The FDA has told a federal court it will finish its safety review of the abortion pill mifepristone in March, which is conveniently four months after voters finish deciding whether they like the people running the country. The pill has been on the market since 2000, and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies have found it safe and effective. But sure, let's look at it again.
A Court Filing With Suspiciously Good Timing
According to NBC News, the Justice Department filed a document Wednesday laying out the FDA's schedule. Results from the review are expected in mid-December. Then the agency will "analyze the data and draft a final report," a process it expects to wrap up in March.
The midterm elections are Nov. 3. Abortion access is one of the things voters care about. The review lands after the votes are counted, which means nobody has to defend its conclusions, or its methods, before anyone gets to cast a ballot.
Maybe that's a coincidence. Government timelines slip all the time. But when an agency run by people who have spent years hostile to the drug sets a finish line that happens to dodge the scrutiny of an election, you're allowed to raise an eyebrow.
Why Are We Even Doing This?
Here's where the review came from. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. commissioned it last year after a conservative think tank claimed to have found a higher rate of serious complications from mifepristone than the FDA had reported.
That think tank's findings were not peer-reviewed. They were not published in a medical journal. Researchers who study reproductive health called the work junk science, and they said it plainly.
Meanwhile, the actual body of evidence says fewer than 0.5% of women who take mifepristone have serious adverse reactions. That is a better safety profile than a lot of drugs you can buy next to the cough syrup. The review is being run on the strength of a document that wouldn't survive a high school science fair.
The Study Design Has Some Questions
The FDA says it plans to compare mifepristone's safety to surgical abortions through 10 weeks' gestation. It will measure the frequency of side effects among roughly 100,000 women who took the pill.
A large sample is good. Nobody's arguing with 100,000 women. The question is what the agency does with the numbers once it has them, and who decides how to frame them.
Because the filing also says the FDA plans to re-evaluate its decision to allow telehealth prescribing, the change it made permanent in 2023. It may weigh the views of patients, providers and pharmacists, plus additional studies it did not consider in 2023. That's a lot of room to maneuver. When a review has this many doors open, the answer tends to be whichever one the person holding the keys wanted to walk through.
The Louisiana Lawsuit Is Doing the Real Work
This all surfaced because a federal judge in Louisiana ordered a progress report. The FDA is a defendant in a suit challenging the telehealth provision, which has largely been responsible for preserving nationwide access to abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.
Louisiana filed the case on behalf of a woman who said her boyfriend ordered abortion pills and forced her to take them. That is a horrifying allegation, and a coercion case deserves to be treated as one. It is also not evidence that the drug is unsafe for the millions of people who take it voluntarily.
In May, a federal appeals court granted Louisiana's request to reinstate a nationwide in-person dispensing requirement. The Supreme Court quickly blocked that decision while the case plays out. So for now, access holds. The review is the next lever.
Who Gets to Hold the Pen
Here's the part that should make you want to lie down on the floor. The FDA doesn't have a permanent commissioner. Trump's pick, Dr. Heidi Overton, is a White House adviser and a fierce opponent of abortion rights who has described medication abortion as "dangerous to women."
At her Senate confirmation hearing last month, Overton repeatedly sidestepped questions about mifepristone, including whether she believes the pill is safe. That is a person up for the job of deciding whether the pill is safe, declining to say whether she thinks the pill is safe.
Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and several other top Republicans have also pressured the administration to tighten access. So the review was commissioned by a health secretary with a record of vaccine skepticism, built on a think tank's unpublished claims, and may be finalized under a commissioner who won't answer the basic question. It's unclear what conclusion the agency will reach. It is very clear what conclusion some of the people involved would like.
The Dingo Take
This review is a solution in search of a problem. The drug has a 26-year track record and an adverse reaction rate under half a percent, and the only thing that changed is who's in charge.
Watch the sequence. A think tank produces a non-peer-reviewed claim. A health secretary orders a study. An anti-abortion nominee dodges questions about the drug at her hearing. The final report arrives after the election, right in time to be used as cover for a restriction nobody has to campaign on. If the science were the point, the science already exists, and it says this pill is safe.
So here's what to do with this information. When someone tells you the FDA is just "following the data," ask which data, and ask who picked it. And remember that Nov. 3 comes before March. Voters get to weigh in on this before the paperwork does, and that might be the only part of the timeline that's actually in their hands.
Comments