The Abortion Pill is 22 Times More Dangerous Than Planned Parenthood Says

You know as a pro-lifer that you’ve struck pay dirt when pro-abortionists make statements that are wild even by their own loose fidelity to the truth. This is particularly true when scholars take apart their carefully crafted “research” which, upon examination, is all speed and very, very little altitude.

Ryan T. Anderson is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and Jamie Bryan Hall is the director of data analysis of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC). Their April 28, 2025, study flipped the “abortion pill is safe, safe, safe” narrative on its head.

LifeNews is on GETTR. Please follow us for the latest pro-life news

The Abortion Industry’s take-our-word-for-it line is that “serious adverse reactions” are practically non-existent: they are one half of one percent (.05).

Gospel, right? Not if you do real research.

Which is what Hall and Anderson did. They looked at data from 865,727 insurance claims involving mifepristone abortions between 2017 and 2023. According to Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, NRLC Director of Education & Research,

Counting only those with a report of significant or severe complications, EPPC researchers found almost 11% reporting sepsis, infection, hemorrhage, hospitalization, or some other issue that officially qualified as a “serious adverse event.”

In other words, mifepristone—the abortion pill—is 22 times more dangerous than abortion advocates would have you believe.

The Abortion Industry was/is/and always will be hopping mad—and more than a little scared. After all, chemical abortions count for upwards of 2/3rds of all the abortions performed in the United States.

What if mifepristone is not “safer than Tylenol”?

Last week, the U.S. Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing titled “Protecting Women: Exposing the Dangers of Chemical Abortion Drugs.” The Democrats’ witness, abortionist Nisha Verma, used her time to clobber the Hall and Anderson research.

Anderson and Hall returned the favor Monday in a careful rebuttal published in The Federalist [https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/19/democrat-witness-lies-about-the-abortion-pills-dangerous-side-effects]. They took apart each of her claims, showing that they can be easily rebutted if, for example, Verma bothered to read their “Frequently Asked Questions”.

To take just one very important example, Verma

alleged that our study made other errors, including “counting subsequent treatment to complete an abortion as an adverse event, conflating abortion care with miscarriage care and other uses of mifepristone, and counting longstanding health conditions such as chronic pulmonary issues as adverse events even if they are not related to the abortion.”

We did not classify routine follow-up care as an adverse event. However, when additional medical or surgical intervention was required due to complications such as hemorrhage, infection, or retained tissue beyond expected management, those events were classified consistent with FDA definitions. This distinction is standard in pharmacoepidemiology and does not represent an error.

We did not conflate abortion care with miscarriage care, but rather we carefully distinguished the codes for abortion from the codes for miscarriage, even when the same drug was used. As explained in our FAQ document: “We were very careful to exclude miscarriage care in our report by requiring any mifepristone-only prescription was accompanied by a Z332 code (encounter for elective termination of pregnancy) or Z640 (problems related to unwanted pregnancy).” Likewise, EPPC did not count longstanding health conditions as adverse events of abortion.

Verma also flatly stated that EPPC’s paper “makes sweeping policy recommendations that are not at all supported by its findings.”

Really?

EPPC’s “sweeping policy recommendations” are to return to the original FDA safety protocols. Or, short of that, to return at least to requiring an in-person doctor visit for prescribing and dispensing the abortion pill, as was the case for the first two decades of mifepristone’s use in the United States, until the Covid pandemic.

Maybe, just maybe, it’s time to stop blindly taking at face value every self-serving pro-abortion claim that mifepristone is safe, safe, and safe. After all, as Anderson and Hall conclude

The FDA has a duty to ensure the safety, efficacy, and security of drugs. The FDA does not have a duty to ensure access to abortion. The more this abortionist speaks, the more it becomes clear that she places a greater priority on promoting abortion than on protecting women.

LifeNews.com Note: Dave Andrusko is the editor of National Right to Life News and an author and editor of several books on abortion topics. He frequently writes Today’s News and Views — an online opinion column on pro-life issues.

The post The Abortion Pill is 22 Times More Dangerous Than Planned Parenthood Says appeared first on LifeNews.com.