Largest-Ever Study of Abortion Pill Reveals Shocking Number of Adverse Events

Ethics and Public Policy Center ^ | April 28, 2025 | staff

[Morgana]

New study reveals an adverse event rate 22 times higher than the FDA-approved drug label reports.

(Washington, DC): In a first-of-its-kind study, “The Abortion Pill Harms Women”, the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) reveals that serious adverse events from mifepristone are approximately 22 times more frequent than the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently recognizes.

The study shows that, following a mifepristone abortion, 10.93 percent of women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or another serious or life-threatening adverse event. That is, over one in ten patients experience at least one serious adverse event.

The study, authored by Jamie Bryan Hall, EPPC’s Director of Data Analysis, and Ryan T. Anderson, EPPC’s President, calls on the FDA to revisit its previous research on and current regulation of mifepristone.

“This study is the statistical equivalent of a category 5 hurricane hitting the prevailing narrative of the abortion industry. It reveals, based on real-world data, the shocking number of women who suffer serious medical consequences because of the abortion pill. The Trump FDA should take immediate action to protect the safety of American women by reinstating the safety regulations that the Obama and Biden Administrations removed.” – EPPC President Ryan T. Anderson

This largest-ever study of the abortion pill is based on a HIPAA-compliant analysis of a health insurance claims database that includes 865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023.

By contrast, the current FDA-approved drug label in based on the results of 10 clinical trials with a total of 30,966 women, less than 0.5 percent of whom reportedly experienced severe adverse reactions. Some of these trials were conducted as long as 42 years ago.

Danco Laboratories, which produces mifepristone boasts that more than 5 million U.S. women have used its abortion pill since it was approved in 2000. With chemical abortions now accounting for two-thirds of all abortions, it has become increasingly important to understand the risks to women from chemical abortion in general and from mifepristone in particular.

Strikingly, recent presidential administrations have significantly weakened medical requirements and protections for using the abortion pill. “The Abortion Pill Harms Women” reveals the startling impact of these policy decisions on the health of countless women.

Read the full study here.

[Texan5]

Oh-I did have cataracts removed several years ago-lighter-colored eyes-mine are gray/green-I’m told are more prone to that. I used the opportunity to make a deal on having laser vision correction done at the same time, which made it reasonable enough for me to pay out of pocket-I’d wanted that for many years and I’m still thrilled to be rid of the glasses/contacts I’d been wearing since age 18...

[Red6]

This is simply my personal opinion albeit others hold it as well and I didn't come up with this.

We simply outlive our designed functional life expectancy, our natural life expectancy.

If you went far back in time, many, even most of the diseases that cost the health care system today would be extremely uncommon, since people simply die before these medical issues ever arise. You may not believe this, but even until the late 1800s people simply didn't live much past 40 (the average person): https://www.reddit.com/r/coolguides/comments/wpwqal/average_life_expectancy_in_the_united_states_from/#lightbox

At age 45, Oetzy (preserved in ice) was extremely old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi

Think of it like this: If people died between 40 - 45, how many of these diseases would we really have: orthopedics, cardiology, dental, nephrology, oncology, ophthalmology...

Different people will be confronted with different issues as they age, but the overwhelming majority will encounter problems.

The human is a biochemical and mechanical machine, and like other machines, eventually begins to break down. Maybe some day folks figure out what aging is and how to really stop or even reverse it. But for the time being, our bodies simply begin a process of slow decomposition starting at 25 (that early) and as we age it accelerates.

This can be seen with teeth (wear out even if you do everything right, the enamel wear down), cataracts (even if you do everything right), the joint problems or osteoporosis which develops with age (for many people, even if they do everything right), and a plethora of other geriatric diseases.

For most people, there needs to be medical intervention of some sort, in order to extend or improve the quality of life, and very few make it to 80 and never have any sort of issue that required some sort of intervention.

Different people need different things in order to extend or improve their quality of life, HRT is simply one tool which addresses some of the issues some people have.

HRT is a dirty term for some folks. That should not be the case. It would be no different that putting someone down for any other age related illness. HRT is not covered by many insurances, even though these same insurances have no problem giving the same hormones in much higher doses to the opposite sex as part of a treatment for “gender dysphoria.” A woman that has low estrogen levels has to pay out of pocket for her sex hormone when old, and lower levels have all sort of bad side effects for her; but a perfectly healthy male who simply “feels” he's suffering from “gender dysphoria” (made up term that is supposed to sound medical and scientific), can get those at much higher doses paid for as part of their MTF transition treatment by almost every insurance. There is something wrong with that.