today.

Considering that chemical abortions account for roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States, an accurate assessment of the risk they pose to those who choose to take them is essential. And, if anything, the EPPC study undersells the problem.

The folks behind the research were intentionally conservative in their approach to the study. Where the FDA uses a 72-day timeframe for tracking adverse events, they limited the scope of their findings to 45 days. Moreover, by relying on insurance claims to form their data set, they could not capture statistics for women who purchased the pills through cash pay transactions, which “are disproportionately common for abortion.”

As such, while the rate of serious complications in nearly 11 percent of cases is likely accurate for women who were not part of their study, the raw numbers are much higher.

So, where are we likely to go from here? Will the new research lead to real change or fall on deaf ears?

Fortunately, there could be some good news in this regard.

Where do we go from here?

In a conversation with Amna Nawaz of PBS News last week, Dr. Marty Makary, the new commissioner of the FDA, was asked about mifepristone and if the FDA might move to impose new restrictions on the drug. In response, Makary stated, “I have no plans to take action on mifepristone.” But while that statement is not exactly encouraging, he didn’t stop there. Malkarky went on to add that:

“I believe as a scientist, you got to evolve as the data comes in. And, as you may know, there is an ongoing set of data that is coming into FDA on mifepristone. So if the data suggests something or tells us that there’s a real signal, then I—we can’t promise we’re not going to act on that data that we have not yet seen.”

In the wake of EPPC’s report, Senator Josh Hawley, who sits on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, penned an open letter to Dr. Makary urging him “to follow this new data and take all appropriate action to restore critical safeguards on the use of mifepristone.” He gave the FDA commissioner until May 15 to respond, with the clear expectation that the data from EPPC should lead to fundamental changes in how mifepristone is administered.

Moreover, when the Supreme Court heard a case on the ongoing legality of the drug last June, it ruled against a challenge that would have made it more difficult to receive it. However, it did so because the group that brought the case before them lacked standing rather than because the case itself was without merit. As I wrote at the time, Justice Kavanaugh—who wrote the majority opinion for the Court—strongly intimated that any group that brought a similar case with standing in the future might expect a different and more positive outcome.

It is possible that the latest data on just how much the FDA and the makers of mifepristone have misrepresented its safety could give additional grounds for such a case to be brought again.

Celebrating each victory

Ultimately, it’s too soon to know what impact the EPPC study will have on abortion pills and their availability, but any additional limitations and safeguards around who is eligible to receive them could help save tens of thousands of lives, both among the unborn and their mothers. And that is a possibility worth celebrating, even if it falls short of the complete removal of abortion pills from the marketplace.

You see, one of the most challenging aspects of being pro-life in our culture today is the knowledge that we are unlikely to ever see abortion removed as an option for those who wish to end their pregnancy. While we can and should work to that end, both by changing laws and—more importantly—changing hearts, we can’t afford to become so fixated on that goal that we fail to appreciate the smaller wins along the way.

Just as heaven rejoices when a single soul is saved, we too should rejoice every time a mother chooses life (Luke 15:7). If the EPPC study leads to changed laws and greater protection for both the unborn and their mothers, then that is a win and should be celebrated as such.

Will you join me in praying for that outcome today? Will you pray that this study finds its way to the right people and that laws are changed to reflect reality on this issue? And, lastly, will you pray that God works in the hearts and minds of every person considering abortion today and helps them choose life, both for themselves and for their child?

These are prayers our heavenly Father longs to answer, and we should rejoice with him every time he does.

Let’s start today.

Quote of the day:

“Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.” —Cicero

Our latest website resources:

• A review of Michael Heiser’s “The Unseen Realm”
• Deion Sanders’ advice to his son Shedeur after draft slide
• Trump’s first hundred days and Judge Hannah Dugan’s arrest
• Massive crowds fill St. Peter’s Square for Pope Francis’s funeral

Denison Forum

Today marks the one hundredth day of President Trump’s second term, and he plans to celebrate it by sitting down with ABC News tonight for his first broadcast interview since taking office in January. But while the interview with ABC will be significant, it’s hardly the only opportunity he’s taking to try and frame the start of his second term in a more favorable light.

Trump is scheduled to take part in a two-hour town hall with NewsNation on Wednesday before delivering the commencement address at the University of Alabama on Thursday. And all of this after having spent much of last week sitting down for interviews with Time magazine and The Atlantic.

In his interview with Time, he stated, “I feel that we’ve had a very successful presidency in one hundred days,” though he cautioned that “it takes a little time in transition. You know, we’re resetting a table.”

The notion that it’s too early to judge Trump’s presidency has some merit, considering there are still 1,361 more days before someone else steps into the position. However, that hasn’t stopped many from trying, and the latest results indicate that the public’s patience may be starting to wear thin.

A conflict Trump should lose

While the numbers vary depending on the poll, the general consensus seems to be that roughly 40 percent of Americans approve of how Trump’s term has gone so far. And while he still enjoys a 75 percent approval rating among Republicans, even that number has started to fall in recent weeks.

The biggest reason for his declining popularity is economic. Less than 40 percent of Americans agree with his stance on tariffs, while the state of inflation was seen in a similarly dismal light.

A majority still approve of his approach to border security—the only issue where he polled positively in Fox News’s latest study—yet his ratings on immigration as a whole are now underwater. This shift is largely due to the belief that he has become overly reliant on executive orders and the fear that his approach will eventually lead him into a direct confrontation with the judiciary—a conflict that as many as 88 percent of Americans believe he should lose.

And few stories have epitomized the nature of Trump’s perceived battle with the courts better than the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan last week.

Did Dugan deserve arrest?

When Dugan was first arrested in her courthouse last Friday, the initial reaction online revolved primarily around the belief that this was a sign of Trump fighting back against the courts and the judges who opposed his agenda. But while there may be some truth to those allegations, there is more to the story than how it was first portrayed.

The controversy began when Eduardo Flores-Ruiz, a Mexican national who entered the country illegally after having been previously deported in 2013, appeared before Dugan’s court on charges of battery and domestic abuse.

Agents from ICE, the Department of Homeland Security, and local law enforcement were waiting outside of her courtroom when she decided to instruct Flores-Ruiz to use the jury door to exit into a part of the courthouse where he would have a better chance of escape. The plan worked, at least for a time, as agents were forced to chase him down in the streets to make the arrest.

Dugan was then charged with “obstructing or impeding a proceeding before a department or agency of the United States” and with “concealing an individual to prevent his discovery and arrest.”

Unfortunately, the details of her actions were made known long after her story began to make the rounds on social media, and by that point, quite a few on both sides of the aisle held strong opinions regarding her arrest. In the days since, some of that furor has calmed, but a palpable fear still exists about the precedent set by arresting a judge.

Minnesota senator Tina Smith spoke for many when she asked of Dugan’s detention, “Republicans: How is this not a red line for you?” Yet, as Fox News’s Jonathan Turley points out, “What is the ‘red line’ for judges if the allegations are true? This judge is accused of conduct that has resulted in charges for other citizens.”

So, what should we make of this story? And what can it teach us about a better approach to controversial subjects going forward?

A prophecy fulfilled?

Ultimately, the optics of Trump’s administration arresting a judge as his conflict with the judiciary escalates are understandably bad. Chances are that Dugan’s arrest would not have generated nearly the backlash it did if it could not be seen as something of a fulfilled prophecy by those on the left.

At the same time, judges going out of their way to circumvent the application of the law is also problematic. And if the charges against Dugan are accurate—which appears to be the case, though she will get her opportunity to prove otherwise—she did act in a way that warrants arrest.

Could the situation have been avoided by not trying to arrest illegal aliens inside a courthouse? Probably, and there are good arguments as to why waiting elsewhere may be the better path going forward. Yet none of that changes what Dugan did, and her story is a good example of why we need to recognize that multiple ideas can be true at the same time, rather than feeling the need to choose between them.

A price we must be willing to pay

Holding competing ideas without defaulting to an often-unnecessary choice between them is a necessary part of discerning the truth. Doing so consistently is difficult, however, since it will typically require us to value what is true over what we may prefer to believe. And that commitment to truth in today’s highly politicized climate will likely lead us to become politically homeless in a world where both sides demand loyalty.

As Christians, is that a price we’re willing to pay?

I hope it is, because if we reach a point where we are more afraid of standing alone than we are of standing apart from God, then we will have much bigger problems than culture wars and judicial conflicts.

So, where is truth on your list of priorities today? Are you ready to choose God’s side over friends, family, or political parties when making that choice is necessary?

There’s only one correct way to answer those questions.

Will God’s answer be your answer today?

Quote of the day:

“Your tribe will always create a narrative that helps you completely avoid accountability. Reject it. Sometimes it is your fault. Sometimes your culture is wrong. Sometimes your opponents get it right.” —Justin Giboney

Our latest website resources:

• Deion Sanders’ advice to his son Shedeur after draft slide
• Massive crowds fill St. Peter’s Square for Pope Francis’s funeral
• The universe smiled this morning
• The funeral of Pope Francis and the papal conclave to follow
• FSU student used chewing gum to survive mass shooting

Denison Forum

Did the pope write a now-viral “letter from the hospital”?

“He was a pope among the people, with an open heart toward everyone.” This is how Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re described Pope Francis in Saturday morning’s funeral for the deceased pontiff. “The guiding thread of his mission was also the conviction that the church is a home for all, a home with its doors always open,” he added.

To illustrate his point: texts and prayers during the service were offered in English, French, Arabic, Portuguese, Polish, German, and for the first time, Mandarin. The program for the funeral mass was published beforehand by the Vatican in English, Italian, and Latin.

Trump and Zelensky met prior to the service

Watching the service on live television was a moving experience for me. It was remarkable to see more than 250,000 people fill St. Peter’s Square from all over the world. They came in such numbers that more than four hundred priests were required to serve communion to all who wanted to receive it.

In addition, more than 250,000 mourners paid their respects to the pope in the previous days as his body lay in state. Among his last visitors were French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte. He bowed his head; she made the sign of the cross. Many at the funeral were dressed in formal attire, but many others were in jeans and T-shirts.

Further illustrating the inclusive nature of the event, fifty heads of state and ten reigning monarchs attended the historic service. Among them were US President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, French President Macron, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and United Nations General Secretary António Guterres. A Russian minister, a minister from Iran, and an ambassador from Israel also attended.

President Trump and President Zelensky met prior to the service, their first time to be together following their contentious argument in the Oval Office on February 28.

With Pope Francis’s burial, the church began nine days of official mourning, known as the novemdiales, then the conclave gathers to elect the next pope. (For more, see my explainer: “The funeral of Pope Francis and the papal conclave to follow.”)

“A privileged doctor saving the life of a beggar”

The spirit of the funeral mirrored the spirit of the pope being memorialized. Francis was especially beloved for his personal humility and inclusive heart, characteristics he first manifested decades before his election as pope.

In media coverage of his death and funeral, many focused especially on his “Who am I to judge?” statement regarding gay people and his perceived openness toward the LGBTQ community and others whom critics consider to be marginalized by the church. Some are expressing their hope the next pope continues and even accelerates what they are portraying as Francis’s “welcoming” agenda.

Here’s an example: A letter purporting to be written by Pope Francis from the hospital is making the rounds widely on social media these days. It begins: “The walls of hospitals have heard more honest prayers than churches.” The “letter” continues:

It is in hospitals that you see a homophobe being saved by a gay doctor.
A privileged doctor saving the life of a beggar. . . .
Respect yourself, respect others. Walk your own path, and let go of the path others have chosen for you.
Respect: do not comment, do not judge, do not interfere.
Love more, forgive more, embrace more, live more intensely!
And leave the rest in the hands of the Creator.

However, this “letter” was not written by the pope. It is not found on any official Vatican sources such as the Holy See website, nor in his homilies, encyclicals, or public addresses. Versions of it have been attributed to Pope Francis for many years, but this is not true.

Furthermore, its advice to “walk your own path, and let go of the path others have chosen for you” is not just contrary to Catholic doctrine—it is unbiblical and even dangerous. It is Satan who whispers in our ear that we can be our own gods (Genesis 3:5). Scripture warns us against those who “pervert the grace of our God into sensuality” (Jude 4) and are “following their own ungodly passions” (v. 18).

By contrast, we are encouraged to “trust in the Lᴏʀᴅ with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. . . . Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lᴏʀᴅ; and turn away from evil” (Proverbs 3:5, 7).

Francis himself described as “evil” the “notion that there are no indisputable truths to guide our lives, and hence human freedom is limitless.” Pope St. John Paul II agreed: “Only the freedom which submits to the Truth leads the human person to his true good. The good of the person is to be in the Truth and to do the Truth” (his emphasis).

“Something we have never fully lived before”

All Christians can learn from Pope Francis the urgency of loving every person as Christ loves us. We can wash the feet of sinners in the knowledge that we are sinners as well. We can kiss the faces of the disfigured and reach out to those in despair.

But Francis would agree that we love best when we love in truth.

In his preface to an upcoming book by Cardinal Angelo Scola, the pope wrote: “Life is life, and sugarcoating reality means betraying the truth of things.” Otherwise, as Paul warned us, we are “tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes” (Ephesians 4:14).

It is by “speaking the truth in love” that we “grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ” (v. 15). Jesus taught us: “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:31–32).

As we live biblically and help those we know to live biblically, we prepare for that day when our Lord will “set you free” forever.

In his preface, published by the Vatican after his homegoing, Francis wrote: “Death is not the end of everything, but the beginning of something. It is a new beginning . . . because we will live something we have never fully lived before: eternity.”

What if it were today for you?

Quote for the day:

“No authentic progress is possible without respect for the natural and fundamental right to know the truth and live according to that truth.” —Pope St. John Paul II

Our latest website resources:

• The universe smiled this morning: An astronomical reflection on faith and “eternal sunshine”
• Church rededicated after Good Friday graffiti attack: The relevance of our faith and the peril of presentism
• The Age of the Corporate Church: An excerpt from “What If Jesus was Serious About the Church?’ by Skye Jethani
• The Pope’s death, Big Tech monopolies, NFL draft & a coffee hot take
• Why should the death of Pope Francis matter to Protestants?

Denison Forum