American Association Of Pro-Life Obstetricians And Gynecologists

AAPLOG Is A Coalition Member Of The Heritage Foundation’s 2025 Presidential Transition Project

AAPLOG Is One Of Several Anti-Abortion Members Of The Anti-Abortion And Anti-LGBTQIA+ Conservative Think Tank The Heritage Foundation’s “Project 2025.” “Wealthy right-wing think tank The Heritage Foundation has published a detailed plan for the next Republican president to use the executive branch of the federal government to attack the rights of women, LGBTQ people and the BIPOC community, by eliminating the agencies and offices responsible for enforcing civil rights laws and placing trained right-wing ideologues in staff positions throughout the federal government. […] The coalition includes […] AAPLOG (the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists).” [Ms. Magazine, 2/8/2024]

• AAPLOG Is One Of Dozens Of Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBTQIA+, And Anti-Human Rights Organizations Among The Heritage Foundation’s Coalition. “To develop this plan, the Heritage Foundation organized a broad coalition of over 90 conservative organizations—a who’s-who of groups that have led attacks on reproductive rights and bodily autonomy, gender studies, the Equal Rights Amendment and #MeToo initiatives. […] The coalition includes Concerned Women for America, the Independent Women’s Forum, the Eagle Forum, the Susan B. Anthony Foundation, Moms for Liberty, AAPLOG (the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists), Students for Life of America, Alliance Defending Freedom, First Liberty and Turning Point USA.” [Ms. Magazine, 2/8/2024]

The 2025 Presidential Transition Project’s Policy Guide, “Mandate For Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” Is Rife With Hateful Anti-Abortion, Anti-LGBTQIA+, And Anti-Human Rights Domestic And International Policy Positions. “The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (‘SOGI’), diversity, equity, and inclusion (‘DEI’), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.” [The Heritage Foundation, 2023]

Francis Denies The Horrific Reality Of Abortion Inaccessibility Exacerabated By Dobbs. “Life in post-Roe America, as Christina Francis, MD, sees it, has gone on without a hiccup. As stories pile up of pregnant people suffering from life-threatening health problems, and with doctors too paralyzed to act, Francis, the CEO-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, is in denial that the decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization could lead to any lapses in care.” [Vanity Fair, 7/27/22]

Francis Weaponizes Her Medical Credentials To Spread Dangerous Anti-Abortion Disinformation And Stigma. “Francis’s finely tuned arguments attempt to give a religious and ideological position a scientific gloss. They are a window into how the antiabortion movement has spread misinformation about pregnancy and fetal development to institute restrictions not only on abortion, but now also on life-saving medical care, access to contraception, and more.” [Vanity Fair, 7/27/22]

Francis Said Pregnant People Deserve Better Than Abortion. “You are better than that and you deserve better than that. […] [A]ll women, but certainly women who are struggling with, you know, needing more resources – deserve much better than abortion. They deserve support and empowerment so that they can make healthy choices for them and for their children.” [NPR, 6/25/22]

In An Offensively Patronizing Statement, Francis Has Referred To Pregnant People As “Intelligent Creatures” That Should Know Better To Not Have An Abortion. “‘We really desire for women to be empowered with information,’ said Dr. Christina Francis, chair of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposes abortion. ‘Women are intelligent creatures and can make empowered choices when they have all the information they need.’” [The New York Times, 2/14/22]

Francis Believes That Abortion Care Should Not Exist In Medicine Or Society. “[I]t really doesn’t have any place in the practice of medicine and really shouldn’t in our society either because women – all women, but certainly women who are struggling with, you know, needing more resources – deserve much better than abortion.” [NPR, 6/25/22]

Francis Has Provided Congressional Testimony That Conflicts With Evidence-Based Science. “Pregnancy is not a disease and elective abortion is not healthcare. Despite what proponents of abortion may claim, elective abortion carries no maternal benefit and ends the life of a separate human being. […] The effects of induced abortions impact women throughout their lifespan, and as board-certified physicians, we believe that our patients’ health will be improved if they receive actual healthcare – not the devastation and false promises of abortion.” [Christina Francis written testimony, U.S. House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 7/16/22]

Francis Has Publicly Espoused Medical Disinformation About The Safety Of Mifepristone… [The Heritage Foundation, 11/13/23]

…Including On Mainstream Platforms. “Claims that medication abortion is safe ‘are based on flawed and incomplete data, which prioritize convenience and cost over the health and safety of patients,’ said Dr. Christina Francis, chair of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposes all abortions except to prevent permanent harm or death to the mother.” [The New York Times, 8/7/22]

Francis Has Falsely Claimed That Abortion Care Is Not Used In Treating An Ectopic Pregnancy. “The treatment for ectopic pregnancy is not at all the same as the procedures used for an abortion. […] Ectopic pregnancies are potentially life-threatening, though they don’t need to be if they are diagnosed and treated expeditiously. These treatments are not abortions and are not defined as such either by the medical community or by the law.” [Focus on the Family, 1/13/23]

• Francis’ Attempt To Split Hairs Between Essential Reproductive Healthcare Is A Common Stigmatizing Tactic Among The Anti-Abortion Movement. “The rhetorical flourishes are worth paying attention to. Francis seems to define abortion as a matter of intent rather than the act of evacuating a uterus when medically indicated. That trick alone seems central to the antiabortion movement’s latest round of information warfare. The idea that abortions to save the life of the mother shouldn’t be legal is already catching on in Republican politics.” [Vanity Fair, 7/27/22]

Francis Has Chided Requirements For Abortion Training, Opposing The Governing Organization For All Graduate Medical Education. “Dr. Christina Francis, the incoming head of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, who practices in Fort Wayne, Ind., a state whose near-total abortion ban has been suspended by a judge, called the council’s accreditation requirement coercive. ‘Rather than attempting to force training programs to arrange for residents to be transported out of state for abortion training, the council should re-evaluate altogether its requirement,’ she said. […] Dr. Francis said abortion training is not essential to OB-GYN practice and that residents could learn how to evacuate the uterus by managing miscarriages. ‘This assertion that without doing abortions physicians will be less well-trained is completely false,’ she said.” [The New York Times, 10/27/22]

Francis, Alongside Fellow AAPLOG Leadership Donna Harrison And Christina Cirucci, Questioned The Findings Of An Obstetrics & Gynecology Study Concluding Mifepristone Is Safe. “Drs. Cirucci, Harrison, and Francis write their Letter to the Editor not for the purpose of scientific dialogue, but because they disagree with the premise that individuals should be able to decide to terminate their pregnancies. Their purpose is to try to discredit any work that might result in expanded abortion access.” [Obstetrics & Gynecology, 9/2022]

Although Francis Leads An Organization In Support Of Anti-Abortion Centers, She Understands The Importance Of Patients Needing Accurate Medical Information. “Our country is divided over the issue of abortion, but I do think that there is common ground to be found. However, in order to work together to improve the health and lives of American women, we must ensure that women and physicians are receiving accurate information – beginning with not making women feel that the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision has led to a nightmare for their healthcare. One thing we should all be able to agree upon is that women deserve excellent healthcare and to be empowered with accurate information to inform that healthcare.” [Congressional Testimony, 6/4/24]

Francis Wrongly Insinuates That Access To Abortion Care Adversely Impacts Maternal Mortality. “Prior to the Dobbs decision in 2022, we had nearly unfettered access to abortion for 49 years and yet we had one of the worst maternal mortality rates. In the developed world, along with the worst preterm birth rate. My patients deserve better and it is time for us to look for real solutions to the root causes of these problems.” [Congressional Testimony, 6/4/24]

Francis Cites Scientific Articles Published By Unabashedly Anti-Choice Authors To Validate Her Claims… “Science is clear that a new, distinct, and living human being comes into existence at the moment of fertilization. Dr. Ward Kischer, the author of one of my medical school textbooks, said this: “Every human embryologist in the world knows that the life of the new individual human being begins at fertilization…It is a scientific fact.” [Congressional Testimony, 6/4/24]

…Including A Survey Published By Graduate Student Steven Andrew Jacobs. “A 2018 survey showed that 95% of more than 5000 human biologists were in agreement that life begins at fertilization. This is not a matter of opinion or political persuasion – it is a matter of science. Notably, this held true regardless of the biologist’s position on abortion or political affiliation.” [Congressional Testimony, 6/4/24]

The Validity Of Jacob’s Methodology Was Publicly Scrutinized By Biologist And Philosopher, Sahotra Sarkar. “First, Jacobs carried out a survey, supposedly representative of all Americans, by seeking potential participants on the Amazon Mechanical Turk crowdsourcing marketplace and accepting all 2,979 respondents who agreed to participate. He found that most of these respondents trust biologists over others – including religious leaders, voters, philosophers and Supreme Court justices – to determine when human life begins. Then, he sent 62,469 biologists who could be identified from institutional faculty and researcher lists a separate survey, offering several options for when, biologically, human life might begin. He got 5,502 responses; 95% of those self-selected respondents said that life began at fertilization, when a sperm and egg merge to form a single-celled zygote. That result is not a proper survey method and does not carry any statistical or scientific weight. It is like asking 100 people about their favorite sport, finding out that only the 37 football fans bothered to answer, and declaring that 100% of Americans love football.” [Ohio Capital Journal, 9/3/21]

Interestingly Enough, Francis Lists Several Complications Of Abortion Without Citing Any Scientific Articles Which Support Her Claims. “Abortive procedures aren’t detrimental only to the life of the preborn child; they are also dangerous to the mother both in the short and long-term. Pregnancy is not a disease and induced abortion is not healthcare. Despite what proponents of abortion may claim, induced abortion carries no maternal health benefit and ends the life of a separate human being. As demonstrated by hundreds of studies over nearly five decades, abortive procedures carry several deleterious effects for women, including increasing the risk of preterm birth and mental health problems. These problems have a statistically greater impact on minority populations.” [Ohio Capital Journal, 9/3/21]

Francis Cites AAPLOG-Published Evidence To Refute The Reality Of The Maternal Mortality Crisis. “First, extremely poor data collection on maternal deaths and their causes as well as inaccurate data on the number of abortions performed in the United States have led to false claims that abortion is safer than childbirth.” [Ohio Capital Journal, 9/3/21]

Francis Cites Racialized Differences Of Abortion Patients Without Mention Of The Socio-Economic Status and Political Influence Which Contribute To Those Differences. “Less than half of pregnancies in black women result in the birth of a live baby (48%). Induced abortion is 3.7 times more common in black women than in non-Hispanic white women, and black women more commonly have later abortions (13%) compared with white women (9%).” [Congressional Testimony, 6/4/24]

Francis Dangerously Implies That Black Women Expressing Bodily Autonomy Puts Them At Risk For Maternal Mortality, Essentially Blaming Individuals For Systemic Issues. “It is known that the risk of death from induced abortion increases by 38% for every week after eight weeks gestation. It is possible that the higher rate of legal induced abortion for black women may account for a significant portion of the racial disparity noted in pregnancy mortality. This data, especially in relation to abortion’s effects on maternal mortality, unequivocally support preventing induced abortions at least in the 2nd and 3rd trimester (later abortions).” [Congressional Testimony, 6/4/24]

Dr. Christina Francis is the current CEO of AAPLOG and has represented herself as AHM’s president. At a February 2022 AAPLOG conference, Francis informed attendees of the newly formed Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and encouraged them to serve as expert witnesses in upcoming court cases. Francis is also affiliated with the Charlotte Lozier Institute, as an associate scholar. Francis is a board member of Indiana Right to Life. She is a practicing OB-GYN who participates with Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Rescue Network. She, alongside fellow AAPLOG leadership Donna Harrison and Christina Cirucci, submitted a comment on a study conducted on mifepristone and misoprostol, implying the medications are inherently unsafe because they are used in abortion care. She has donated to anti-abortion former Congressman Marlin Stutzman.

Donna Harrison is the former executive director of AAPLOG and is listed as the board chair of the umbrella organization Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, per the shadow medical community’s Form 1023-EZ. Harrison frequently serves as an “expert witness” in support of anti-abortion ideology, offering blatant falsehoods. A federal judge once criticized a testimony Harrison gave in support of a law that would have restricted medication abortion for resting on “an impossibly flawed premise.” Harrison believes that all hormonal birth control and emergency contraception are forms of abortion. Emails obtained by Equity Forward via open records request show Harrison falsely believes abortions cause negative mental health effects and cancer. Harrison also works for the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Harrison is the coauthor of three recently retracted articles on abortion, two of which were cited by anti-abortion federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk when he issued a preliminary injunction suspending mifepristone’s approval in April 2023. Harrison has endorsed “Baby Olivia,” a propaganda video by anti-abortion group Live Action circulating across the country as model legislation. She supported an advertising campaign by Live Action on the unethical and unsafe “abortion pill reversal” treatment. She has falsely claimed that mifepristone flushed down the toilet can harm all mammals. She, alongside Francis and Cirucci, submitted a comment on a study conducted on mifepristone and misoprostol, implying the medications are inherently unsafe because they are used in abortion care. Harrison has also been affiliated with the anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group, the American College of Pediatricians.

Steven Braatz is the board chair of AAPLOG and an associate scholar at the anti-abortion “think tank” Charlotte Lozier Institute. In a journal article for the Catholic Medical Association’s Linacre Quarterly, he said he does not prescribe birth control in his practice because of “causes of early abortion” and “effects on our culture, how men and women behave.”

Dr. Christina Cirucci is a longtime member of AAPLOG and the current vice chair of its board. Cirucci coauthored a recently retracted article about patients concealing abortions as miscarriages. Cirucci has falsely claimed that the unethical and unsafe treatment of “abortion pill reversal” is a “safe intervention” and that “[w]ithholding this information from women is unethical.” She, alongside Francis and Harrison, submitted a comment on a study conducted on mifepristone and misoprostol, implying the medications are inherently unsafe because they are used in abortion care. Cirucci is the coauthor of a recently retracted article on abortion, which was cited by anti-abortion federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk when he issued a preliminary injunction suspending mifepristone’s approval in April 2023.

Dr. Michael Valley is a longtime member of AAPLOG and joined its board of directors as treasurer in 2022. Valley is also a member of Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Rescue Network and has volunteered at anti-abortion centers (AACs). In line with AAPLOG’s mission to block reproductive healthcare access, Valley opposes telemedicine abortion care. He has authored an “abortion pill reversal” study. He opposed Minnesota’s lifting of its ban on abortion care for minors.

Dr. George Delgado has been a member of AAPLOG’s board of directors since 2012. The same year, Delgado hatched the idea for “abortion pill reversal” and is the inspiration behind and medical advisor for the Abortion Pill Reversal Network (APRN), an offshoot of Heartbeat International. APRN spreads misinformation (in the U.S. and internationally) about so-called “abortion pill reversal,” claiming that the regimen is safe, tested, approved, and common when, in reality, it is unproven and unethical. He was asked by the University of California, San Diego to stop falsely claiming affiliation with the university, and his work, which is widely cited by anti-abortion activists, has been called an “unmonitored research experiment” by the New England Journal of Medicine. Delgado is connected to a number of other anti-abortion groups — he is a guest contributor to Charlotte Lozier Institute and practices at the Culture of Life Family Services Clinic in California, which has received federal family planning funding as a “sub-recipient” of the Obria Group. Delgado himself is among the anti-abortion plaintiffs suing the FDA to overturn its approval of mifepristone, partially on the basis that the abortion medication is “dangerous.” Despite this argument, Delgado was recruited by Res Nova Biologics, Inc. to “repurpose” mifepristone for breast cancer treatments.

Dr. Ingrid Skop is a longtime member of AAPLOG and its former chair. Skop has testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee arguing for a 15-week national abortion ban. She has authored an op-ed with anti-abortion Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith arguing that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration “abandon[ed] its responsibility to protect women and girls.” Skop is the coauthor of three recently retracted articles on abortion, two of which were cited by anti-abortion federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk when he issued a preliminary injunction suspending mifepristone’s approval in April 2023.

AAPLOG Is A Member-Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), A Shadow Medical Community Newly Created To Sue The FDA In Order To Overturn Its Approval Of Mifepristone. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/8/24]

AAPLOG’s CEO Dr. Christina Francis Was Listed As The President Of AHM In A Letter To Assistant HHS Secretary Rachel Levine On ACA Section 1557. [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 3/11/22]

AAPLOG’s Former Executive Director Dr. Donna Harrison Was Listed As AHM’s Board Chair In The Organization’s Form 1023-EZ. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine Form 1023-EZ obtained by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 2/1/2023]

American College Of Pediatricians Is A Member-Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Alongside AAPLOG. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/8/24]

Catholic Medical Association Is A Member-Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Alongside AAPLOG. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/8/24]

Christian Medical & Dental Associations Is A Member-Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Alongside AAPLOG. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/8/24]

Coptic Medical Association Of North America Is A Member-Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Alongside AAPLOG. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/8/24]

The National Association Of Pro-Life Nurses Is A Member Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/25/24]

The National Association Of Pro-Life Nurses Did Not Appear On The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Website Until The Week Before SCOTUS Heard Oral Arguments On Its Mifepristone Case. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 3/22/24]

Alliance Defending Freedom Is Listed As A Partner Organization Of AAPLOG And Has Represented The Group In Several High-Profile Cases. [American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accessed 3/6/24]

Charlotte Lozier Institute, The “Think Tank” Arm Of Major Anti-Abortion Lobbyist Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Is Listed As A Partner Organization Of AAPLOG. [American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accessed 3/6/24]

Americans United For Life Is Listed As A Partner Organization Of AAPLOG. [American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, accessed 3/6/24]

Becket Fund For Religious Liberty Is Listed As A Partner Organization Of AAPLOG. [GuideStar]

AAPLOG Works With The Becket Fund As Part Of Its Mission To “Inform Professionals In The Medical And Legal Arenas Via Effective Medical Life-Affirming Arguments.” [GuideStar]

Association Of American Physicians And Surgeons Is Listed As A Partner Organization Of AAPLOG. [GuideStar]

AAPLOG Works With AAPS As Part Of Its Mission To “Inform Professionals In The Medical And Legal Arenas Via Effective Medical Life-Affirming Arguments.” [GuideStar]

The Trump administration cited the volume of AAPLOG membership as justification for its “religious refusal” proposed rule, finalized in May 2019…

“The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), which represents 2,500 members and associates,[319] wrote in 2009, “Like pro-life physicians generally, AAPLOG members overwhelmingly would leave the medical profession—or relocate to a more conscience-friendly jurisdiction—before they would accept coercion to participate or assist in procedures that violate their consciences.” [320] AAPLOG’s members and associates represent 13 percent of OB/GYNs in the United States.[321] Yet, as explained above, the Department has received significant anecdotal evidence of violations of the very conscience laws that Congress has enacted to protect such providers.” [Federal Register, 5/21/19]

…the rule allows medical providers to deny medical access to persons seeking abortions and LGBTQ individuals, as well as exempting providers from administration vaccines.

“Critics of the ‘Conscience Rule’ argue it could limit medical access for women seeking abortions, as doctors who oppose to the practice on religious grounds could refuse a woman care. There are concerns about health care professionals discriminating against LGBT individuals, in violation of medical ethics. The rule will also help protect individuals who object to administering certain vaccines.” [CBS News, 5/02/19]

AAPLOG’s claims that birth control causes abortion were key to the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case, which led to a SCOTUS decision allowing employers to exempt certain procedures from being covered in ACA insurance plans.

“A number of religious organizations and privately held corporations claiming ‘religious exemptions’ objected to the provision, claiming despite all evidence that the ACA requires them to cover abortion-inducing medication in violation of their religious beliefs. This view ultimately prevailed before the U.S. Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby decision, in which the arts-and-crafts chain was found to have religious beliefs protected by the Constitution. During the course of the litigation and the public debate surrounding it, opponents of the birth control benefit relied heavily on the false argument that birth control causes abortion perpetuated by Harrison and others.” [Rewire.News, Accessed 9/11/19]

AAPLOG offered an anecdotal study not supported by any other scientific data as testimony in favor of “abortion reversal” legislation in Arizona.

Former AAPLOG President Mary Davenport testified in Arizona that medication abortions can be reversed, citing only an anecdotal study when no other supporting scientific data exists.

“Dr. Mary Davenport of El Sobrante, California, is the State of Arizona’s principal witness in support of the measure. A member of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Davenport bases her claims that a medically induced abortion can be reversed on a single anecdotal study of six patients, four of whom Davenport claims were able to carry pregnancies to term, despite ingesting mifepristone, by taking a dose of progesterone shortly after ingesting mifepristone. No other scientific data exists to support Davenport’s claim.” [Legal Monitor Worldwide, 10/24/15]

AAPLOG Executive Director Donna Harrison has testified and offered to testify with medically unconfirmed information in favor of anti-abortion bills.

When Harrison served as an “expert witness” in support of a North Dakota law that restricted medication abortion, her testimony was heavily criticized by the judge for resting “on an impossibly flawed premise.”

“District Judge Wickham Corwin ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor in 2013 and heavily criticized Harrison’s testimony. He said Harrison’s argument that the FDA has prohibited or discouraged the off-label use of the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone ‘proceeds on an impossibly flawed premise.’ The state appealed the case to the North Dakota Supreme Court; the court upheld the law in October 2014.” [Rewire.News, Accessed 9/11/19]

In an email to a Florida state assembly member, Harrison offered to falsely testify that abortion causes breast cancer, suicide and major depression in favor of an anti-abortion bill.

[Florida House Of Representatives Public Records Request Received 8/15/19, Page 60]

• The American Cancer Society: “at this time, the scientific evidence does not support the notion that abortion of any kind raises the risk of breast cancer or any other type of cancer.” [Cancer.org, Accessed 8/27/19]
• According to the Journal Of American Medical Association, claims that abortions cause mental health damage are not based in fact. “The study is the latest to show no evidence that abortion causes depression. Policies that cite damage to mental health as a reason to restrict access to abortion are not based in fact, the researchers wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s JAMA Psychiatry.” [NBC News, 3/30/18]

Harrison testified in favor of a 20-week federal abortion ban, falsely claiming that it is a scientific fact that fetuses feel pain by 20 weeks.

“The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act will stop these barbaric practices from happening to unborn human beings in late pregnancy, when many of them could live outside of their mother if given a chance…As an Ob doctor, I can tell you from my experience that it is scientific fact that 20 week babies are very sensitive to pain.” [Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing, 4/09/19]

• According to the Journal Of American Medical Association, fetal pain is limited and unlikely before the third trimester. “Evidence regarding the capacity for fetal pain is limited but indicates that fetal perception of pain is unlikely before the third trimester. Little or no evidence addresses the effectiveness of direct fetal anesthetic or analgesic techniques.” [JAMA Network, 8/24/05]

Harrison has testified before the FDA and The UN Committee On The Status Of Women advocating for anti-abortion causes.

“She has also spoken before the FDA Reproductive Health Advisory Committees on mifepristone and ulipristal and has addressed numerous congressional committees, as well as presenting  at the United Nations Committee on the Status of Women accessory sessions on topics related to medical abortion in developing nations, and maternal mortality and abortion.” [Donna Harrison Resume, 2/25/15]

Harrison testified for Congress asking the FDA not to approve a medication abortion pill.

“If the second panel could come forward. The second panel is Monty Patterson, father of Holly Patterson, who was 18 years old when she died taking RU-486; Dr. Susan Wood, former FDA assistant commissioner for women’s health; Dr. Lisa Rarick, RAR Consulting; Dr. Donna Harrison, a member of the Mifeprex Subcommittee of the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; and law professor Carter Snead — Carter Snead from the University of Notre, former general counsel of the President’s Council on Bioethics.” [Government Printing Office House Hearing 109 , 5/19/06]

Harrison testified before Congress in favor of religious refusal legislation, saying that “most women think killing unborn children is wrong.”

“So who do you want to care for you and for your family, a physician with moral integrity or a physician without moral integrity? Most patients want a physician who shares their moral values, and most U.S. women think that killing unborn children is wrong. Elective abortion is not medical care, killing human beings to solve social problems is not medical care. As stated in the International Dublin Declaration on Maternal Health, and in our own ACOG mission statement, killing our unborn patients has no place in the practice of the healing arts.” [Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 113, 7/11/16]

• Religious refusal rules allow medical providers to deny medical access to persons seeking abortions and LGBTQ individuals, allowing discrimination in health care. “Critics of the ‘Conscience Rule’ argue it could limit medical access for women seeking abortions, as doctors who oppose to the practice on religious grounds could refuse a woman care. There are concerns about health care professionals discriminating against LGBT individuals, in violation of medical ethics. The rule will also help protect individuals who object to administering certain vaccines.” [CBS News, 5/02/19]

AAPLOG sent an email to its members encouraging them to testify in favor of anti-abortion legislation and hosted an “expert witness workshop” to train them.

“In a subsequent February email to members, AAPLOG encouraged them to prepare to testify as potential experts in state litigation, noting that the organization had, so far in 2017, ‘already received requests from over 10 different states to identify physician experts capable of testifying in favor of or in defense of bills and laws protecting unborn human life.’ In the same email, the organization also announced it will be hosting an ‘Expert Witness Workshop’ co-sponsored by the conservative legal group the Alliance Defending Freedom at a conference in fall 2017.” [Rewire.News, Accessed 9/11/19]

• AAPLOG’s “expert witness workshop” was co-sponsored by The Alliance Defending Freedom, a recognized hate group for its anti-LGBTQ views. “Founded by some 30 leaders of the Christian Right, the Alliance Defending Freedom is a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of homosexuality in the U.S. and criminalization abroad.” [SPLCenter.org, Accessed 9/11/19]

Steven Valentine received emails from Susan B. Anthony (SBA) List and AAPLOG employees with resumes for the deputy assistant secretary for the Office Of Population Affairs.

Valentine has been promoted twice since he was first hired to HHS.

On March 5, 2017, Valentine was formally appointed to be Associate Director for Policy in HHS’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH). In November 2017, Valentine became the Deputy Chief of Staff of OASH. On August 20, 2018 Valentine was promoted to Chief of Staff of the Assistant Secretary for Health. [OGE Form 278e, filed 1/13/17; LinkedIn, accessed 4/2/18; HHS Public Affairs Twitter, 8/20/18]

SBA List and AAPLOG suggested “strongly pro-life” candidates for The Deputy Assistant Secretary For The Office Of Population Affairs directly to Valentine.

In January 2018, Autumn Christensen of SBA List sent an email to AAPLOG Director Donna Harrison requesting candidates for The Deputy Assistant Secretary For The Office Of Population Affairs, specifically requesting “a female candidate with medical or public health experience.”

[EF Records Response, Page 193, 8/16/18]

• In her email, Christensen wrote that “candidates have to strike the careful balance of being strongly pro-life but also willing to carry out the requirements of a family planning program required by law to distribute a ‘broad range’ of contraceptive drugs and devices.” [EF Records Response, Page 193, 8/16/18]

Christensen noted that “with the right person in place, we see strong opportunities to redirect the program away from funding planned parenthood and instead toward funding comprehensive women’s health centers like community health centers.”

[EF Records Response, Page 193, 8/16/18]

Harrison sent an email copying Christenson, which linked her to the person she wanted to assume the position.

[EF Records Response, Page 214, 8/16/18]

On January 17, 2018, Christensen forwarded a resume for The Deputy Assistant Secretary For The Office Of Population Affairs Position to Steven Valentine, which included a copy of Harrison’s recommendation email.

[EF Records Response, pages 214-215, 8/16/18]

Diane Foley was announced as head Of OPA in May 2018

Foley was “quietly” announced head as OPA in May 2018.

“Diane Foley, who ran a Christian organization operating two Colorado anti-choice ‘crisis pregnancy centers,’ or fake clinics, was quietly installed on Tuesday as deputy assistant secretary for population affairs, where she will lead the office responsible for the Title X federal family planning program.” [Rewire.News, 5/30/18]

Foley used her medical experience to run a network of anti-abortion centers.

Foley holds a medical degree from Indiana University. [US News & World Reports, Accessed 9/10/19]

Foley served as the CEO of an anti-abortion pregnancy center network funded by extremist group Focus On The Family.

“Foley served as the president and CEO of Life Network, which, according to its website, promotes ‘life-affirming alternatives to abortio’” and operates two anti-choice clinics in the Colorado Springs area. The organization is an affiliate of CareNet, which operates one of the largest networks of fake clinics in the United States. It gets support from Focus on the Family, an anti-choice organization that opposes some forms of contraception such as intrauterine devices (IUDs).” [Rewire.News, 5/30/18]

• Southern Poverty Law Center: “No one has spread the anti-gay gospel as widely, or with as much political impact, as James Dobson, …[the founder of] Focus On The Family.” [SPLC Intelligence Report, 4/28/05]

Foley compared sex to “super gluing your fingers together,” compared banana condom demonstration to sexual harassment and advocates for “fear-based” sex ed.

Foley said she believed it could be considered “sexually harassing” to demonstrate condom use to a class with a banana.

“Speaking in her office, above one of the Life Network pregnancy centers where pregnant women are given ultrasounds and discouraged from getting abortions, Foley argues it’s difficult even to teach condom use, requiring 13 separate steps. ‘By the time you get to step six, you forget why you are even using the condom,’ she jokes. (Planned Parenthood, incidentally, has a 10-step video on its Web site, which includes steps such as ‘Don’t tear the condom while unwrapping it.’) Foley says she believes it could be considered ‘sexually harassing’ to demonstrate condom use to a class with, say, a banana.” [Colorado Springs Independent, 4/8/10]

Foley compared sex to “super gluing your fingers together.”

Foley: “So to help them understand that when God said that ‘the two shall become one flesh’ his idea was the limbic system was to protect that emotional relationship for husband and wife for life. The sexual relationship is the closest you can get physically, have you ever superglued your fingers together? It’s not a good time, I have, it’s really hard to come apart but that’s basically what happens.” [Diane Foley, WVC Student Ministries, 4/29/12, 54:00]

Foley advocated for “fear-based” sex education.

“There is a lot of social pressure to not teach kids from fear. You know when you’re talking about sex the big thing is ‘well you’re just scaring them,’ well you know my answer to that is ‘explain to me when you bring a smashed car and set it in front of my high school for a week, is that not fear-based against drunk driving? Why can’t I do the same thing for sex?” [Diane Foley, 2013, WVC Student Ministries, 4/29/12, 13:00]

Foley compared abortion to the holocaust. she also compared abortion to slavery.

Foley compared abortion to both slavery and the holocaust.

“People who are very adamant about abortion will say, ‘this is an issue of women’s rights.’ It’s which life has more value…that sounds a lot like what our nation went through in the 1800s, right? When somebody decided somebody’s life wasn’t worth living or they weren’t quite as much – they were worth what, three-fifths of a human? Is that right? What about what was happening in Europe during the World Wars, where there were groups of people that were determined they weren’t worth as much?” [Tonic, 4/5/18]

Foley lied about abortion safety, stating that it puts women at risk despite medical evidence to the contrary.

Foley: “The way abortions are done, there is not enough supervision or regulation for them and it puts women at risk. there are not the same standards as other surgical centers.”

“‘I have very strong feelings that an infant is another life and that the choice occurred before the pregnancy,’ Foley said. ‘And at that point there’s another life that their choice needs to be important too.’ When it comes to state and federal legislation, Foley said she would like to see further restrictions on abortion. ‘The way abortions are done, there is not enough supervision or regulation for them and it puts women at risk. There are not the same standards as other surgical centers, there are not the same requirements in terms of having the same hospital privileges in case something goes wrong,’ she said.” [Vice News, 2/29/16]

• According to a 2018 study, “abortions that are provided in the united states are safe and effective.” “Abortions in the United States are safe and have few complications, according to a landmark new study by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine. The report, called “The Safety and Quality of Abortion Care in the United States,” examined the four major methods used for abortions — medication, aspiration, dilation and evacuation, and induction — and examined women’s care from before they had the procedure through their follow-up care. ‘I would say the main takeaway is that abortions that are provided in the United States are safe and effective,’ says Ned Calonge, the co-chair of the committee that wrote the study. He is an associate professor of family medicine and epidemiology at the University of Colorado and CEO of The Colorado Trust.” [NPR, 3/16/18]

Foley peddled the debunked “post-abortion traumatic syndrome” theory, claiming that abortions make women become “cold and unapproachable” and develop “eating disorders”…

Foley asserted that “post-abortion stress” and “post-abortion traumatic syndrome” are “true, emotional diagnosis.”

Foley: “There is actually a true, emotional diagnosis that is now starting to be recognized—even though if you look at national media and secular media, they still try to ignore the fact—but there is actually a diagnosis called post-abortion stress and also post-abortion traumatic syndrome, that is a result directly of someone having an abortion or being involved with an abortion that happens, … here is the thing that is incredible to me. I am a trained physician, went through training, got not one single lecture throughout the course of my training about this situation.” [Diane Foley, Charis Bible College, 9/15/16]

Foley falsely argued that there is an association between abortion and “eating disorders,” “depression, anxiety” and “relationship difficulty.” [Diane Foley, Charis Bible College, 9/15/16]

Foley said that many women who have abortions “become very cold and unapproachable emotionally.”

Foley argued that many women who receive abortions “find a need because of the pain to deny what happened and they shut down their emotions and become very cold and unapproachable emotionally and have a lot of difficulty then reacting and responding to other people in a normal way.” [Diane Foley, Charis Bible College, 9/15/16]

… Yet There Is Little Support For So-Called “Abortion-As-Trauma.”

According To A 2010 Study Published In Social Science And Medicine, Researchers “Found Little Support For The Abortion-as-Trauma Framework.”

“Because of the potential for confounding, published research claiming to find relations between abortion and poor mental health indicators should be subjected to scrutiny and reanalysis. Using the same data and conducting the same analyses as CCSR (2009), we found that their results were not replicable, nor did our numbers approach theirs in the case of 15 mental health disorders. Moreover, we found little support for the abortion-as-trauma framework. Instead, our findings suggest that structural, psychological, and sociodemographic risk factors associated with both having an abortion and having poor mental health drive a relationship between abortion and mental health. Therefore, policy, practice, and research should focus on addressing the correlates of having mental health problems, such as violence and prior mental health problems.” [Social Science and Medicine, Vol.72, No. 1, pp. 72-82, 10/23/10]

A 2018 American Medical Association study showed “no evidence” that “abortion causes depression.”

“Abortions don’t cause depression…researchers reported Wednesday. The study is the latest to show no evidence that abortion causes depression. Policies that cite damage to mental health as a reason to restrict access to abortion are not based in fact, the researchers wrote in the Journal of the American Medical Association’s JAMA Psychiatry. “The repercussions of abortion for mental health have been used to justify state policies that limit access to abortion in the United States,” the team, led by Dr. Julia Steinberg of the Department of Family Science at the University of Maryland, wrote….Some anti-abortion-rights groups claim that psychiatrists have a diagnosis called ‘post-abortion syndrome’ or ‘post-abortion stress syndrome’, although no such diagnosis exists in medical texts.” [NBC News, 5/30/18]

Foley was invited to speak at AAPLOG’s Matthew Bulfin Educational Conference in 2019.

[Foley (Emails Only) REDACTED.pdf Responsive Records, p. 91]

Foley wrote that she wanted to use her session at the conference as an opportunity to discuss changes to the Title X Family Planning Grant Program, “hints for navigating the federal grants process” and “opportunities for engagement in policy development.”

[Foley (Emails Only) REDACTED.pdf Responsive Records, p. 89-90]

The Title X program provides reproductive health funding for low-income persons via the OPA.

The Title X Family Planning Program, administered by the OPA, was created to distribute funding grants to health care providers to help provide reproductive health services to low-income people. “The Title X Family Planning Program is a federal grant program created in 1970 to provide comprehensive and confidential family planning services and preventive health services. Services provided include contraception counseling and provision, breast and cervical cancer screenings, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. Title X is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs (OPA). The program prioritizes serving people and families with low-incomes and is implemented through grants to over 3500 clinical sites, including public health departments and non-profit health centers.” [Physicians For Reproductive Health, Accessed 9/10/19]

The Title X program provides reproductive health funding for low-income persons via the OPA.

The Title X Family Planning Program, administered by the OPA, was created to distribute funding grants to health care providers to help provide reproductive health services to low-income people. “The Title X Family Planning Program is a federal grant program created in 1970 to provide comprehensive and confidential family planning services and preventive health services. Services provided include contraception counseling and provision, breast and cervical cancer screenings, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections, and pregnancy diagnosis and counseling. Title X is administered by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs (OPA). The program prioritizes serving people and families with low-incomes and is implemented through grants to over 3500 clinical sites, including public health departments and non-profit health centers.” [Physicians For Reproductive Health, Accessed 9/10/19]

In June 2018, HHS proposed a “gag rule” that would prevent Title X grantees from even referring patients for abortions.

June 2018: Trump’s HHS proposed a “gag rule” to prohibit Title X recipients from even referring for abortion.

“For these reasons, the Department proposes to change the Title X regulations to eliminate the requirement that Title X projects provide abortion referral and counseling. In addition, consistent with the purpose of the program, the proposed rule would prohibit recipients from using Title X funds to perform, promote, refer for, or support abortion as a method of family planning. This rule would better align with both the best reading of section 1008 and with the Federal conscience statutes.” [Federal Register, Proposed Rule, Compliance with Statutory Program Integrity Requirements, 6/1/18]

The HHS Title X “gag rule” requires the physical and financial separation of facilities that provide abortion from other forms of health care,

HHS’ proposed “gag rule”: “requiring clear financial and physical separation between Title X funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning.”

“The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing a proposal to update the regulations governing the Title X family planning program, which focuses on serving low-income Americans. … Key elements of the proposed update include: Requiring clear financial and physical separation between Title X funded projects and programs or facilities where abortion is a method of family planning.” [Press Release, HHS, 5/22/18]

The HHS Title X “gag rule” could cause health care providers to destroy or return their birth control.

Health clinics that have left the Title X program may have to destroy or return tens of thousands of dollars of birth control and other medications.

“Health clinics that quit the federal family planning program over new Trump administration anti-abortion rules may have to destroy or return tens of thousands of dollars of contraceptives and other medications. Federal health officials confirmed to POLITICO that clinics might need to get rid of drugs, intrauterine devices and other treatments they bought at a discount while part of the Title X program, a long-standing requirement that’s catching some providers by surprise as they weigh whether to comply with new rules that, among other things, forbid abortion referrals.” [Politico Pro, 7/26/19]

• Hormone treatments are among the drugs purchased with the Title X discount that may be returned or destroyed. “Clinic operators say they may have to return or destroy IUDs, hormonal patches, NuvaRings and birth control pills if they leave the federal family planning program. And since Title X also serves people who want to become pregnant, stocks of hormone treatments might have to be tossed as well.” [Politico Pro, 7/26/19]

Planned Parenthood, multiple states and other health care providers are leaving the Title X program rather than comply with the Title X “gag rule.”

HHS was set to enforce the Title X “gag rule” In July 2019. 

“The Trump administration says it will begin immediately enforcing new rules barring federal family planning dollars to groups that provide abortions or make referrals for the procedure, ending weeks of uncertainty about the status of the overhaul.” [Politico Pro, 7/15/19]

Planned Parenthood left the Title X program rather than comply with the Title X “gag rule.”

“Planned Parenthood is leaving the federal Title X family planning program rather than comply with new Trump administration rules regarding abortion counseling. The new rules, issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services earlier this year, prohibit Title X grantees from providing or referring patients for abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or medical emergency.” [NPR, 8/19/19]

As of August 2019, six states have left the Title X program rather than comply with the “gag rule.”

“At least six states no longer have access to the money provided by the Title X program, which once funded some 4,000 U.S. clinics offering services like STI testing, cancer screenings, and birth control. Rather than comply with the administration’s decree that these providers no longer refer patients for abortions — which reproductive health advocates say amount to an unethical ‘gag rule’ — state health departments and individual organizations across the country have decided to leave the program entirely.” [Vice News, 8/30/19]

The exodus of providers from the Title X “gag rule” is expected to have negative effects on access to services for low-income people.

Vice News: “not having access to that money could cripple states’ ability to provide services to the 4-million low-income people, largely women of color, served by Title X.” [Vice News, 8/30/19]

After leaving the nation’s Title X Program, Planned Parenthood patients face higher fees, longer wait times and confusion. 

“In Cleveland, a Planned Parenthood mobile clinic that tests for sexually transmitted diseases has cut its staff to part-time and may shut down. In Minneapolis, women and girls accustomed to free checkups are now billed as much as $200 per visit on a sliding fee scale. And in Vienna, W.Va., Planned Parenthood employees are marking boxes of birth control pills with “Do not use” signs because they were paid for with federal grants the organization can no longer accept.” [Washington Post, 8/24/19]

Planned Parenthood’s lack of Title X funding is expected to cause longer waits at some clinics and the complete shutdown of others. 

“‘The long-term effects of that are going to be tremendous,’ she added. ‘What you see in states that have taken away funds through some more mechanisms is that inevitably clinics closed. The wait times do extend. Some providers try to hold on and they just can’t, some close, some continue to go on, some shut down some clinics but not others.’” [Harper’s Bazaar, 8/22/19]

Planned Parenthood’s loss of Title X funding is expected to cause the cost of reproductive care to go up. 

“Birth control and reproductive health care services that are provided with Title X funding are expected to become ‘more out of reach,” but it’s “hard to say exactly what that looks like just yet,’ a Planned Parenthood official said. Sarah Varney of Kaiser Health News told PBS NewsHour that according to various reproductive health care programs around the country, ‘women will start to pay more out of pocket when they go to these clinics.’” [Harper’s Bazaar, 8/22/19]

AAPLOG Alongside Its Future Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Member Organizations, Has Advocated For Anti-Abortion Legislation And Administration Measures

AAPLOG Supported The Anti-Abortion Congressional Bill “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.” “Over 30,000 medical professionals from the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Catholic Medical Association and Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, supported the bill. In a statement, they said, ‘There is no scientific or legal reason to distinguish between human beings born after an attempted abortion and human beings born after attempted live birth. In cases where the mother’s life actually is in danger in the latter half of pregnancy, there is not time for an abortion. … We can, and do, save the life of the mother through delivery of an intact infant in a hospital where both the mother and her newborn can receive the care that they need. There is no medical reason to intentionally kill that fetal human being.’” [The Center Square, 1/13/23]

AAPLOG Supported A Letter From Congressional Republicans To The U.S. Department Of Justice And the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services About Conscience Protections, Which When Unregulated Hinder Access To Abortion Care. [U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer, 8/18/21]

AAPLOG Supported An Amendment Prohibiting Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Care. “Senator James Lankford (R-OK) this evening offered an amendment, which he introduced earlier today, to the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion Fiscal Year 2022 budget to prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars for funding of abortions and abortion-related discrimination. The amendment ensures that the budget will comply with the long-standing Hyde Amendment, which bars the use of federal dollars to pay for abortion, and the Weldon amendment, which protects health care providers who refuse to participate in abortion from discrimination. The amendment was adopted by a vote of 50-49. […] Lankford’s amendment is supported by March for Life Action, Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, National Right to Life, Family Research Council, US Conference of Catholic Bishops, Susan B. Anthony List, Heritage Action, Concerned Women for America LAC, Family Policy Alliance, American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Alliance Defending Freedom and Students for Life Action.” [U.S. Senator James Lankford, 8/10/21]

AAPLOG Supported The “Second Chance At Life Act,” Which Would Mandate That Medical Providers Share False Information About “Abortion Pill Reversal” When Needing Medication Abortion. “Congressman Doug Lamborn introduced the Second Chance at Life Act requiring abortion facilities to provide women seeking chemical abortions information about the possibility of reversing the effects of the procedure. This legislation requires abortion providers to inform a patient at least 24 hours in advance that the chemical abortion process may be reversible even after administering the first drug of a two-drug procedure.” [Office of Congressman Doug Lamborn, 1/28/21]

• When Supporting The Bill, AAPLOG CEO Christina Francis Further Spread Disinformation On “Abortion Pill Reversal” And Patronized Pregnant People Seeking Abortion Care. “As a professional medical organization representing women’s healthcare providers, we support fully informed consent for all women, including women choosing to undergo medication abortion. Women frequently make the decision to have an abortion under pressure – whether it be from circumstances or another person – and often after beginning the process, regret doing so. Abortion pill rescue provides an opportunity for these women to exercise the choice of trying to save their unborn child, and women deserve to know that this option exists and is highly effective. The Second Chance at Life Act will help ensure that any woman seeking a medication abortion will be given this very important information.” [Office of Congressman Doug Lamborn, 1/28/21]

AAPLOG Celebrated The Anti-Abortion “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act.” “‘We celebrate today’s long-overdue House passage of the Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act to protect babies who survive attempted abortions,’ said Dr. Christina Francis, CEO-elect of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) in a statement.” [The Washington Stand, 1/12/23]

AAPLOG Submitted A Public Comment Against The Biden Administration’s Proposed Rule To Make The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) Stronger To Protect Abortion Rights. “The Department of Health and Human Services is preparing to release a final rule later this year that would expand the protections of the decades old Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, with the aim of shielding people who seek, obtain or provide abortions from red state probes […] The conservative groups Concerned Women for America, Catholic Medical Association, March for Life, and the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists — one of the groups currently suing the FDA over approval of the abortion drug mifepristone — were among those that opposed.” [POLITICO, 7/18/23]

APPLOG uses legal mechanisms to support restrictive state-level anti-abortion policy.

AAPLOG was blocked from intervening in a legal battle over restrictive abortion clinic regulations in Kansas. “A federal judge today said that an out-of-state group of physicians opposed to abortion can’t intervene in the legal battle over new Kansas rules for abortion clinics. U.S. District Judge Carlos Murguia said today that the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists had too remote and speculative interest to join the case as a defendant. The group sought to intervene, claiming its members have to unfairly bear the cost of women who seek treatment for complications from abortion procedures. However, Murguia ruled that the group offered vague and deficient evidence.” [Kansas City Star, 9/29/11]

AAPLOG has filed Briefs in support of religious refusal laws, which allow for discrimination by medical providers.

AAPLOG backed the federal government in a lawsuit which challenged the government’s authority to impose sanctions on states that oppose religious refusal laws. “A federal judge dismissed on Tuesday California’s challenge to a federal anti-abortion law that threatens the state with huge financial penalties, saying the lawsuit – filed in January 2005 – was premature because the alleged state-federal conflict might never arise… Attorney Timothy Smith, who represented the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists and other organizations backing the federal government’s defense of the Weldon amendment, said the ruling is a satisfactory resolution.” [San Francisco Chronicle, 3/19/08]

AAPLOG filed an Amicus Brief in favor of Hobby Lobby’s suit, which would allow private employers to deny ACA coverage based on religious beliefs. “In an amicus brief filed last week, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) argues that requiring Hobby Lobby to pay for drugs and devices with life-ending mechanisms of action is an unconstitutional violation of its freedom of conscience […] Mailee R. Smith of Americans United for Life wrote this brief for AAPS and the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, Christian Medical Association, Catholic Medical Association, National Catholic Bioethics Center, Physicians for Life, and National Association of Pro Life Nurses.” [PR Newswire, 2/26/13]

Religious refusal rules allow medical providers to deny medical access to persons seeking abortions and LGBTQIA+ individuals, allowing discrimination in health care. “Critics of the ‘Conscience Rule’ argue it could limit medical access for women seeking abortions, as doctors who oppose to the practice on religious grounds could refuse a woman care. There are concerns about health care professionals discriminating against LGBT individuals, in violation of medical ethics. The rule will also help protect individuals who object to administering certain vaccines.” [CBS News, 5/02/19]

AAPLOG, Alongside Charlotte Lozier Institute And Human Coalition, Filed An Amicus Brief For Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, A Lawsuit Challenging A State Ban On Medicaid Funding For Abortion

In Its Amicus Brief For Allegheny Reproductive Health Center v. Pennsylvania Department of Human Services, AAPLOG Argued False Links Between Abortion And Mental And Physical Health. “Abortion causes significant mental health problems, which increases women’s risks of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide […] Women who undergo abortion experience a higher rate of mental health disorders compared to women who carry their pregnancies to term […] ​The stories of mothers who survived abortion highlight the reality of the psychological harm that abortion inflicts […] Surgical abortion poses various immediate physical risks—including the risk of death—resulting from procedural complications […] Abortion can lead to physical harms to the mother in later pregnancies, such as cervical trauma, cervical incompetence, and faulty placentation. […] Abortion can increase the risk of serious harm to children in future pregnancies due to premature birth.” [AAPLOG’s Allegheny Reproductive Health Center Amicus Brief, December 2021]

AAPLOG Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of Petitioners For Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization

AAPLOG’s Dobbs Amicus Brief Falsely Claimed That Abortion Is Linked To Mental Health Issues And Suicidality, That Abortion Is Not Grounded In Medical Ethics Or “Our Nation’s Traditions,” And That When A Pregnant Person’s Life Is Endangered, They Should Have Induced Labor Or C-Section Instead Of An Abortion. “[D]ecades of studies show that abortions, especially those later in the pregnancy, are linked to a greater risk of psychological harm, including anxiety, depression, substance abuse, thoughts of suicide, and suicide […] Abortion—removing the fetus with the intent of ending its life—is never medically necessary at any stage […] Abortion thus finds no footing in traditional medical ethics. Cf. Pet. Br. 1, 2, 12, 17, 28 (noting that abortion is not rooted in our nation’s traditions). Instead, in the rare case when a mother’s life is threatened or the fetus suffers a severe abnormality, the physician will simply induce labor or perform a cesarian section. The Act allows this—and other exceptions—thus exceeding the requirements of rationality. It should be upheld.” [AAPLOG Dobbs Amicus Brief, July 2021]

• AAPLOG’s Dobbs Amicus Brief Cited A Journal Article Authored By James Studnicki In “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology” … [AAPLOG Dobbs Amicus Brief, July 2021]
• … The Same Author Whose Three Articles On The Safety Of Mifepristone Were Later Retracted By The Same Journal. “Sage retracted three studies published in its journal ‘Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology,’ which were funded and produced by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the influential Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which works to elect federal and state anti-abortion lawmakers. […] The lead author for each study was James Studnicki, Charlotte Lozier’s vice president and director of data analytics, who was on the editorial board of ‘Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology’ at the time the studies were published.” [Idaho Capital Sun, 2/6/24]

AAPLOG-Affiliated Doctors Filed A Second Dobbs Amicus Brief Alongside Right To Life Michigan And The National Catholic Bioethics Center, Where It Further Argued Roe Should Be Overturned Using Anti-Abortion Stigma And Originalism Scholarship. “This Court in Roe and its progenitor precedents incorrectly concluded that the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment included a liberty interest in the right to abort an unborn child as part of one’s personal autonomy. Not a single word uttered or written, in the promulgation of the Fourteenth Amendment, even remotely suggests that the Amendment includes a right to abortion. Undeniably, it is clear from the historical discussion that the authors of the Amendment never contemplated including such a diabolical entitlement.” [AAPLOG, Right to Life Michigan, and the National Catholic Bioethics Center Dobbs Amicus Brief, July 2021]

AAPLOG Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of Petitioners For Idaho v. United States

AAPLOG Filed An Amicus Brief In Support Of Petitioners For Idaho v. United States, The Upcoming U.S. Supreme Court Case That Will Determine If Medical Providers Can Continue To Provide Life-Saving Emergency Abortion Care Under Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA). “This Court has returned the power to regulate abortion to the States. Efforts to displace state abortion regulations nationwide based on EMTALA rely on a linguistically faulty understanding of the term ‘abortion’ and a factually erroneous description of the nature of emergency medical care. An induced abortion intends to end pre-born life; emergency care intends to save it. EMTALA requires the latter, not the former. By definition, measures taken to save the mother, the preborn child, or both are not considered ‘abortions’ in either common or medical parlance. The effort to blur this terminology is nothing more than a misguided attempt to both normalize induced abortions and to conscript EMTALA into requiring the provision of those abortions nationwide.” [AAPLOG Idaho Amicus Brief, 2/27/24]

The Disinformation And Bad-Faith Interpretation Of Abortion Care In AAPLOG’s Amicus Brief Directly Harms Pregnant People’s Health And Safety. “Moreover, the argument that induced abortions are required for the stabilization and transfer of patients is medically insupportable. Proponents of EMTALA-mandated abortions identify a handful of medical conditions supposedly requiring an induced abortion. But in each case they misstate the range of treatment options for these conditions, the risks to the mother, the legal implications of the pregnancy complication, or all of the above. That alone is reason enough to reject the argument that EMTALA mandates induced abortions.” [AAPLOG Idaho Amicus Brief, 2/27/24]

AAPLOG’s Idaho Amicus Brief Cites Anti-Abortion Activist David C. Reardon, An Associate Scholar With The Charlotte Lozier Institute And Director Of The Elliot Institute. [AAPLOG Idaho Amicus Brief, 2/27/24]

AAPLOG, On Behalf Of Itself And As A Member Organization Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, Is A Plaintiff In FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine

In November 2022, AAPLOG, On Behalf Of Itself And As A Member Organization Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, Filed A Lawsuit Against The FDA, Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food And Drug Administration et al. “After two decades of engaging the FDA to no avail, Plaintiffs now ask this Court to do what the FDA was and is legally required to do: protect women and girls by holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating the FDA’s actions to approve chemical abortion drugs and eviscerate crucial safeguards for those who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 11/18/22]

AAPLOG, Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, And Accompanying Plaintiffs Are Represented By The Southern Poverty Law Center-Designated Hate Group Alliance Defending Freedom. [Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 3/28/23]

Without Having Any Legitimate Scientific Standing, AAPLOG And Other Plaintiffs Claim That The FDA Should Not Have Approved Mifepristone 23 Years Ago, Did Not Have Sufficient Evidence Of Its Safety And Efficacy And Violated The Comstock Act. “The plaintiffs claim, among other things, that the agency (1) impermissibly used a regulatory approval pathway that is only available for treating serious or life-threatening illnesses (and that pregnancy is not such an illness); (2) failed to examine or inappropriately disregarded scientific evidence in approving and setting distribution controls for the drug; and (3) ignored the so-called Comstock Act, federal criminal provisions that restrict the distribution of drugs or other abortion-related articles through the mail or other carriers.” [Congressional Research Service, 2/14/23]

• Plaintiffs’ Claims Are Speculative And Rife With Anti-Abortion Disinformation. “The filing is a jumbled mess of suspect assertions, cloaked in inflammatory and medically inaccurate language. The filing refers to medication abortion as ‘chemical’ abortion and claims that mifepristone ‘starves the baby to death.’ It alleges that medication abortion is far riskier than procedural abortion or carrying a pregnancy to term, which the plaintiffs argue ‘rarely’ leads to threatening complications. They call mifepristone an ‘endocrine disrupter’ that could threaten the normal development of adolescents who take it. And they assert that individuals suffering complications from medication abortion could ‘overwhelm’ the health care system, leading to a flood of blood transfusions that ‘exacerbates the current critical national blood shortage.’” [The Intercept, 2/28/23]
• Plaintiffs’ Legal Claims Have No Substance. “There are so many problems with the federal case in Texas challenging the approval of mifepristone, the first of two drugs given as part of a medication abortion. On the procedural side of things, just to name a few, the statute of limitations has long run out, the plaintiffs have not exhausted their administrative remedies, they haven’t identified a provision of law that has been violated, and their claimed injury makes no sense. On substance, again just to name a few, mifepristone is one of the safest drugs on the market, pregnancy is a medical condition for which the FDA can approve drugs, and the act on which the case relies has been basically a dead letter for a century. This case really is frivolous and should garner no real attention.” [Slate, 3/21/23]
• Plaintiffs’ Evidence Is Flawed And Cherry-Picked. “The openly anti-abortion federal judge presiding over Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA could, at least temporarily, ban abortion drugs any day now. But if he does, reproductive-health care experts say it will be based on deeply flawed evidence that largely rests on cherry-picked studies and a handful of anecdotes from a handful of anti-abortion doctors.” [New Jersey Monitor, 2/10/23]
• Plaintiffs’ Claims Of Mifepristone’s Safety Lack Any Evidence. “The plaintiffs’ lawyers contended that what they called ‘chemical abortion’ causes ‘cramping, heavy bleeding and severe pain’ and that the F.D.A. had never adequately evaluated the scientific evidence for safety. ‘How many women must die or come close to death before the F.D.A. takes mifepristone off the market?’ said Mr. Baptist, who is also with the Alliance Defending Freedom. Lawyers for the F.D.A. and Danco said that bleeding and cramping were normal consequences of the process of terminating a pregnancy, a sign that the pregnancy tissue was being expelled. They cited years of scientific studies that show that serious complications are rare and that patients need hospitalization less than 1 percent of the time.” [New York Times, 3/15/23]
• Plaintiffs Rely On Infantilizing Pregnant People To Plead Their Case. “[T]he FDA failed America’s women and girls when it chose politics over science and approved chemical abortion drugs for use in the United States. … After two decades of engaging the FDA to no avail, Plaintiffs now ask this Court to do what the FDA was and is legally required to do: protect women and girls by holding unlawful, setting aside, and vacating the FDA’s actions to approve chemical abortion drugs and eviscerate crucial safeguards for those who undergo this dangerous drug regimen.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 11/18/22]
• Plaintiffs Bizarrely Argue That Mifepristone Fuels Sex Traffickers’ Ability “To Force Their Victims Into Getting Abortions.” “This decision not only harms women and girls who voluntarily undergo chemical abortions, but it also further helps sex traffickers and sexual abusers to force their victims into getting abortions while preventing the authorities from identifying these victims.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 11/18/22]
• Alliance Defending Freedom’s Argument Is Full Of Unscientific Fearmongering And Patronizing. “In 2000, the FDA approved the chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol by characterizing pregnancy as an ‘illness’ and arguing that these drugs provide a ‘meaningful therapeutic benefit.’ As the medical groups and doctors explain in their lawsuit, by approving chemical abortion drugs, the FDA failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women. The FDA never studied the safety of the drugs under the labeled conditions of use, ignored the potential impacts of the hormone-blocking regimen on the developing bodies of adolescent girls, disregarded the substantial evidence that chemical abortion drugs cause more complications than surgical abortions, and eliminated necessary safeguards for pregnant girls and women who undergo the dangerous regimen.” [Alliance Defending Freedom, 3/15/23]

AAPLOG, Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, And Other Plaintiffs Purposefully Filed The Lawsuit In The U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of Texas So The Case Could Be Initially Decided By Anti-Abortion Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Strategically Filed Its Lawsuit In The U.S. District Court For The Northern District Of Texas’ Amarillo Division. “The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a new anti-abortion umbrella group that is spearheading a sweeping federal challenge to medication abortion, incorporated in Texas just months before filing suit. The incorporation documents, obtained from the Texas secretary of state, provide further evidence that the plaintiffs cherry-picked a court they believed would be amenable to their arguments, an act of forum shopping that was orchestrated to land the case before Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump-appointed darling of the far right. The Alliance incorporated in Amarillo in August 2022 […] Three months later, the lawsuit was filed in the same Texas Panhandle city where Kacsmaryk hears all federal civil cases.” [The Intercept, 2/28/23]

• The Lawsuit Was Purposefully Filed So That Anti-Abortion Judge Kacsmaryk Would Hear The Case. “When anti-abortion groups wanted to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of an abortion-inducing drug, they didn’t file the lawsuit in Maryland, where the FDA is headquartered, or in any state where the pill is still legally prescribed. They filed it in Amarillo, a Texas city that didn’t have an abortion clinic even before the state all but banned the procedure. But Amarillo does have a federal courthouse with, importantly, just one federal judge presiding. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk hears 95% of the cases filed in Amarillo.” [The Texas Tribune, 3/15/23]

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk Ruled To Suspend The FDA’s Approval Of Mifepristone. “A district judge in Texas, with longstanding and outspoken anti-abortion views, suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, a widely used drug to end pregnancies. But the judge, Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, ordered that his decision would not take effect for seven days to allow the federal government time to appeal his decision. Within hours, both the US Justice Department and Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of mifepristone, announced their plans to challenge the ruling.” [Vox, 4/8/23]

The Decision Is Rooted In An Anti-Human Rights Political Agenda, Not Science. “Medication abortion is the most common way Americans terminate their pregnancies. Mifepristone, when taken alongside misoprostol, has been proven to be safe and effective and is recommended by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the World Health Organization. ‘This is the first time a judge has unilaterally, against the FDA’s objections, removed a drug from the market,’ said Greer Donley, a University of Pittsburgh law professor who studies FDA law. ‘A judge who has … no scientific expertise, overruling the agency that has a ton of scientific expertise.’” [The Texas Tribune, 4/7/23]

• Kacsmaryk’s Ruling Was Filled With Disinformation About Mifepristone And Harmful Anti-Abortion Myths. “Kacsmaryk wrote that the FDA succumbed to political pressure when it approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago and subsequently lifted restrictions on the medication over the ensuing two decades, arguing that ‘the lack of restrictions resulted in many deaths and many more severe or life-threatening adverse reactions.’ […] Kacsmaryk has deep ties to the anti-abortion movement, and the language in the 67-page ruling, released at 5:30 p.m. Friday, reflects those ties — calling abortion providers ‘abortionists’ and describing the use of mifepristone as killing or ‘starv[ing] the unborn human until death.’” [The Texas Tribune, 4/7/23]

A Study Cited By Anti-Abortion Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk In The Initial FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Ruling Was Retracted.

Sage Publishing Retracted Three Studies Conducted On The Safety Of The Abortion Medication Mifepristone From Its Journal “Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology.” “An academic publisher has retracted three studies about the adverse effects of the abortion pill mifepristone, two of which are central to the ongoing lawsuit to ban the medication nationwide. Sage Publishing announced its decision Monday to pull the studies after they were revealed to have been funded and produced by the Charlotte Lozier Institute, the research arm of the powerful anti-abortion group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. The studies were published in 2019, 2021, and 2022. Sage began reviewing the 2021 study last year after a pharmaceutical sciences professor raised concerns about how it was cited in the mifepristone case.” [The New Republic, 2/6/24]

All But One Of The Studies’ Authors Were Affiliated With Either AAPLOG, Charlotte Lozier Institute, Or The Anti-Abortion Elliot Institute. “The Sage investigation found that all but one of the study authors, including the lead author on each study, were affiliated with at least one of the anti-abortion associations Charlotte Lozier Institute, Elliot Institute, and American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The AAPLOG is listed as a plaintiff in the mifepristone lawsuit. One of the peer reviewers was also associated with Charlotte Lozier. None of the authors or the reviewer disclosed these affiliations.” [The New Republic, 2/6/24]

Judge Kacsmaryk Liberally Cited The Retracted 2021 Study To Justify His Preliminary Injunction Suspending The Approval Of Mifepristone. “That ultimately blocked April 7 ruling in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA relied on a handful of studies authored by many of the same anti-abortion activists directly involved in suing the FDA. Kacsmaryk leaned hard on a 2021 study that was designed, funded and produced by the research arm of one of the most powerful anti-abortion political groups in the U.S. The judge cited this paper — which looked at Medicaid patients’ visits to the emergency room within 30 days of having an abortion — to justify that a group of anti-abortion doctors and medical groups have legal standing to force the FDA to recall mifepristone.” [News From The States, 8/1/23]

The Anti-Abortion Plaintiffs In FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Additionally Cited The Retracted 2021 Study (Coauthored By AAPLOG’s Harrison And Skop) In Their November 2022 Complaint. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 11/18/22]

• Apart From This Retracted Study, Plaintiffs Original Complaint Additionally Relies On Biased, Non-Robust Citations, Using Footnotes From The Right-Wing Media Outlet National Review, AAPLOG Member Testimony Before Congress, And An Article From The Catholic Medical Association’s Linacre Quarterly. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration et al., Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 11/18/22]

Kacsmaryk’s Reliance On Faulty And Non-Robust Studies Demonstrates Legal Attacks On Mifepristone Are About Obstructing Access To Care, Not Science. “Kacsmaryk ruled in April that mifepristone had been improperly approved and should be yanked from the U.S. market. […] Kacsmaryk’s initial ruling hinged on several heavily biased ‘studies.’ In addition to the faulty Charlotte Lozier article, he cited another study that claimed to find most people who had medication abortions reported negative effects. The sample size was 98 blog posts from an anti-abortion website. The study authors only analyzed 54 posts and then just cherry-picked quotes from the rest. […] A bigger issue at play, in this case, is that nonelected judges who do not have medical backgrounds are now making decisions about medication.” [The New Republic, 2/6/24]

After The DOJ Appealed The Decision, The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Ruled In August 2023 To Heavily Restrict Access To Mifepristone, But Did Not Remove The Medication From The Market

On August 16, The Fifth Circuit Court Of Appeals Ruled To Reinstate Unnecessary And Burdensome Restrictions On Mifepristone, But Did Not Pull The Medication From The Market. “A federal appeals court said Wednesday that it would restrict access to a widely used abortion medication […] Food and Drug Administration decisions to allow the drug mifepristone to be taken later in pregnancy, be mailed directly to patients and be prescribed by a medical professional other than a doctor were not lawful, a three-judge panel of the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled. Mifepristone will remain available for now under existing regulations while the litigation continues, in accordance with a Supreme Court order this spring.” [The Washington Post, 8/16/23]

If Upheld, The Fifth Circuit’s Decision Would Reinstate Pre-2016 Unscientific And Onerous Restrictions On The Medication, Including Ending Accessibility Of Mifepristone By Mail. “The main impact of the appeals court’s decision, if it is upheld by the Supreme Court, would be to reverse changes made by the F.D.A. in recent years that greatly increased access to the pill […] The appeals court ruling would mean that patients would have to make three visits to a doctor to get mifepristone and could not receive it in the mail. […] Among the changes the F.D.A. made in 2016 were to allow nurse midwives and certain other providers, not just doctors, to prescribe mifepristone and to reduce the required number of in-person visits to one. Another change was to extend the time frame for mifepristone use, authorizing it until 10 weeks into pregnancy instead of seven weeks.” [The New York Times, 8/16/23]

SCOTUS Has Agreed To Take Up FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine

A Stay By The Supreme Court Means Any Medication Abortion Ban Remains On Hold. “A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that mifepristone, one of two pills used in medication abortions, should not be prescribed past seven weeks of pregnancy or via telemedicine. However, a previous stay by the Supreme Court means this won’t go into effect right away. The pills will remain on the market in states where abortion is legal and available by telemedicine and mail for the time being.” [NPR, 8/16/23]

The DOJ Asked The Supreme Court To Review The Case. “The Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Friday evening to hear a challenge to the availability of a commonly used abortion pill, raising the possibility that the justices will rule on the fate of the drug. The move sets up a showdown over access to the medication, mifepristone, which is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States, and would bring the issue of abortion back to the court more than a year after the justices eliminated the constitutional right to it.” [The New York Times, 9/8/23]

After Agreeing To Hear The Case In Late 2023, The U.S. Supreme Court Agreed To Hear Oral Arguments On March 26, 2024. “The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Mar. 26 in the battle over access to a drug used in medication abortions, which account for over half of all abortions performed in the United States. The justices on Monday morning released the calendar for their March argument sitting, which begins on Mar. 18 and ends on Mar. 27.” [SCOTUSblog, 1/29/24]

FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Endangers The Health And Safety Of Pregnant People, Families, And Children

If The Mifepristone Lawsuit Is Ultimately Decided In Favor Of The Plaintiffs, Pregnant People Would Be Faced With Significant, Material Harm. “Plaintiffs’ speculative assertions of injury—made months and even decades after the agency actions they challenge—are unsupported by any evidence that Plaintiffs will be harmed by the availability of mifepristone absent an injunction. In contrast, issuance of a preliminary injunction would cause significant harm, depriving patients of a safe and effective drug that has been on the market for more than two decades.” [FDA and DOJ opposition, Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 1/13/23] 

Limiting Medication Abortion, Which Accounts For More Than Half Of All Abortions, Would Severely Limit The Accessibility Of Abortion Care. “The ability for patients to use telemedicine and get the prescribed pills shipped to them has significantly expanded the use of medication abortion, which is now used in more than half of pregnancy terminations in the United States. […] More than five million women in the United States have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies, and many studies have found it to be highly safe and effective. Years of research has shown that serious complications are rare, resulting in fewer than 1 percent of patients needing hospitalization, medical experts have said. The F.D.A. applies a special regulatory framework to mifepristone, meaning that it has been regulated much more strictly and studied more intensively than most other drugs. The drug is also approved for use in dozens of other countries.” [The New York Times, 8/16/23]

An Anti-Reproductive Freedom Decision Would Harm The Public Interest. “[I]t would upend the status quo and the reliance interests of patients and doctors who depend on mifepristone. … The public interest would be dramatically harmed by effectively withdrawing from the marketplace a safe and effective drug that has lawfully been on the market for twenty-two years.” [FDA and DOJ opposition, Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 1/13/23] 

A Ban On Mifepristone Would Exacerbate Inequitable Health Outcomes For Pregnant People. “[B]ecause carrying a pregnancy to term is 14 times more risky than early abortion, foreclosing access to medication abortion would likely lead to a steep rise in birth-related mortality rates. Evidence shows that States with restrictive abortion laws have higher morbidity and mortality rates. And estimates suggest that should a total abortion ban go into effect nationwide, those rates would rise by 21% overall purely due to the increased risks associated with bearing a child, with Black women experiencing the highest estimated increase—33%. Accordingly, impeding access to medication abortion, the method currently accounting for the majority of all abortions, would undoubtedly lead to an unprecedented spike in mortality, worsening a crisis already disproportionately faced by Black women.” [Amicus Brief of Democratic State Attorneys General, Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 2/10/23]

• Likewise, A Ban On Mifepristone Would Exacerbate Inequitable Socioeconomic Outcomes For Parents And Children. “Denial of abortion is in turn associated with numerous harms, including poor birthing and infant health outcomes, higher rates of poverty, and lower educational attainment for both parents and children.” [Amicus Brief of Democratic State Attorneys General, Case 2:22-cv-00223-Z, 2/10/23]

AAPLOG And Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Anti-Abortion Narratives Are Fueling Hostility Toward Reproductive Freedom And Equitable Health Care Access. “While the alternate narratives pushed by groups like AAPLOG may be politically powerful, they are also dangerous, offering the imprimatur of science without sound foundational support. ‘When you have arguments about science that are not based that much in evidence, not only is it confusing and obviously can lead to really bad outcomes, but it’s also disenfranchising,’ [law professor Mary] Ziegler said. ‘Because normal people don’t know anything about these topics, right? They don’t know about the relative rate of complications of mifepristone. And so if what’s really going on here is a struggle over constitutional values and ethics and so on, we should be telling the truth about that.’” [The Intercept, 2/28/23]

Since The U.S. Supreme Court Agreed To Hear FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, AAPLOG Has Pushed Disinformation And Stoked Stigma Around Mifepristone.

AAPLOG Is Organizing An Anti-Abortion Rally On March 26, The Day SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments On FDA v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine.

[AAPLOG.org, February 2024]

AAPLOG, Represented By The Mississippi Justice Institute, Sued The Mississippi State Medical Board In A Legal Effort To Ban Abortion In The State.

In November 2022, AAPLOG, Represented By The Anti-Abortion Litigation Group Mississippi Justice Institute Of The Conservative Mississippi Center For Public Policy, Sued The Mississippi State Board Of Medical Licensure. [AAPLOG v. Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure et al., Case 25CH1:22-cv-01371, 11/14/22]

The Lawsuit Argued That Anti-Abortion Doctors Face Threat Of Punishment By The Lack Of Clarity On The Validity Of Mississippi’s Abortion Ban. “A group of anti-abortion doctors in Mississippi, where state leaders led the charge to overturn Roe v. Wade, say the validity of the state’s law banning most abortions remains uncertain and that further legal action is needed to clarify it and protect them from possible punishment by medical institutions. The Mississippi Justice Institute makes the claim in a lawsuit it filed Monday on behalf of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists against the Mississippi State Board of Medical Licensure and its executive director, Dr. Kenneth Cleveland.” [The Associated Press, 11/14/22]

The Goal Of The Post-Dobbs Lawsuit Is To Overturn The 1998 Ruling Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice, Which Protects The Right To Abortion In The State Constitution. “A conservative litigation group filed a lawsuit this week to overturn Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice, with the goal of ending what may be a legal loophole protecting abortion rights in Mississippi. A branch of the Mississippi Center for Public Policy, a right-wing think-tank, partnered with the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, or AAPLOG, to challenge the law on the basis of the U.S. Supreme Court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.” [The Mississippi Free Press, 11/15/22]

The Lawsuit Was Filed In A Post-Dobbs Legal Landscape, Where Abortion Rights Are In The Hands Of The States. “Previously, the Mississippi Center for Justice intended to launch a legal challenge to Mississippi’s abortion ban with Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice as its centerpiece. ‘In Fordice, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that “abortion is protected within the penumbras of the right to privacy” under the Mississippi Constitution. Id. at 666,’ a lawsuit filed shortly after the Dobbs decision stated. […] But the Jackson Women’s Health Organization—the now-closed abortion provider with standing to challenge the abortion-ban trigger law—shut down in July, ending that attempt to force Mississippi’s statutory law into alignment. Now, the MJI’s lawsuit seeks the exact opposite outcome.” [The Mississippi Free Press, 11/15/22]

AAPLOG’s Lawsuit Uses Conscience Protections Arguments In An Attempt To Make Abortion Care Further Inaccessible. “Some Mississippi doctors who oppose abortion say the legal uncertainty has placed them in a ‘Catch-22.’ They argue that medical institutions and board certification authorities have issued guidelines suggesting that it is ‘unethical, and potentially punishable by the government, for physicians who oppose elective abortion to refuse to provide or refer patients’ to other doctors for lawful elective abortions. The question of whether elective abortions are ‘lawful’ is unresolved and depends on whether the Mississippi Supreme Court’s opinion in Fordice is still valid, according to the doctors’ attorneys.” [The Associated Press, 11/14/22]

Former AAPLOG Executive Director Donna Harrison Claimed That The Real Problem Is Forcing Anti-Abortion Doctors To Provide Essential Reproductive Health Care, Not The Barriers To Abortion Care Themself. “Dr. Donna Harrison, the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said that institutions such as the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the American Medical Association have ‘continuously sought to violate the conscience rights of pro-life physicians by forcing them to provide or refer patients for elective abortions.’ […] ‘Rather than focusing on their missions of upholding medical standards, professional medical organizations have sought for years to advocate for pro-abortion political positions,’ Harrison told The Associated Press. ‘We hope to finally put an end to those intimidation tactics.’” [The Associated Press, 11/14/22]

Mississippi Justice Institute’s Executive Director Said The Lawsuit Is An Attempt To Solidify The State’s Abortion Ban, Saying The Quiet Part Out Loud. “The trigger law, passed in 2007, says abortion is legal only if the pregnant woman’s life is in danger or if a pregnancy is caused by a rape reported to law enforcement. It does not have an exception for pregnancies caused by incest. But the validity of the law is uncertain because the Mississippi Supreme Court has not had the opportunity to overrule the 1998 Fordice decision, according to the Mississippi Justice Institute. […] Aaron Rice, executive director of the Mississippi Justice Institute, said this case is the final leg of the anti-abortion movement’s legal march toward securing its ban on the procedure. He expects the case will be decided by the Mississippi Supreme Court. ‘We intend to finish the job and protect the right to life in the state that took down Roe v. Wade,’ Rice said.” [The Associated Press, 11/14/22]

AAPLOG, Represented By The Thomas More Society, Sued The State Of Minnesota In An Attempt To Obstruct Essential Reproductive Health Care During The COVID-19 Pandemic.

AAPLOG Sued Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, The Minnesota Department Of Health, And Abortion Clinics Within The State For Violating The Equal Protection Clause. “Plaintiffs, including the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Pro-Life Action Ministries and others, are being represented by the Thomas More Society, a Chicago-based anti-abortion law firm. The firm’s Special Counsel Erick Kaardal in a Wednesday news release said it’s ‘dangerously unsafe’ and ‘critically and irresponsibly wasteful’ to allow surgical abortions during the pandemic. […] The plaintiffs are arguing that Walz, the state health department and Minnesota abortion clinics are violating the Equal Protection Clause by allowing for and providing abortions right now. They are seeking an injunction to stop clinics from providing surgical abortions, and to enjoin Walz and state Health Commissioner Jan Malcolm from enforcing coronavirus executive orders ‘unless and until those orders are amended or reinterpreted to prohibit surgical abortions.’” [Pioneer Press, 5/1/20]

AAPLOG Is Suing Michigan Officials For Protecting Abortion Rights In The State’s Constitution

AAPLOG And Other Anti-Abortion Groups Are Suing Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, State Attorney General Dana Nessel, And Secretary Of State Jocelyn Benson Over The State’s “Right To Reproductive Health” Amendment, Prop. 3. “Plaintiff American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) is a nonprofit organization comprised of board certified, professional medical experts who practice in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology (OBGYN). AAPLOG has members in Michigan, and it seeks relief on behalf of itself, its current and future Michigan members, and its members’ patients that reside in or that will travel to Michigan for medical care and treatment.” [Right to Life Michigan et al. v. Whitmer et al., Case 1:23-cv-01189, 11/8/23]

• The Groups Are Represented By The Anti-Abortion Litigation Group, Thomas More Society. “Right to Life, three Republican lawmakers and others filed a lawsuit Wednesday asking the federal courts to intervene and overturn a state constitutional amendment that protects abortion rights in Michigan and won wide support from voters one year ago. […] The groups are represented by lawyers with the conservative American Freedom Law Center, the Great Lakes Justice Center and the Thomas More Law Center.” [The Detroit News, 11/8/23]
• AAPLOG And Other Plaintiffs Are Using Irrelevant Legal Arguments To Further Obstruct Access To Abortion Care. “In Wednesday’s lawsuit, the groups argued that the constitutional protection exempted women and unborn children from legal protections afforded to other classes in violation of the 14th Amendment, overrides religious objections related to providing reproductive services in violation of the First Amendment, and improperly nullifies the authority of the Legislature.” [The Detroit News, 11/8/23]

AAPLOG Is A Plaintiff In Another Major Federal Lawsuit, Texas v. Becerra

In July 2022, AAPLOG, Alongside The State Of Texas And Fellow Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Member Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Filed A Federal Lawsuit Against The Biden-Harris Administration’s HHS. “The Biden Administration’s response to Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), which ended the terrible regime of Roe v. Wade, is to attempt to use federal law to transform every emergency room in the country into a walk-in abortion clinic. President Biden is flagrantly disregarding the legislative and democratic process—and flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling before the ink is dry—by having his appointed bureaucrats mandate that hospitals and emergency medicine physicians must perform abortions. But Defendants’ Abortion Mandate forces hospitals and doctors to commit crimes and risk their licensure under Texas law, while doing nothing to advance the health and safety of women.” [Amended Complaint, State of Texas et al. v. Becerra et al., 5:22-cv-00185-H, 7/28/22]

In Texas v. Becerra, Texas, AAPLOG, And Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) Are Challenging The Biden-Harris Administration’s Enforcement Of The Federal Law Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), Arguing It Goes Against The State’s Strict Abortion Ban. “The Biden administration on Tuesday urged a U.S. appeals court to let it enforce federal guidance telling healthcare providers that they must perform abortions for emergency room patients when needed to treat an emergency medical condition, even if it would conflict with Texas’s abortion ban.” [Reuters, 11/7/23]

A Three-Panel Judge Of The U.S. Court Of Appeals For The Fifth Circuit Ruled That The Biden-Harris HHS Misinterpreted The Federal Law And EMTALA Must Be Read To Exclude Emergency Abortion Care. “EMTALA does not mandate medical treatments, let alone abortion care, nor does it preempt Texas law.” [U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Decision, State of Texas et al. v. Becerra et al., 5:22-cv-00185-H, 7/28/22]

• The Case Was Heard By All Trump-Appointed Judges … “On Tuesday, a notoriously right-wing federal appeals court attempted to rewrite a federal law that, among other things, requires most US hospitals to provide abortions to patients who are experiencing a medical emergency if a doctor determines that an abortion will stabilize the patient. The case is Texas v. Becerra, and all three of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit’s judges who joined this opinion were appointed by Republicans. Two, including Kurt Engelhardt, the opinion’s author, were appointed by former President Donald Trump.” [Vox, 1/3/24]
• … And Was Designed To Result In An Anti-Abortion Decision. “This case never should have been heard by any federal court. That’s because it involves a fake dispute over a nonbinding document produced by the Biden administration. Federal agencies sometimes issue binding regulations, which have the force of law, often impose new legal restrictions on private parties, and may be challenged in federal court. […] So, when Texas and two anti-abortion groups filed this lawsuit, which challenges HHS’s 2022 guidance, the case should have immediately been tossed out. Nevertheless, Engelhardt and his fellow Fifth Circuit judges used this fake dispute over a nonbinding document as an excuse not just to hear the Texas case, but to declare that HHS’s reading of EMTALA is wrong and that the statute must be read to exclude abortions.” [Vox, 1/3/24]

In A Statement Celebrating The Fifth Circuit’s Decision, AAPLOG Again Said That Abortion Is Not Healthcare. “In an abuse of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), the Biden Administration previously attempted to force physicians to perform induced abortions in violation of their oath they took to never intentionally harm their patients. Induced abortion, the sole purpose of which is to end the life of our preborn patient, is not healthcare, and our members regularly treat serious pregnancy complications without it, which is entirely possible to do under existing Texas law.” [AAPLOG.org, 1/8/24]

Purvi Patel, Whose Doctor Was An AAPLOG Member, Faced Criminalization For Her Pregnancy Outcome Because Her Doctor Reported Her To Law Enforcement. “In 2013, an Indiana woman showed up at an emergency room suffering from severe vaginal hemorrhaging. At first, Purvi Patel denied she had been pregnant. But, eventually, Patel told doctors she had a stillbirth. The hospital staff did not believe her. So, her doctor—a member of the anti-abortion American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists—called the cops.” [Mother Jones, 11/20/23]

AAPLOG Is Registered In Indiana As A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit, With Current Net Assets Totaling $1,185,818.

[AAPLOG’s Form 990 for the fiscal year ending December 2022]

Conservative Kingmaker Leonard Leo’s New Nonprofit, Marble Freedom Trust, Is Financially Connected To AAPLOG. “Much of the money Leo controls is in Marble Freedom Trust, a conservative nonprofit group he was tapped to lead when it was formed in 2020 […] Marble Freedom Trust was also channeling money to various causes during the same time period via Donors Trust. Between May 2020 and April 2021, Marble Freedom Trust gave at least $41 million to Donors Trust, CNN reported, citing tax filings. Donors Trust in 2021 contributed $17.1 million to the 85 Fund and $2.2 million to [the Catholic Association Foundation], tax filings show. CAF, in turn, donated $500,000 to AAPLOG — one of the named plaintiffs in the mifepristone case — in the tax filing years of 2021 and 2022, making up nearly half of its contributions in both years, records show.” [The 19th, 1/4/24]

Anti-Abortion Hedge Fund Manager And Chair Of The American Principles Project Sean Fieler Has Donated Money To AAPLOG, Among Other Anti-Abortion Groups. “Fieler has supported a long list of organizations that are fighting to eliminate abortion, some that are very much in the news. He has given to the Federalist Society, which is credited with funneling anti-abortion judges to the bench. He has also supported the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The organization is far from a household name, but it is one of the groups now suing to overturn the approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. Abortion is one of the areas in which Fieler sees politics as key to achieving success.” [The Chronicle of Philanthropy, 3/7/23]