Janet Morana raises pressing concerns over the safety and regulation of Mifepristone, the abortion pill approved by the FDA. Her argument pivots on the contradiction that while the FDA reviews the safety of this drug, it continues to approve its distribution by additional manufacturers. Morana’s article highlights the troubling trajectory of Mifepristone since its initial approval in 2000, drawing attention to its alleged risks to both unborn children and maternal health.
Morana states that Mifepristone has resulted in more deaths of babies and injuries to mothers than any other abortion method. This statement underscores her belief that the drug was erroneously categorized under the FDA’s accelerated approval system, reserved for drugs addressing urgent health needs. Morana contends that the ability to terminate a pregnancy non-surgically does not equate to addressing a life-threatening condition, raising ethical questions about the drug’s approval process.
The article details a history of what Morana describes as a “chemical abortion killing spree…” beginning with Mifepristone’s initial regulations that mandated strict oversight of its distribution. Originally, only qualified medical professionals could prescribe the drug, and it could not be sent through the mail. However, under recent administrations, these restrictions gradually eased, allowing greater accessibility to those seeking abortions.
Changes started with regulations lifted in 2016 that expanded the timeframe for Mifepristone use from seven to ten weeks of pregnancy. This eased the prescribing guidelines, which subsequently enabled nurse practitioners and physician assistants to dispense the drug. The 2021 decision to permit mail delivery of Mifepristone marked a significant shift, with major pharmacies, such as Walgreens and CVS, becoming involved in its distribution.
Morana draws attention to alarming anecdotes of misuse, including cases of individuals ordering the pills online and administering them without proper medical oversight. She cites instances where women have aborted at gestational stages that far exceed the originally mandated limits, highlighting the potential for tragic outcomes when such powerful drugs lack rigorous control.
In discussing the potential dangers of chemical abortion, Morana references an analysis that found that one in ten women who undergo a chemical abortion require hospital care post-procedure, emphasizing the risks associated with this method. She chastises abortion advocates who dismiss these findings, suggesting they prioritize ideological beliefs over women’s health.
In a call for accountability, Morana mentions ongoing legal efforts by several attorneys general to reinstate stricter regulations around Mifepristone. Their objectives include reverting back to requiring in-person consultations, limiting the drug’s use to the first seven weeks of pregnancy, and prohibiting mail distributions. This pleads for enhanced protections for women, positing that they deserve better oversight from an industry that benefits from abortions.
Throughout her article, Morana’s tone is a mixture of urgent concern and outright condemnation for how the FDA has handled Mifepristone’s approval and distribution. She paints a stark image of a lax regulatory environment leading to unsafe outcomes for women and infants alike. The need for a recall of Mifepristone is presented not just as a precaution but as an ethical obligation to safeguard human life.
Ultimately, Morana argues that the changes made to Mifepristone’s regulatory status over the years have not created a safer environment for women. Rather, they have led to a re-emergence of unsafe practices resembling the “back alley” abortions of the past. Her call to action—to end chemical abortions altogether—is framed as a necessary step to protect innocent lives and ensure the health of women.
"*" indicates required fields
