FDA Failed to Protect Women From Unwanted and Dangerous Abortions: Elliot Institute Amicus Brief

2/29/2024

The Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the abortion drug, mifepristone, negligently exposed millions of women to unwanted, unsafe, and unnecessary abortions, according to an amicus brief filed by the Elliot Institute, Rachel’s Vineyard, and Entering Canaan Ministry.

The brief details the Clinton administration’s political goals and social engineering agenda when the president ordered for the FDA to bring the abortion drug to the American marketplace.

To comply with this order, the FDA waived the normal requirements for double blind trials proving that measurable benefits of the drug exceeded any negative outcomes. In addition, the FDA narrowed its range of interest, only considering how often the drug successfully induced abortions that did not require additional surgical intervention.

All evidence demonstrating that abortion contributes to emotional and mental health injuries in women, before and after the drug was approved for distribution, were waived aside as irrelevant. All evidence of risks associated with abortion in general, and chemical abortions in particular, have been consistently ignored.

Moreover, the FDA normally requires drug manufacturer’s to identify the subset of patients for whom any drug is contraindicated. For example, if a drug is more likely to carry negative effects for persons who have diabetes, this warning should be given to both doctors and patients.

But when dealing with abortion drugs, the FDA has maintained the unfounded position that the abortion is perfectly safe for every woman and in every circumstance. But this conclusion is not supported by clinical trials, much less double blind trials. It is simply based on untested presumption that “if a woman wants an abortion, it is a good thing to give her one.”

In fact, there is undisputable evidence that women who feel pressured to choose abortions that are contrary to their own personal preferences and values report that their abortion contribute to a decline in their mental health. In fact, this higher risk group of women make up the majority of abortion patients.

But these facts are of no interest to the FDA. It’s mandate to increase abortion rates, no matter what the cost to women, came from an agenda to “to eliminate the barely educated, unhealthy and poor segment of our country” since “26 million food stamp recipients is more than the economy can stand.”

In short, easier and cheaper access to abortion makes it easier to push women into unwanted abortions. Whether or not women benefit is irrelevant. Society itself benefits from fewer babies born to the “barely educated, unhealthy, and poor segment of our country.” And that, in short, has been the governing principle behind the FDA’s efforts to turn the abortion pill into an over-the-counter drug.

Notably, the Elliot Institute’s amicus brief also examines the deceptions advanced by pro-abortion advocates who are falsely asserting that abortion is always beneficial to women. These misrepresentations are especially evident in the unrepresentative and misleading claims of the Turnaway Study.

The full brief is available to read online.

-------------------------------------

Online version of this article