Use our account feature to register for a free CLI account. Your new account will allow you to bookmark and organize articles and research for easy reference later - making it simple to keep track of the research that's important to you!
Register / Sign in
close-panel

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Get Notifications

Sign up to receive email updates from Charlotte Lozier Institute.

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide world-class research in defense of life.

DONATE

Charlotte Lozier Institute

Phone: 202-223-8073
Fax: 571-312-0544

2776 S. Arlington Mill Dr.
#803
Arlington, VA 22206

Life & the LawChemical Abortion

Lozier Institute Amicus Brief in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

With major international studies showing that the abortion pill regimen carries four times the risk of complications as surgical abortion, Charlotte Lozier Institute has filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas to grant a preliminary injunction suspending the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the abortion pill.

The Lozier Institute amicus brief, filed in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA case (AHM v. FDA) on February 10, 2023, details more than a dozen specific concerns with the FDA’s flawed approval.

 

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

 

The U.S. Food & Drug Administration (FDA) claims that “[b]enefit-risk assessment is the foundation for” the agency’s “regulatory review of human drugs and biologics.” But when it comes to abortion regulation, particularly chemical abortion regulation, that foundation is severely compromised.

 

The FDA’s chemical abortion regulations disregard serious risks and elevate speculative benefits. While the FDA claims that chemical abortion is safe, that conclusion ignores several critical factors. First, claims about abortion’s safety in general are unreliable given the lack of accurate abortion data and the misunderstanding of maternal mortality ratios. Second, claims about chemical abortion’s safety are equally unreliable given the lack of any systematic method for reporting complications despite the severity of those complications. And the reporting that does happen is underinclusive due to the frequent miscoding of chemical abortion complication as miscarriage.

 

Rather than address these issues, the FDA has exacerbated them by loosening the few restrictions that previously shielded women from some of these risks. The FDA’s new regulations now allows women to self-manage their chemical abortions without ever seeing a doctor in person. Yet the consequences of telemedicine chemical abortion are almost too numerous to count—lack of necessary ultrasounds to confirm gestational age and rule out ectopic pregnancy, inability to confirm that a woman is not being coerced to obtain an abortion, abandonment of women to deal with the medical and psychological repercussions of abortion by herself with no follow-up, and grave harm to physicians who are expected to clean up the mess (in the ER and elsewhere) of self-managed abortion.

 

No benefits outweigh these tremendous risks. While the FDA claims that the availability of chemical abortion is an economic benefit and more convenient for women, the data tell a different story. Although childbirth is costly in the short-term, the long-term economic benefits surpass those initial costs. And convenience and easy access are not a net benefit to women. Rather, the easy access of telemedicine abortion creates further risks for women, particularly those who are abused and disadvantaged. Simply put, there is no justification for the FDA’s risk-benefit analysis regarding chemical abortion.

 

Press Release

FULL TEXT:  BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE CHARLOTTE LOZIER INSTITUTE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Latest Posts

June 3, 2024 Abortion Reporting: Arkansas (2023) May 29, 2024 Abortion Reporting: West Virginia (2023) May 29, 2024 Abortion Reporting: Indiana (2023)

You Might Also Be Interested In

United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions

United Kingdom Data Deficiencies Influencing U.S. FDA Decisions

May 23, 2024
ClosePlease login

Misleading Statements About “Life of the Mother” Exceptions in Pro-life Laws Require Correction

Gestational Limits on Abortion in the United States Compared to International Norms (April 2024)

Become A Defender of Life

Your donation helps us continue to provide
world-class research in defense of life.

BECOME A PARTNER
cta-image