Abortion Drug: Safety Under Scrutiny

Close,Up,Woman,Holding,Pill,In,Hand,With,Water.,Female

A coalition of Republican attorneys general is calling for the reinstatement of safety protocols for the abortion drug mifepristone, highlighting concerns over women’s health.

Story Highlights

Over 20 Republican attorneys general demand mifepristone safety protocols be reinstated.
The Trump administration is reviewing the drug’s safety, with potential policy changes.
Critics argue the move is part of a broader strategy to restrict abortion access.
Both sides of the abortion debate are mobilizing resources for this issue.

Republican AGs Push for Stricter Controls

More than 20 Republican attorneys general, led by Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, have formally requested the Trump administration and the FDA reinstate the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone. These protocols, originally established in 2011, were relaxed in subsequent years under the Obama and Biden administrations. The attorneys general argue that the removal of these safeguards poses significant health risks to women, advocating for either the reinstatement of the 2011 protocols or the withdrawal of mifepristone from the market until a comprehensive safety review is completed.

"It was about the safety of a pregnant woman." @SDAttorneyGen Marty Jackley shares why 22 state AGs are asking the FDA to reinstate safety protocols on the abortion drug.

Guest host: @jodyhicefrca pic.twitter.com/PsqznjNZWd

— Family Research Council (@FRCdc) August 8, 2025

This coordinated effort is significant, involving over 20 state attorneys general, and comes amid ongoing national debates over abortion access. The Trump administration, despite previous statements that no major changes to the drug’s availability were planned, has signaled an openness to reviewing mifepristone’s safety profile. This move is framed by Republican leaders as necessary for women’s health and drug safety, while critics see it as a tactic to limit abortion access nationwide.

Historical Context of Mifepristone Regulations

Mifepristone, approved by the FDA in 2000 for medication abortion and miscarriage management, has been subject to regulatory changes over the years. The REMS protocols established in 2011 required in-person dispensing and provider certification due to concerns about potential complications. These restrictions were relaxed during the Obama and Biden administrations, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic, to improve access. The current push for reinstating these protocols occurs in a highly polarized national landscape on abortion, with Republican-led states seeking to restrict access and Democratic-led states working to expand it.

Watch: 22 Republican attorneys general demand mifepristone safety protocols

Legal challenges to mifepristone’s FDA approval and REMS requirements have been ongoing, with high-profile cases such as *Missouri v. FDA* and efforts to invoke the Comstock Act to restrict abortion-related drugs and equipment. This issue is under intense scrutiny as both sides of the debate mobilize legal and political resources to influence the Trump administration’s approach to mifepristone.

Potential Impacts and Implications

If the REMS protocols are reinstated, access to mifepristone could be significantly restricted, particularly in states with existing abortion bans or restrictions. This could increase healthcare costs, force more women to seek surgical abortions or travel out of state, and intensify political polarization. The potential withdrawal or heavy restriction of mifepristone could set a precedent for further limitations on reproductive healthcare, affecting millions of women nationwide.

The broader implications of these regulatory changes could impact pharmaceutical innovation, with political considerations potentially overriding scientific evidence. This scenario could also influence future FDA regulatory decisions, affecting the approval processes for other drugs. The ongoing debate over mifepristone exemplifies the complex interplay between politics, healthcare, and individual rights in the United States.