I’m pleased to pass along that my colleagues and I at the Ethics and Public Policy Center have filed an amicus brief in support of the state of Louisiana in response to the emergency applications filed by mifepristone manufacturers. Our brief highlights the study by other EPPC scholars that demonstrates that mifepristone-induced abortion presents severe health risks that are more than 22 times higher than the FDA has acknowledged and that the FDA’s elimination of the in-person dispensing requirement makes those risks even higher.
Beyond the legal deficiencies, I continue to be amazed that as a matter of policy the FDA would eliminate the in-person dispensing requirement. The FDA itself states that women with ectopic pregnancies should not take mifepristone for abortion (FDA Q&A #3), that ectopic pregnancies occur “in approximately two percent of all pregnancies,” that “[u]nless they are discovered and treated early, almost 40 percent of ectopic pregnancies rupture suddenly,” and that ruptured ectopic pregnancies “can be fatal” (FDA Q&A #8). An in-person visit with a doctor or other medical professional is needed to diagnose an ectopic pregnancy, so why allow dispensing of mifepristone without an in-person visit? For those who (unlike me) support mifespristone, how does making access even easier justify the life-threatening risk that some women will face as a result?
Similarly, dispensing mifepristone by mail enables abusive boyfriends to obtain the drug and to coerce or trick their pregnant girlfriends into consuming it. Louisiana’s co-plaintiff, Rosalie Markezich, alleges that her boyfriend obtained mifepristone by mail and that he pressured her into taking the drug even though she did not want to have an abortion. As the complaint puts it, “far from empowering Rosalie to make her own choice and preserving her autonomy, mail-order abortion drugs had Rosalie feeling trapped and terrified.” Again, how does making access even easier justify enabling these abuses?