The pro-abortion lobby is nothing if not inconsistent. When it comes to proven, long-established medicines—such as certain treatments for COVID-19—they will debase and silence those who are open-minded enough to suggest there’s an alternative to taking an unproven, untested vaccine. But when a medication with clear, proven risks serves their purpose—unchecked expansion of abortion, for example—they will demonize those who question the safety of unregulated access to it.

Only the Right Science

During the pandemic, it became a rallying cry on the Left: “Follow the science.” But of course, it has to be the right science. When it comes to abortion, no amount of evidence of harm can overcome the right they’ve invented for women to control “their own bodies.” Abortion is itself harmful on many levels, but Mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in chemical abortions, is where pro-life advocates have set their sights in recent years, and for good reason.

Just a few weeks ago, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, & Pensions (HELP) held a hearing on the dangers of chemical abortion drugs as they are currently (minimally) regulated.

The liberal, nonsensical approach to science and medicine was on full display in the person of the Democrats’ witness, Dr. Nisha Verma, an abortionist from Atlanta. Verma revealed herself to be fully sold out to the woke worldview, not only pushing abortion as an issue of the mother’s right to her own body, but also refusing to answer Senator Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) when he asked,

“Can men get pregnant?”

Her response to this simple question?

“Science and evidence should guide medicine.”

Interesting.

This is absurd on its face, but not unfamiliar. Remember, just a few years ago, during Supreme Court Justice Katanji Brown Jackson’s confirmation hearing, when Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R – Tenn.) asked her the simple question, “Can you define the word ‘woman’?”

Unwilling to risk her liberal bona fides, Jackson could not.

Sen. Hawley’s question was not the political “gotcha” Verma accused him of lobbing. He had two goals:

First, to put her in a position where she would have to admit she is more committed to ideology than she is to truth or women’s safety.

Second, to highlight the fact that there are no safeguards that would keep men from ordering abortion drugs for their significant other, with or without their knowledge.

Exposing the Harms

A lack of safeguards around orders is only one of many issues with regulation on abortion drugs as it currently stands. In April of 2025, the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC) published The Abortion Pill Harms Women, the largest-known study of chemical abortion drugs. The findings were alarming, showing that one in ten patients who take the medications develop a serious adverse event, and one in seven experience an adverse event or a repeated abortion because of a failed first attempt. The study prompted the Trump administration to direct the FDA to conduct its own study, a development Dr. Verma called “deeply disturbing.”

Though the EPPC followed NIH and FDA protocols, conducting rigorous, careful inquiry into the outcomes for women who undergo a chemical abortion, Verma and democrat Senators made unfounded and flat-out untruthful claims regarding the study and its findings. This is nothing new, since science has never been the basis for so-called abortion rights.

Embryology clearly demonstrates that a new human life begins at the moment of conception. With advances in technology, we can now see the growing baby (note: images of miscarried babies included here) and pinpoint the exact moment of development of the spinal column, the heart, and even fingerprints and eyelashes. At this point, no one with an internet connection can seriously claim that the child in the womb is not a unique human being.

Even in light of this irrefutable proof of the humanity of pre-born babies, abortions have only increased in the years that have passed since Roe was overturned, thanks to unfettered access to abortion drugs by mail. Sadly, the Dobbs decision did not represent the end of the fight for life. As Ryan T. Anderson of the EPPC has said, “It was the end of the beginning.”

Removing the Guardrails

With tightening restrictions on surgical abortion, abortion-minded women have simply started going online, finding it remarkably easy to get the two-drug combination necessary to abort, largely without oversight from a physician who can and should confirm several factors germane to whether it is even appropriate to abort in this way. What could go wrong?

These lax parameters are not new. In 2016, the FDA under President Obama stopped requiring the reporting of non-fatal complications from abortion drugs. Then, in 2023, the Biden Administration further relaxed regulations around the drugs, allowing them to be prescribed online and distributed by mail. This violates the Comstock Act of 1873, a federal law prohibiting the US Postal Service from involvement in “obscene matters” and any materials used to produce abortion.

The Biden Administration conveniently determined that the Comstock Act only applies in cases of illegal abortion, but since abortion can be legal in every state (even if only for a small, narrowly defined part of the population), there is no way to determine the intent of the sender. The Trump Administration has an opportunity to interpret this differently, which is a major goal of the pro-life movement at this point.

Convenience ¹ Ease

The harms of chemical abortion cannot be overstated. A statistically significant percentage of women who use abortion drugs are finding themselves hemorrhaging or at risk of sepsis from an incomplete abortion. In extreme cases, their future fertility is affected. They are taking the pills at home, where they will face intense pain, bleeding, and having to dispose of their child’s remains, oftentimes alone.

There are many posts in online chats and social media pages where women say they were not prepared for what they saw, and that they had no idea what to do once the reality of their decision settled on them. The lifelong psychological impact of this cannot be overstated.

On a broader level, society does women a massive disservice by telling them an unplanned pregnancy is simply a “problem” that can be handled with a pill. As horrendous as surgical abortion has been for women, chemical abortion is worse, promising privacy but delivering intensified shame and isolation, especially for women who never tell anyone they were pregnant to begin with.

Even those who proudly “shout their abortions” will never ultimately escape their choice.

In settings like January’s Senate hearing, pro-abortion voices put a disproportionate emphasis on the small percentage of women who find themselves in need of an abortion for a medical reason. They will even conflate post-miscarriage care with abortion. But medically necessary abortions and miscarriages aren’t increasing at an exponential rate.

No, abortions are going up because they are easier than ever to procure. The slogan used to be “safe, legal, and rare.”

Now it’s simply “at your convenience.”

While the Trump administration has delivered on some important pro-life promises this term, the FDA is dragging its feet on Mifepristone. Family Research Council has developed a petition calling on the Administration to end the Biden-era policies that are still allowing the dangerous drug to be shipped across state lines. You can also contact your Representative or Senator to keep this issue top of mind. Innocent lives depend on the FDA taking a hard look at chemical abortion.