On May 14, 2025, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a directive for the FDA to conduct a comprehensive safety review of mifepristone, the abortion pill responsible for over 63% of abortions in the U.S. in 2023. This decision, prompted by President Trump’s call to scrutinize the drug’s safety, has sparked a firestorm of opposition from Democrat-led states and abortion advocates. On August 20, 2025, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown, joined by 17 other states and the District of Columbia, filed a citizen petition demanding the FDA remove mifepristone’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program, arguing it imposes undue burdens without enhancing safety. We believe Kennedy’s review is not only justified but urgently needed to protect women’s health and ensure informed choices. The Democrat-led petition, yet another lawsuit against the Trump administration at taxpayer expense, misrepresents the risks of mifepristone and ignores critical safety concerns.
The Case for Reviewing Mifepristone’s Safety
Mifepristone, approved by the FDA in 2000, is marketed as a “safe and effective” option for ending pregnancies. However, recent studies, including one from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) cited by Kennedy, challenge this narrative. The EPPC study, analyzing insurance claims from over 865,000 mifepristone abortions between 2017 and 2023, found serious adverse events, such as sepsis, infection, and hemorrhaging, occurred in nearly 11% of cases, a rate 22 times higher than the FDA’s reported <0.5%. This discrepancy demands scrutiny. While the FDA and pro-abortion groups like the Guttmacher Institute claim mifepristone’s safety is “well-established,” we must prioritize transparency and accountability. If even a fraction of these reported adverse events is accurate, women deserve to know the truth about the risks they face.
Kennedy’s review is a responsible step toward ensuring the FDA’s claims align with real-world data. The drug’s deregulation under the Obama and Biden administrations allowing telemedicine prescriptions and mail-order dispensing without in-person medical oversight has raised legitimate concerns. Without mandatory reporting of nonfatal adverse events, as Kennedy has criticized, the FDA’s safety data may be incomplete. A thorough review could uncover whether these relaxed protocols have endangered women, particularly in states where abortion access is heavily promoted without adequate safeguards…especially when it comes to minor children who can get abortions without parental consent or even notification.
Washington, joined by California, New York, and other blue states, is leading the charge to gut mifepristone’s safety rules. Their petition claims REMS requirements: like prescriber certification, pharmacy approval, and patient agreement forms are “burdensome” and unnecessary. They wave around “25 years of data” and “100 studies” as proof of safety. But under scrutiny, those claims collapse.
The states tout a low fatality rate (36 deaths in 7.5 million uses) while brushing off the EPPC study that found an 11% serious complication rate; data they call “flawed” without ever engaging its methods. State figures, like Washington’s 135 reported complications out of 14,563 cases in 2024, are unreliable because nonfatal complications often go unreported or misclassified. The reality is simple: even one preventable death or injury is too many.
Their argument that state laws make REMS unnecessary is especially hollow. These are the same states that let minor children get abortions without even parental notification—as Washington does. If they won’t ensure parents are informed, why should we trust them to enforce safety protocols? REMS protections, like requiring doctors to rule out ectopic pregnancies and making sure women understand the risks, are hardly redundant. They’re basic safeguards that disappear without federal oversight.
The petition calls REMS a “barrier” because it discourages some providers and pharmacies. But those so-called barriers are really guardrails meant to protect women. Risk is especially high with telemedicine abortions, where patients often skip in-person exams. That’s why 22 Republican attorneys general have urged Kennedy and the FDA to reinstate stricter rules.
Adding insult to injury, this lawsuit is being bankrolled by taxpayers. After the Supreme Court dismissed a 2024 challenge to mifepristone on procedural grounds, blue states have turned litigation into a weapon, using public dollars to push abortion on demand while ignoring the will of millions of pro-life Americans.
At Conservative Ladies of America, we believe Kennedy’s review is a moral necessity. Mifepristone takes unborn lives, but it also carries real risks for women; risks that abortion advocates downplay. Even Kennedy, with his pro-choice past, is showing he’s willing to put evidence above ideology. A fair review could mean restoring safeguards like in-person prescribing, gestational limits, and stronger warning labels; measures that put women’s health above convenience…and frankly, above profit.
At the end of the day, this fight isn’t about “access.” It’s about whether abortion politics will override safety and accountability. We must demand truth over spin and protection for both women and the unborn.
Support Conservative Ladies of America
Conservative Ladies of America is a grassroots 501(c)(4) nonprofit committed to defending conservative principles and empowering citizens across our country. We rely entirely on the generous support of people like you to keep our work alive.
Your donation fuels our advocacy, education, and outreach efforts—helping us stand strong for our values.
Please consider giving today. Every contribution makes a meaningful impact.
Thank you for standing with us.