Using data from online abortion provider Aid Access, the association studied over 118,000 chemical abortion pill packs during a 15-month period in 2024. The study found that 84% of those pills are sent to pro-life states with active laws against abortion and only 16% of the pills sent to pro-abortion states, reported the National Review.
Dr. Michael New, assistant professor of practice at the Bush School of Business at the Catholic University of America and senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, spoke with Jody Hice on Washington Watch about the findings of this study.
“They also found that a higher percentage of these pills were sent to counties with high poverty rates. They also found that these chemical abortion pills were sent into counties that were far away from standalone abortion facilities,” states New. “It's pretty obvious that based on the data that our strong pro-life laws are being circumvented by these telehealth abortions.”
New affirmed that this is a strategic plan, that legal abortion supporters are always trying to weaken and undermine pro-life laws.
“They have seen these telehealth abortions as a way to circumvent pro-life laws. Women do an online appointment with some kind of medical professional, and that medical professional, without an in-person medical exam, simply prescribes the abortion pill sent to these women through the mail,” New says.
Pro-life laws are working
This seems counteractive to the laws put into place in pro-life states, but New is encouraged that pro-life laws are making a difference.
“We do have research looking at birth data and birth data trends. There’re three studies alone that show the Texas Heartbeat Act is saving a thousand babies every month. And there are studies looking at other state pro-life laws and have found that our laws are saving thousands of lives,” says New.
However, New commented that laws are not perfect or magical, and the other side is very savvy and corrupt.
“They're really kind of pushing these online telehealth abortions to make abortion available in pro-life states. So, this is something that pro-life needs to push back on, and the Trump administration needs to push back on as well,” New states.
As New explained, telehealth abortion is a relatively new development, introduced during the Biden administration during the COVID pandemic. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) change the rules of chemical abortions, changing it from an in-person medical examination with a doctor to a telehealth consultation and mail-in drugs. Unfortunately, the policy stayed in effect after the pandemic.
According to New, the FDA could halt telehealth abortions and require in-person visits with a medical professional, if they wanted. Even the Trump administration could take action.
“The Trump administration is within its power to frankly end this tomorrow. I think they have good reason to. I think allowing women to obtain chemical abortion drugs without an in-person medical exam is terrible public health,” says New.
Among the adverse side effects of chemical abortion, he mentioned that, mixed with an ectopic pregnancy, it can prove to be fatal and that negative consequences can arise if a woman is further along in gestation than realized.
New agreed that federal action should be taken as several federal laws are being violated. For example, he said that a strong argument can be made that the Comstock laws are being violated.
“These are old laws that prevent pornographic materials from being sent through the mail. The way the law is written, they include abortifacients and abortion-inducing drugs,” New
However, there is also the matter of stopping doctors from abortion states from prescribing these pills to citizens in pro-life states, he mentioned.
“If someone in Massachusetts prescribes a chemical abortion to a woman in Texas, that's illegal. That abortion doctor in Massachusetts is only licensed in Massachusetts. But sometimes enforcing these laws in other states is not always easy,” New explains.
New stated that shield laws, passed in pro-abortion states, have made it difficult to prosecute abortion doctors guilty of this offense. These laws are in place to protect abortions providers, whether an organization or individual, from legal repercussions with a pro-life state.
New comments on why the percentage of abortions drugs in pro-abortion states is less than in pro-life states.
“In blue states, abortions are legal, and women who want to obtain abortions have the option of going to an abortion facility or an abortion clinic in their state. There are strong pro-life laws in places like Texas, Alabama, and Mississippi. Abortion clinics are closed there,” New says.
Intended effect for abortion in pro-life states
Women in pro-life states then are left with the option of traveling out of state for an abortion or partaking in a telehealth abortion.
Luckily, New says that there are state attorneys general who are pushing back against telehealth abortions, and Attorney General Kris Kobach (R-Kansas) is one of them.
Kobach is one of 22 attorneys that have signed a letter to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Health and Human Services Secretary, and Martin Makary, head of the FDA, to reinstate the safeguards in abortion pills that were discarded during the Obama and Biden administrations.
Hice questioned Kobach on these safeguards.
According to Kobach, when the FDA proceeded without these safeguards, it was with very little information about the drug.
“Now we have a wealth of information that has come to light, showing that there are in fact significant adverse events that occur when this Mifepristone, this abortion pill, is taken. So, we're simply asking the FDA to take a second look,” Kobach says.
Kobach said that the letter contained a list of adverse effects that were heavily footnoted.
“Sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, the necessity of surgical procedures after a failed abortion, and other complications. This is just a partial list of what we have seen,” Kobach read off.
The letter cites a study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center between 2017 and 2023. Information taken from an all-payer insurance database stated that mifepristone was prescribed in more than 800,000 abortions.
“It showed that the amount, the incidence, the number of adverse events, was 28 times higher than the data the FDA had at the time when it said it was okay to go ahead and have this pill available without these precautions,” reveals Kobach.
At least bring back the docs
One of the most important safeguards the AGs want in place, because of the newly revealed complications, is for the drug to be administered in the presence of a doctor. At a minimum, Kobach says they asked the FDA to look into the safety protocols.
“The FDA should just use the study and do what the FDA is supposed to do best – make an assessment. Is this safe to have at all? And secondly, what are the conditions? What are the circumstances under which a woman could take the Mifepristone?” Kobach says. “And I think this is a reasonable request that people on all sides of this issue should agree. Let's make sure that this thing is safe if it is going to be on the market.”
