Project 2025 with an image of congress

Andrea Austria / Media Matters

Research/Study Research/Study

Inside Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights: Mifepristone and alternative abortion pills

Special Programs Abortion Rights & Reproductive Health

Written by Sophie Lawton, Jacina Hollins-Borges & Jack Wheatley

Published

At least 31 partner organizations of the Project 2025 initiative have published written content, supported legal efforts, or had organizational leadership make comments against the use of safe and effective abortion pills, specifically mifepristone, according to a Media Matters review. 

Project 2025 is organized by conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation, and has laid out a radical plan for governance during the next Republican administration. The initiative's wide-ranging policy proposals, including extreme anti-abortion policies, are laid out in its “Mandate for Leadership.” 

The policy book includes a chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services written by Roger Severino, husband of anti-abortion figure Carrie Severino. The chapter lays out policies against the use and distribution of abortion pills, advising the next Republican administration to heavily restrict access to mifepristone and so-called “mail-order abortions” through various means. 

Later in the policy book, America First Legal’s Gene Hamilton recommends that the Department of Justice should take steps to enforce the Comstock Act as a way to limit the distribution of abortion pills. In these passages, Project 2025 lays out a plan for the next Republican administration to criminalize the shipment of abortion pills and cut off huge swaths of Americans from accessing this lifeline of reproductive healthcare. 

Anti-choice organizations have been waging a legal battle against mifepristone for years, culminating in the ongoing Supreme Court case, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, in which anti-choice groups challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone in 2000 and attempt to reinstate stricter rules around prescribing the drug that were in place prior to 2016. 

Project 2025 partner the Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF) is behind the anti-choice “Alliance” along with Project 2025 partner, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG). A number of other Project 2025 partner organizations have signed letters, filed amicus briefs, or otherwise supported these efforts. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on the case in March, and reportedly appeared skeptical of the plaintiffs’ right to sue, which would suggest the justices could rule in a way that allows mifepristone to remain broadly available. 

Organizations affiliated with Project 2025 use misinformation and scare tactics to push for restrictions, if not outright bans, of abortion pills despite evidence that they are safe and effective, even after regulations on prescribing the medication were eased in 2021. Some of the organizations argue that expanded access to abortion pills will result in the use of the drug by abusive partners or sex traffickers. Mother Jones recently debunked the claim that telehealth abortion facilitates intimate partner violence. There has also been pushback against the idea that access to abortion pills negatively impacts victims of trafficking.

At least seven of the organizations partnered with Project 2025 have also promoted and helped advance legislation to force doctors to offer bogus “abortion reversal” treatment. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists states, “Medication abortion ‘reversal’ is not supported by science. 

For the full report on Project 2025's attack on reproductive rights, click here.

Select a Partner Organization

  • The Heritage Foundation

    • In an article about the Supreme Court case on the FDA’s mifepristone regulations, senior legal fellow Thomas Jipping claims abortion pills are “dangerous drugs.” Jipping opened the piece saying that “abortion poisons everything it touches,” and goes on to argue that the FDA violated the Comstock Act, a 19th-century law considered “dead” by some in Congress who support its repeal. [The Heritage Foundation, 1/17/24; The Hill, 4/2/24]
    • In a post on X, The Heritage Foundation wrote, “Think the abortion pill is safe? Think again.” [Twitter/X, 12/13/23]
    • The Heritage Foundation hosted a panel on abortion pills moderated by Perry that included Rep. Bob Good (R-VA), ADF senior counsel Erik Baptist, and CEO of AAPLOG Christina Francis. Francis claimed that mifepristone users visit the emergency room more often than those who get surgical abortions, even claiming up to 35% of chemical abortions result in an ER visit. These claims are the same as those from a retracted 2021 study. Francis repeated this claim later in the panel stating abortion drugs have “high complication rates.” [YouTube, 11/13/23, 11/13/23; Salon, 3/20/24]
    • In a piece celebrating the U.S. District Court ruling against both the initial approval of the drug and the FDA’s relaxation of mifepristone regulations, Perry called Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s opinion a “recognition of the dangers of mifepristone to both mother and child.” [The Heritage Foundation, 8/13/23]
    • In a 2023 post on X, Heritage stated “FACT: The abortion pill poses serious health risks to women. The FDA should never have authorized it.” [Twitter/X, 3/20/23]
    • In another article by Perry on the Heritage site, she claimed states can use “police power to restrict or prohibit abortion—including particular methods of abortion, such as by pill.” [The Heritage Foundation, 2/22/23]
    • Perry wrote in a 2023 article that states should be working to ban abortion drugs, despite the FDA calling them “safe and effective.” She also claimed the Supreme Court overturning Roe means “states can close off chemical abortions altogether.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/11/23]
    • In an article on the Heritage site about the Biden administration allowing pharmacies to distribute mifepristone, visiting fellow Melanie Israel wrote that “abortion pills aren’t safe.” [The Heritage Foundation, 1/6/23]
    • In 2022, The Heritage Foundation published a coalition letter to members of Congress in an effort to “legislate abortion policy at the federal level.” The letter called on the federal government to “limit the interstate flow of dangerous abortion drugs” and falsely claimed abortion pills put “women’s health and safety at risk.” The letter was also signed by other Project 2025 partner organizations including Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, and Concerned Women for America. [The Heritage Foundation, 12/4/22]

  • 1792 Exchange

    • Right-wing nonprofit 1792 Exchange wrote in its corporate bias rating report on CVS Health that the company is “high risk” because it continued to dispense mifepristone at some pharmacies in spite of a related wrongful termination lawsuit from a former employee. 1792 Exchange also criticized CVS Health because it supposedly “pushes for the use of abortion-inducing drugs across the country.” [1792 Exchange, accessed 4/16/24]

  • Alliance Defending Freedom 

    • Along with other anti-abortion medical groups and doctors, Alliance Defending Freedom is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against the FDA to limit access to mifepristone. [The Guardian, 5/17/23]
    • ADF has defended plaintiffs in at least 22 cases in 10 states and the District of Columbia which challenged the Obama-era requirement for employers to provide insurance that covers mifepristone and other reproductive care. [ADF, accessed 4/18/24]
    • ADF intervened to defend a nurse practitioner named Chelsea Mynyk who offered abortion pill reversal in Colorado in spite of a state law barring the protocol, arguing that “by banning Chelsea from providing this care, Colorado is violating her religious freedom.” [ADF, 4/12/24]
    • In a piece that criticized retail pharmacies dispensing mifepristone, ADF senior counsel Erin Morrow Hawley wrote that looser restrictions on the medication “all but ensure the abortion drug will be unsafe for many women, ubiquitous, and routinely mailed into states where it is unlawful.” She added that CVS and Walgreens have removed “important safeguards on abortion drugs.” [ADF, 3/26/24]
    • ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner said that the data on mifepristone “suggests that it endangers women.” [Politico, 3/25/24, 11/18/22]
    • In an article titled “The FDA’s Unforgivable Deceptions on Chemical-Abortion Drugs,” Hawley wrote that “no one should be okay with the FDA leaving pregnant women to take these high-risk drugs all alone.” She then urged the Supreme Court to “put the health and well-being of pregnant women first by reinstating necessary safeguards for abortion drugs.” [ADF, 3/15/24]
    • In a piece titled “What the FDA Hasn’t Told You About Mifepristone,” ADF senior counsel Erik Baptist claimed that “the FDA has ignored” that abortion pills “can cause significant and serious complications.” [ADF, 3/14/23]

  • American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists

    • The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists is a plaintiff in the Alliance Defending Freedom’s lawsuit against the FDA to suspend the use of mifepristone. [Washington State Standard, 2/6/24]
    • AAPLOG runs a program called “Abortion Pill Reversal” that invites “pro-life medical professionals” to “provide urgent care to women who regret starting medication abortions.” The idea of reversing an abortion pill’s effect with progesterone is not supported by science. A 2012 study on the protocol had just six participants and no control group, and was not supervised or reviewed. A later 2020 study was ended early “due to safety concerns among the participants.” In its statement on abortion pill reversal, the organization included statistics on serious complications from abortion medication and referred to reversal as “another reproductive choice for women facing the abortion decision.” It repeatedly emphasizes that abortions are reversed with a “natural hormone.” [AAPLOG, accessed 4/17/24, 2019; ACOG, accessed 4/19/24]
    • In response to efforts to ban abortion “reversal” treatments in Colorado, AAPLOG released a statement which said: “Efforts by abortion proponents to outlaw progesterone therapy after mifepristone consumption are not based on science or good medical ethics.” [AAPLOG, 9/27/23; Reuters, 10/23/23]
    • AAPLOG often attacks mifepristone as a way for “abusers and traffickers” to easily coerce patients into abortion. In a response to the Fifth Circuit of Appeals ruling to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone, AAPLOG wrote that the previous “deregulations have placed women and girls at greater risk of life-threatening complications, as well as coerced abortion by abusers and traffickers.” [APPLOG, 8/16/23]
    • In a “Myth vs. Fact” piece on “maternal medical care,” AAPLOG wrote that “the dangerous push in recent years to dispense abortion pills through the mail or without a doctor’s visit presents a grave threat to women’s health.” [AAPLOG, 8/29/22]
    • Now-CEO Christina Francis warned in 2021 of “mounting evidence of significant adverse events and maternal deaths” from mifepristone in a piece originally published by Deseret News. [AAPLOG, 5/18/21; Salt Lake Tribune, 11/18/23]
    • Throughout the 2000s and early 2010s, AAPLOG argued through letters, press releases, and articles that mifepristone is dangerous. [AAPLOG, 1/25/10]

  • ACLJ Action

    • ACLJ’s Jay and Jordan Sekulow called mifepristone “deadly abortion pills” while describing the organization’s position in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. [ACLJ, 6/22/23]
    • In a piece explaining why the organization filed an amicus brief in that case, ACLJ senior counsel Walter M. Weber wrote that “mailing abortion pills is an act of racketeering that violates the federal RICO statute.” The ACLJ’s brief asked the court “to uphold an injunction against federal approval of abortion pills and against federal loosening of restrictions on abortion pills.” [ACLJ, 5/12/23; U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 5/09/23]

  • The American Conservative

    • The American Conservative celebrated U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, saying that banning access to mifepristone would be “a major blow to abortion activists’ cause” and would create precedent to change “an untouchable federal agency.” Contributing editor Carmel Richardson wrote that the anti-abortion movement “has been all but apologizing for” overturning Roe v. Wade “at the ballot box ever since,” but the possibility of a mifepristone ban is a “positive step forward.” [The American Conservative, 5/19/23]
    • After the Supreme Court said that mifepristone should stay broadly available as the case is litigated, Richardson called on Congress to ban abortion, “including a ban on drugs prescribed for the purpose of inducing the death of a pre-born child.” [The American Conservative, 4/28/23]
    • Richardson has also claimed that mifepristone is dangerous for patients, writing that “the lives of unborn babies, and those of several of their mothers” are at stake in the mifepristone case. [The American Conservative, 4/14/23]

  • American Family Association

    • American Family Association’s news outlet, American Family News, published an article on the Louisiana law categorizing mifepristone as a controlled dangerous substance that called the drug “Fetus-killing abortion pills” and failed to include that the law will likely inhibit access to the drug and ensure harsher penalties for people who obtain it without a prescription. The piece misleadingly implies the new law would mainly be used to punish people for “misusing” the drugs by coercing a pregnant person to take them or slipping it unknowingly to a pregnant person. [American Family News, 5/28/24; CNN, 5/24/24]
    • Jordan Chamblee, a writer for American Family Association’s publication The Stand, claimed that the Biden administration paving the way for retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills is “prioritizing the interests of the abortion industry over women’s health and safety.” He claimed that “chemical abortions are dangerous,” as they “can result in serious complications such as sepsis, hemorrhaging, and even death.” Chamblee also promoted The Abortion Pill Rescue Network (APRN), which offers abortion pill reversal. [American Family Association, 4/10/23]
    • After the FDA allowed mifepristone to be dispensed by mail, AFA Executive Vice President Ed Vitagliano said that this promoted “an agenda of wanton destruction eliminating tens of thousands of people who would become innovators and creators.” [American Family Association, 12/20/21]
    • An AFA article criticized abortion clinics for not advertising the existence of abortion reversal, and claimed that they “fail to inform their patients about what to expect after they take the pill and leave the clinic.” [American Family Association, 7/15/19]

  • America First Legal

    • Project 2025 contributor and vice president of America First Legal Gene Hamilton, who wrote the section of Mandate for Leadership on the Department of Justice, pushed in that section to enforce the Comstock Act, which could be used to restrict abortion medication nationwide. [Rolling Stone, 12/22/23; Teen Vogue, 2/7/24]

  • American Principles Project

    • The American Principles Project backed the bill of Reps. Diana Harshbarger (R-TN) and Kevin Hern (R-OK) to tighten restrictions on mifepristone, with the APP's President Terry Schilling arguing that easier access to abortion pills means dispensing “dangerous pills online” and “empowering abusers by making it even easier for them to get their hands on abortion drugs.” [Website of Rep. Diana Harshbarger, 1/18/23]
    • On Twitter, APP shared an article promoting abortion pill reversal: “#Abortion Pill Reversal: When ‘Pro-Choicers’ Don’t Support a Woman’s Choice.” [Twitter/X, 9/14/17]
    • During the Obama administration, APP celebrated the fight against what it calls “the abortion pill mandate,” the Department of Health and Human Services requirement for employers to provide insurance that covers abortion pills. [Twitter/X, 3/6/13, 7/10/12]

  • Americans United for Life

    • Americans United for Life federal policy director Jesse Southerland told Politico that fighting against “chemical abortion” is a “priority” for the organization. [Politico, 3/27/24]
    • AUL drafted a model law for anti-abortion lawmakers to restrict or ban telehealth prescriptions for abortion pills. [Politico, 3/27/24; Stateline, 1/30/23]
    • In February, AUL filed two amicus briefs in support of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in its case against the FDA. [Americans United for Life, 2/29/24]
    • AUL listed the court battle to re-restrict mifepristone as one of its “top ten developments in the Life arena of 2023.” [Americans United for Life, 12/20/23]
    • Chief legal officer and general counsel of AUL Steven H. Aden said that loosening regulations on mifepristone “has been a healthcare disaster for women and has normalized the wholesale destruction of human life.” [Americans United for Life, 12/13/23]
    • AUL filed multiple amicus briefs to the Fifth Circuit asking the court to uphold the U.S. District Court’s suspension of mifepristone’s approval. Aden, the counsel of record on the brief, explained that abortion pills are “dangerous drugs,” and suspending them “is in the interest of patient welfare.” AUL has made similar arguments in several pieces on its amicus briefs regarding this case. [Americans United for Life, 5/16/23, 4/18/23, 4/12/23]
    • Carolyn McDonnell, litigation counsel at AUL, accused the FDA of “promoting its radical abortion agenda at the expense of patient health and safety” by relaxing mifepristone restrictions. [Americans United for Life, 2/13/23]
    • AUL submitted testimony in support of Wyoming’s attempt to ban abortion pills partially because it was “consistent with the American legal tradition on abortion.” In its related explainer on mifepristone, AUL emphasized possible complications resulting from consumption of the drug. [Americans United for Life, 2/9/23; The Associated Press, 6/22/23]
    • AUL wrote that receiving mifepristone through the mail is the “new back-alley,” as patients are receiving pills “from a stranger on the internet.” The piece emphasized that “women have died taking chemical abortion pills.” [Americans United for Life, 12/17/21]
    • In 2021, AUL celebrated South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem’s executive order to ban abortion pills from being prescribed via telemedicine, calling it a measure “to protect South Dakota women from the threat of chemical abortion drugs.” [Americans United for Life, 9/7/21]
    • In the same piece, the organization attributed relaxed restrictions on mifepristone to “corporate greed.” Similarly, in 2016, AUL said that “abortion industry profits” were the motivator behind the updated guidelines. [Americans United for Life, 9/7/21; 11/1/16]
    • After the FDA loosened restrictions on mifepristone in 2021, AUL accused the agency of “playing politics with women’s health.” In another piece on the issue, it said the FDA was “abandoning women to suffer through the physical and psychological impact of chemical abortion without medical supervision or support.” [Americans United for Life, 4/13/21, 1/12/21]
    • In 2017, AUL’s vice president of legal affairs, Denise Burke, testified in favor of a Colorado law that would require abortion providers to tell patients about abortion reversal, which it calls “informed consent.” According to Burke, because they are not told about so-called abortion reversal, “many women are physically and psychologically harmed by the abortion process.” [Americans United for Life, 2/9/17]
    • AUL called on state lawmakers to repeal what it called a “discriminatory rule” and an “unconstitutional abuse of power” from the Washington State Board of Pharmacists that required pharmacists to keep abortion pills stocked. The organization joined an amicus brief in support of pharmacists against “drugs misleadingly called ‘emergency contraceptives,’ specifically Plan B and ella.” [Americans United for Life, 6/28/16]
    • AUL has been involved in multiple cases related to state laws seeking to restrict mifepristone, with AUL's president referring to looser restrictions as “patient abandonment.” In a press release celebrating an Arkansas law restricting mifepristone, AUL wrote that “the abortion industry consistently puts profits over people.” [Americans United for Life, 3/23/15, 10/4/13]
    • The organization filed amicus briefs in support of embattled North Dakota and Oklahoma bills that restricted access to mifepristone. [Americans United for Life, 10/4/13, 8/21/13, 10/9/12]

  • AMAC Action

    • In a 2023 article on the Association for Mature American Citizens website, author Ben Solis repeated false claims made by Fox News host Rachel Campos-Duffy that “40 percent of abortions are chemical abortions that are likely to end with complications.” More than 60% of all abortions are performed with the abortion pill and around 2% of all abortions have complications. [AMAC, 4/8/23; Guttmacher Institute, 3/19/24; Pew Research Center, 3/25/24] 
    • AMAC hosted an interview with Jeanne Mancini, president of March for Life, to talk about how chemical abortions are supposedly “dangerous.” In the interview, AMAC CEO Rebecca Weber claimed the expansion of abortion pill access is really pro-abortion activists “taking advantage of frightened young women.” Mancini argued that access to mifepristone is “dangerous in a lot of different ways” claiming the drug is “actually much harder on women's health than surgical abortion.” [YouTube, 11/9/22]

  • California Family Council

    • In a story on its site, the California Family Council (CFC) wrote about the recent Supreme Court case regarding mifepristone, saying that “true reproductive freedom includes access to comprehensive information about fertility, pregnancy, and the support available for women experiencing a crisis pregnancy.” CFC Vice President Greg Burt remarked, “This case is not merely about regulatory oversight; it’s about reaffirming the foundational values that respect life and prioritize genuine healthcare that serves both mothers and their children.” [California Family Council, 3/29/24] 
    • On its Instagram account, the group declared, “The abortion pill is not a form of contraception; rather, it is an exceedingly hazardous drug, particularly when used without medical supervision.” The post added, “The abortion pill leads the death of an unborn baby and potential dangers to the mother.” [Instagram, 12/13/23]
    • The group fearmongered that “Mifepristone and misoprostol put women at risk for infection, injury, loss of fertility, depression, and other life-threatening complications.” It concludes that “women deserve to know about their options and have access to life-saving medication,” referring to abortion pill reversal. [California Family Council, 9/25/23]
    • In at least two other publications on its website, the group pushed misleading information about the safety of the abortion pill, calling it “dangerous,” and “highly controversial.” [California Family Council, 11/29/22, 2/7/22] 

  • Center for Family and Human Rights

    • In a 2023 article on the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM) website, director of research Rebecca Oas wrote that “period pills” or medication used to “induce menstrual bleeding or early pregnancy loss” are used for “the intentional destruction of an unborn life.” [Center for Family and Human Rights, 2/10/23; PeriodPills.org, accessed 5/15/24]
    • In an article complaining about expanding access to abortion pills during the COVID-19 pandemic, Oas called use of mifepristone a “dangerous procedure.” [Center for Family and Human Rights, 5/8/20]
    • C-FAM published multiple articles condemning the World Health Organization and Doctors Without Borders for supporting the distribution of abortion pills. In one piece C-FAM argues “mail-order abortion pills” put patients at risk of getting an abortion “without [their] consent by abusive partners, parents, or others, such as human traffickers.” [Center for Family and Human Rights, 6/28/19; 2/28/20]
    • In an article for Pacific Standard on the WHO’s endorsement of mifepristone, Oas is quoted repeating her argument that expanding access to abortion pills will result in the use of the drugs by “abusive partners” for nonconsensual abortions. [Pacific Standard, 7/15/19]

  • Center for Renewing America

    • In a policy issue primer published on Center for Renewing America’s site, the organization supported the Fifth Circuit's ruling against the FDA’s interpretation of the Comstock Act, and claimed the “weaponized agency is willing to violate the law to advance its abortion agenda.” CRA also suggested Congress attempt to “prohibit chemical abortions at the federal level.” [Center for Renewing America, 5/2/23]

  • Concerned Women for America

    • In a piece on its website, Concerned Women for America noted its support for stricter abortion pill regulations alongside other anti-abortion groups, against the FDA in the ongoing Supreme Court case. The piece describes the agency’s actions as “reckless disregard for women’s safety.” [Concerned Women for America, 3/25/24] 
    • CWA wrote a piece directly focused on the case heading to the Supreme Court, calling mifepristone “dangerous” and the FDA’s approval of it “reckless.” CWA CEO and President Penny Nance said, “Let’s be clear; there is nothing safe or effective about allowing people to perform their own DIY abortion.” [Concerned Women for America, 12/13/23]
    • On CWA’s podcast, Nance said supporters of the medication “want there to be abortion, as I’ve said before many times, any time, any reason, in any number, all paid for by you.” She continued, “They don’t want a girl to even leave her dorm room to have it. They’re happy for her to struggle for several days to actually miscarry this baby alone and to be traumatized and maybe, you know, have consequences that render her sterile later or maybe even death.” Later on, she added, “This is not nearly over. We have a lot of work to do. We are winning.” [Concerned Women for America, 4/19/23, 4/19/23] 
    • CWA’s Deanna Drogan wrote for the website, “We can see that increasing the ability to perform DIY abortions results in many health risks for mothers (known and unknown) and an increasing number of babies innocently murdered from abortion.” [Concerned Women for America, 4/23/21]
    • In an opinion piece for Newsmax, Nance wrote that there is “nothing safe about DIY abortion.” She added, concerning the Texas case, “Americans who are concerned for the safety and well-being of young women should be grateful that this judge had the courage to make this decision.” [Newsmax, 5/15/23]

  • Discovery Institute

    • Discovery Institute’s Center on Human Exceptionalism fellow Arina Grossu Agnew appeared on The Lars Larson Show to discuss “How many babies do abortion pills like Mifepristone kill?” In the interview, Grossu claimed the FDA “looked at flawed studies, irrelevant studies” when approving the drug “and there are a lot of complications that can happen.” She went on to call mifepristone “a very dangerous abortion drug.” [KXL, Lars Larson Show, 5/1/23]
    • Senior fellow of the Discovery Institute’s Center for Natural and Artificial Intelligence Michael Egnor wrote in an article for The Stream that abortion drugs “cause significant physiological and behavioral harm.” Egnor’s article is based on a study by Dr. Stephen Sammut, whose research also pushes the unsupported science of “abortion-pill reversal.” [The Stream, 7/10/19; Franciscain, Accessed 5/15/24]

  • Eagle Forum

    • President of Eagle Forum Kristen A. Ullman published an article in March arguing against use of the abortion pill. In the article, Ullman called mifepristone “dangerous” and repeated unverified claims that the abortion pill has a notably high number of documented negative effects. [Eagle Forum, 3/24/24]
    • Eagle Forum joined a coalition of anti-abortion groups who called on Congress to send cease-and-desist letters to pharmacies mailing abortion pills. [Eagle Forum, 3/12/24]
    • In an article fearmongering about mifepristone titled “Danger Lurks in Local Drug Stores,” Ullman called the drug a “dangerous pill that not only kills an unborn child but causes serious side effects and even death to countless women.” [Eagle Forum, 3/4/24]

  • Ethics and Public Policy Center

    • Ethics and Public Policy Center fellows submitted two amicus briefs for the Supreme Court case on mifepristone supporting Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine in its case against the abortion drug. The briefs claimed the FDA and Biden administration are in “violation of federal and state law” by expanding access to mifepristone. [EPPC, 3/1/24]
    • President of EPPC Ryan T. Anderson, previously a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation, published an article with National Review titled “Making Abortion Illegal and Unthinkable,” in which he argued, “We’ll need laws to prevent cross-state transportation of abortion pills.” [National Review, 6/11/22; The Heritage Foundation, accessed 4/19/24]

  • Family Policy Alliance

    • Focus on the Family's lobbying arm, Family Policy Alliance, submitted an amicus brief for the Supreme Court case on mifepristone in which it argued the FDA’s current mifepristone guidance is “dangerous for women” and claimed, “Medical Emergencies Caused by Mifepristone are Increasing” and cites the declaration of Dr. Christina Francis, the AAPLOG CEO. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/28/24]
    • After Biden supported access to mifepristone in January, FPA called on its audience to push back against the dispensing of abortion pills in pharmacies, seemingly citing a now-retracted study that led FPA to falsely claim that “women who use abortion pills are 50 percent more likely to visit an ER than with a surgical abortion.” [Family Policy Alliance, 1/24/23; National Library of Medicine, 11/9/21]
    • FPA also called on pharmacies to refuse to distribute abortion pills. The FPA director of government affairs claimed in the statement, “Abortion drugs are a health and safety threat to women and their children.” [Family Policy Alliance, 1/6/23]

  • Family Research Council

    • In an episode of Family Research Council’s Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, Senior Vice President Jody Hice interviewed Louisiana state Sen. Thomas Pressly about his legislation to classify mifepristone as a dangerous substance in Louisiana. Hice called the passing of the law “good news” and called it a “model” for other states. Hice went on to congratulate Pressly and claimed the “abortion industry” is “fearmongering” over the legislation. [Family Research Council, Washington Watch with Tony Perkins, 5/24/24]
    • FRC’s affiliated blog The Washington Stand published a piece similarly praising the Louisiana law, which claims abortion pills “are not safe.” [The Washington Stand, 5/28/24]
    • FRC filed an amicus brief in the Supreme Court case over mifepristone claiming that the FDA was “reckless” in approving the drug and that use of mifepristone creates “long-lasting psychological and spiritual distress.” [Family Research Council, 3/5/24]
    • In 2022 FRC published an issue analysis on medication abortion, which it called “The Next Abortion Battleground.” The analysis summarized FRC’s issues with abortion pills, leveling claims that there are “profound dangers such poorly supervised medical care poses to women’s health” and that “the abortion industry” is pushing abortion pills for “political, ideological, and financial goals.” [Family Research Council, 2/22]
    • Also in its analysis on abortion pills, FRC argued that easing regulations of mifepristone would “complicate the detection of sexual abuse and sex trafficking.” In a section on “Sexual Abuse and Sex Trafficking” FRC claimed, “Abusers, along with those in the sexual exploitation industry ... would love an environment in which they can compel women to repeatedly have abortions.” The section also claimed that Planned Parenthood is aiding sex traffickers by providing abortions. [Family Research Council, 2/22]
    • The analysis also laid out policy suggestions, such as “complete removal of the chemical abortion regimen from the market,” forcing manufacturers of the drug to “report all adverse events” from mifepristone, and prohibiting the prescription of abortion pills over telehealth. FRC claims its final goal is “to see the sale and the approval of drugs meant to intentionally kill life in the womb eliminated from our society.” [Family Research Council, 2/22]
    • In a 2021 report, legislative assistant Chantel Hoyt claimed expansion of access to mifepristone means “the abortion industry seems willing to gamble with women's lives and health” in order to expand access to abortion. [Family Research Council, 7/19/21; FRC, accessed 5/15/24]

  • First Liberty Institute

    • Starting in 2013 First Liberty Institute represented Joe Holland in a case against the federal government challenging the so-called “Abortion Pill Mandate.” First Liberty argued he should not have to provide insurance coverage for abortion pills because of his faith. [First Liberty Institute, accessed, 4/16/24]

  • ForAmerica

    • ForAmerica president David Bozell joined a Washington Times podcast to attack the use of mifepristone, calling it “unfathomable.” He went on to claim, “The left will not stop until there is abortion on demand funded by the United States taxpayer up to and perhaps even including the moment of birth." [The Washington Times, 3/29/24]

  • The Frederick Douglass Foundation

    • Liberty Counsel, an anti-abortion legal organization, filed an amicus brief on behalf of the Frederick Douglass Foundation to the Supreme Court asking it to uphold the Fifth Circuit’s decision to reinstate restrictions on mifepristone. [World News Group, 3/12/24]

  • The Heartland Institute

    • Ashley Bateman, a policy writer for the Heartland Institute, wrote a piece for The Federalist regarding anti-abortion activists protesting at the Supreme Court about the FDA case, describing mifepristone as a “high-risk drug.” [The Federalist, 3/27/24]
    • Heartland Daily News, a publication affiliated with the Institute, has been attacking abortion medication for years. Recently Bateman published an article where she labeled mifepristone a “high-risk drug” and a different piece by Harry Painter attempted to raise concerns about the safety of telemedicine prescriptions for mifepristone while conflating the use of the medication with “back-alley abortions.” [The Heartland Daily News, 4/15/24, 3/27/24, 12/6/22, 9/18/21]

  • Dr. James Dobson Family Institute

    • The James Dobson Family Institute in a piece titled “Baby-Killing Pills” claimed the Biden Administration wants to distribute mifepristone “like candy,” and said it continues to “use every tool it has to keep the number of abortions in America as high as possible.” Later on, the author describes the medication as a “killer abortion pill.” [Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, 4/14/23]
    • The institute was one of many organizations to sign an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on the FDA battle over the drug. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/29/2024]
    • A commentary piece for the organization described mifepristone described as “death by mail,” and attacked pro-choice organizations, writing, “See you in court, NARAL! JDFI proudly signed onto an amicus brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and we look forward to making the case for life before the U.S. Supreme Court.” [Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, 8/30/23] 
    • A 2021 piece by Dobson himself endorsed a bill that aimed to strip universities of their federal funding if they distribute reproductive medication to students. [Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, 8/3/21]

  • Media Research Center

    • Media Research Center’s affiliated news outlet, NewsBusters, published an article claiming NBC “fear mongers” about Louisiana’s new law classifying mifepristone and misoprostol as dangerous substances. The piece said an NBC correspondent stating the new law will create confusion around the safety of the drugs is “fear-mongering” and tries to rebut the idea by claiming the law “isn’t banning the drugs.” [NewsBusters, 5/22/24]
    • The right-wing “media watchdog” organization has been releasing content railing against abortion and mifepristone for years. In many pieces, the titles refer to the drugs as “harmful,” dangerous”, and “deadly.” [NewsBusters, 3/20/24, 4/24/23, 4/22/23, 3/24/23, 11/18/22]
    • The organization has also cherry-picked stories to bolster its fearmongering about the pill. In one example, it describes a “chemical abortion nightmare” where a woman on YouTube described witnessing the heartbeat of the fetus and the health issues she faced afterward. The Media Research Center used the story as an opportunity to attack Planned Parenthood for what it describes as “its prioritization of killing babies over keeping women out of harm's way.” [Media Research Center, 1/5/24]

  • The National Center for Public Policy Research and Project 21 Black Leadership Network

    • In a commentary piece for its parent organization, the National Center for Public Policy Research, Project 21 member Patrina Mosley described mifepristone as a “lethal regime,” and compared the fight to end abortion with the fight to end slavery. She went on to claim the medication “has led to untold physical and psychological harm” to patients. Mosley also went on to claim drugs like mifepristone are an easy way for pharmaceutical organizations to make quick profits, and allow for “sexual abusers and partners who are unwilling fathers” to coerce people into taking the drug. [The National Center for Public Policy Research, 4/20/23] 
    • Both groups also signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court asking it to reverse the approval of the drug. In a concurring statement, Project 21 chairman Horace Cooper said, “Project 21 supports ending the FDA’s attempt to radically expand the use of mifepristone into some sort of ‘morning after’ abortion pill.” He went on to call the medicine “dangerous” and claimed that pro-life doctors should be exempt from prescribing the medication as it would make them “an accessory to an evil act.” [The National Center for Public Policy Research, 3/26/24]

  • Students for Life of America

    • Students for Life of America has been a leading force behind a push to prohibit reproductive medication — the organization’s website even has a “chemical abortion” landing page, which fearmongers about the safety of mifepristone. [Students for Life of America, accessed 5/15/24; Politico, 4/19/23] 
    • Students for Life Action, the political arm of the organization, released a statement praising Louisiana’s new law categorizing mifepristone and misoprostol as controlled dangerous substances. The statement called the drugs “dangerous” and repeated claims that chemical abortions result in significantly more complications and death than surgical ones. [Students for Life Action, 5/23/24]
    • Students for Life president Kristan Hawkins posted on X praising the Louisiana law and calling abortion pills “dangerous” and, in another post, claimed Vice President Kamala Harris was “protecting sexual predators” by speaking out against the law. [Twitter/X, 5/22/24, 5/23/24]
    • In a press call reported on by NPR, Hawkins described the process as tantamount to “death by mail delivered to your doorstep.” [NPR, 12/16/21]
    • The group has spread debunked claims about medication abortion having a harmful impact on wildlife and the environment, and filed a petition with the FDA to require providers of the medication to be responsible for the disposal of fetal tissue similar to medical waste. Hawkins was quoted in an organization blog saying that “tainted blood, tissue, and human remains have been flushed away, without any hard look at what happens next, or what happens to us and the environment.” [Media Matters, 3/12/24; USA Today, 12/12/22; Students for Life for America, 11/23/22] 
    • A different blog post focused on the supposed dangers of using abortion medicine and the “abortion pill myths perpetuated by the abortion industry.” It argued that it is a “myth” that the majority of patients who take the medication don’t experience “serious complications,” and claimed that it is illegal and unsafe for the medication to be sent through the mail. Additionally, the group said abortion medicine is “uniquely traumatic” to patients. [Students for Life for America, 4/26/23] 

  • Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

    • Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America released a statement congratulating Louisiana for the The Catherine and Josephine Herring Act categorizing abortion drugs as controlled substances. The statement, by Southern Regional Director Caitlin Connors, claims “pro-abortion Democrats have enabled abusers to coerce and poison mothers with dangerous abortion drugs,” seemingly referencing the FDA easing restrictions on the drugs. The organization repeated these claims in a blog posted to Substack. [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 5/21/24; Substack, Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 5/23/24]
    • In March of 2024, SBA published a piece on its site titled “Five big lies about the Supreme Court mail-order abortion drug case” in which it focuses on potential harmful side effects of the drug and the effects on patients. [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 3/25/24]
    • Notably, two publications cited as key studies in the Texas lawsuit against the drug, produced by the research arm of SBA, the Charlotte Lozier Institute, were retracted from a medical journal for issues regarding flaws and conflict of interest. [The Associated Press, 2/7/24]
    • The SBA was also one of several organizations to sign an amicus brief in support of reinstating the rule requiring an in-person visit to be prescribed mifepristone. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/24]
    • According to Vox, SBA has been reaching out to right-wing governors in numerous states to discuss restrictions on the shipment of abortion medication. The organization’s state director of affairs told Vox that she expects states to be “creative” in finding ways to enforce restrictions against reproductive rights. [Vox, 1/9/23]
    • SBA has released numerous press releases following the litigation of abortion medication, in many cases describing the pills and their distribution as “dangerous” and “reckless.” [The Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 4/13/23, 2/8/23, 1/25/23, 1/19/23, 1/3/23, 11/18/22]
    • In January 2022, SBA, alongside a coalition of other organizations, released a letter to the Senate arguing against the nomination of Dr. Robert Califf for commissioner of the FDA due to his support of abortion pills. The letter claimed Califf approved “unsafe mail-order abortion.” The letter was also signed by other Project 2025 partners such as Concerned Women for America, Americans United for Life, Family Policy Alliance, and The Ethics and Public Policy Center. [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, 1/12/22, 2/14/22]

  • Texas Public Policy Foundation

    • In 2023, The Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an amicus brief in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, defending other Project 2025 partners' effort to limit access to mifepristone. [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 2/29/24]

  • Turning Point USA

    • Turning Point USA has published several opinion pieces from contributors attacking mifepristone. In one piece titled “NY Passes Law Requiring Public Universities to Provide the Abortion Pill to Students,” Turning Point USA contributor Morgan Zegers highlighted mail-ordered pills, writing, “Recently, some states have approved the sale of these abortion drugs via online order and mail delivery, a move that has been called reckless as it endangers not just the pre-born child, but also the life of the mother.” [Turning Point USA, 5/3/23]
    • Turning Point USA contributor Erin Elmore took aim at mifepristone again in a piece asking, “Did the FDA Classify Pregnancy as an Illness to Approve ‘Abortion Pill?’” Elmore said the drug is “has several side effects, doesn’t always work as intended, is linked to the deaths of nearly 30 women, and has caused life-threatening illnesses in hundreds of women.” [Turning Point USA, 4/20/23]
    • In another blog, Morgonn McMichael wrote about FDA regulations allowing for mifepristone to be sold at retail pharmacies, heavily accentuating the negative side effects of the medication. She writes, “Despite the innumerable side effects, some tolerable, others life-threatening, Plan C, a medical abortion pill provider, still claims that abortion is ‘safer than continuing a pregnancy and having a baby.’” She goes on to add, “Making the abortion pill more accessible is not the win for women that the left is branding it as.” [Turning Point USA, 1/4/23]

  • Young America’s Foundation

    • Young America’s Foundation published a blog on its website in July 2023 attacking a seminar at Texas A&M University which included information about mifepristone, titled “Pregnant Woman Teaches Texas A&M Students How to Perform Illegal Abortions.” YAF wrote, “Universities should never allow students or guest speakers to use official resources to promote illegal activity. Hopefully, the investigation will result in consequences for the leftist student organization as well as the administrators who approved the all-school invitation.” [Young America’s Foundation, 7/19/23]
    • In April 2023, YAF filed an amicus brief alongside several other right-wing organizations, which argued that the “FDA abused its own regulation in approving mifepristone in 2000.” [U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, Brief of Amicus Curiae, 4/18/23]