Summary
The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) is a group that uses its members’ medical certifications to push false information regarding abortion and birth control. Since most of its claims fall outside what is accepted by the medical and scientific communities, AAPLOG has accused other medical professionals of using “politically correct” research. AAPLOG is notable for sending representatives to testify as “expert witnesses” in support of anti-abortion legislation and legal causes. AAPLOG also collaborated with Trump administration officials to help them select an anti-abortion candidate for a position that oversees federal family planning programs.
Last updated 4/2/2024.
Extremism
AAPLOG holds medical views that are contradicted by the scientific community and attacks reputable medical groups.
AAPLOG supports laws that require mandatory ultrasounds as medically necessary for abortion, contradictory to the views of major medical groups.
AAPLOG supports laws that require mandatory ultrasounds before abortions on the grounds that it is medically necessary.
“Therefore, the acceptable standard of care would be to obtain a sonogram evaluation of the pregnancy before performing a significant medical or surgical procedure on a pregnant woman. 1. American College of Radiology (ACR) practice guideline for the performance of obstetrical ultrasound. In: ACR practice guidelines and technical standards.” [AAPLOG.org, Accessed 8/28/19]
The American College of Obstetricians And Gynecologists (ACOG) stands firmly against ultrasound laws for violating patient privacy and mandating an unnecessary procedure. [ACOG.org, Accessed 8/28/19]
NARAL: “Forcing a patient to undergo a medically unnecessary procedure is unethical and demeaning, but that’s exactly what mandatory ultrasound laws do to women seeking abortion care.” [NARAL.org, Accessed 8/28/19]
AAPLOG treats birth control as abortion.
AAPLOG Executive Director Donna Harrison co-authored a paper which claimed that hormonal birth control causes abortion.
“Researchers Donna Harrison, Cara Buskmiller, and Monique Chireau published ‘Systematic Review of Ovarian Activity and Potential for Embryo Formation and Loss during the Use of Hormonal Contraception’ in the January 2019 Linacre Quarterly, a peer-reviewed publication of the Catholic Medical Association. Having examined scientific papers dating back to 1990 that studied the use of hormonal contraception, they found evidence that high levels of estrogen and progestin hormones, which circulate when ovaries produce ova, are accompanied by the conception of embryonic babies who die.” [LifeSite News, 3/29/19]
AAPLOG equates emergency contraceptives and IUDs with abortion.
“The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) says that Plan B can lead to ‘embryo death’ by preventing implantation and that “IUDs work by either killing the embryo or by preventing the embryo from implanting.’” [Guttmacher Policy Review, 12/09/14]
AAPLOG pushes false claims about fetal pain.
AAPLOG falsely claims that fetuses can feel pain as early as seven weeks.
“Fetal pain perception begins with the presence of cutaneous sensory receptors (nociceptors), which begin to develop in the peri-oral area at 7 weeks, spread to the palms and soles by 11 weeks, to trunk and proximal limbs by 15 weeks, and are present throughout the fetus’ entire body by 20 weeks. 4 As these sensory neurons develop, the unborn child begins to react to touch.” [AAPLOG, 2/13/19]
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]
AAPLOG supports laws that require physicians to tell patients about “abortion reversal” — a ‘procedure’ that has no basis in medical science.
AAPLOG supports laws mandating physicians inform their patients of the medically unfounded “abortion reversal.”
“The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists strongly supports laws which require women to be informed of the option of Abortion Pill Rescue as part of a woman’s right to informed consent prior to abortion.” [AAPLOG, February 2019]
Abortion reversal is not supported by data or the mainstream scientific community.
“For years, proponents of medication abortion (or chemical abortion, as some call it) have criticized a protocol aimed at reversing drug-induced abortions on the primary ground that the number of cases where such reversals have succeeded is small. Now, thanks to research by physicians who devised the abortion pill reversal regimen, evidence has been amassed that a model technique can be effective up to two-thirds of the time in saving the baby.” [Western Journal, 4/21/18]
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 existed.
“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.” [Rewire.News, 10/19/15]
AAPLOG strongly opposes emergency birth control to discourage teenagers from having sex.
AAPLOG equates emergency birth control and IUDs with abortion.
“The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) says that Plan B can lead to ‘embryo death’ by preventing implantation and that “IUDs work by either killing the embryo or by preventing the embryo from implanting.’” [Guttmacher Policy Review, 12/09/14]
AAPLOG Executive Director Donna Harrison called emergency birth control “the moral equivalent of homicide.”
“Such descriptions have become kindling in the fiery debate over abortion and contraception. Based on the belief that a fertilized egg is a person, some religious groups and conservative politicians say disrupting a fertilized egg’s ability to attach to the uterus is abortion, ‘the moral equivalent of homicide,’ as Dr. Donna Harrison, who directs research for the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, put it.” [New York Times, 6/05/12]
Former AAPLOG President Mary Davenport said the group’s opposition to emergency birth control was to stoke the fear of unwanted pregnancies to discourage teenagers from having sex.
“Dr. Mary Davenport, recent president of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, acknowledged that her group’s opposition to Plan B is rooted in broader concerns about casual sexual activity, teenage pregnancy and single motherhood. ‘Fear of pregnancy is a deterrent to sexual activity,’ Dr. Davenport said. ‘When you introduce something like this, it changes people’s behaviors, and they have more risky sex. Teens will be counting on this morning-after pill to bail them out, and they’ll have more casual encounters.’” [New York Times, 4/08/13]
AAPLOG accused leading medical groups of only pulling studies “that agree with their politically correct positions.”
AAPLOG accused leading medical groups such as ACOG of only pulling studies “that agree with their politically correct positions.”
AAPLOG Supports Unnecessary Restrictions On Abortion Care
AAPLOG CEO Christina Francis Opposes Telemedicine Abortion Care, Which Is Safe And Lowers Barriers To Accessing Care. “Anti-abortion advocates, however, stress that medical abortion should require in-person exams. ‘Women deserve excellent health care, and excellent health care does not involve talking to someone online,’ said Dr. Christina Francis, board chair of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. ‘It involves actually being seen and being evaluated to make sure that if she’s going to make this decision, she’s an appropriate candidate to make this decision and she’s not putting herself at severe risk by taking these medications.’” [Kaiser Family Foundation, 9/3/21]
AAPLOG CEO Christina Francis Advocates For Targeted Restrictions On Abortion Providers’ Proximity To Hospitals. [Wall Street Journal, 3/3/20]
AAPLOG Endorses “Baby Olivia,” An Anti-Abortion Propaganda Video And Model Legislation Created By Live Action
Former AAPLOG Executive Director Donna Harrison Endorsed The Propaganda Film “Baby Olivia,” Which Is Being Pushed As Required Curriculum In Middle And High Schools Through Model Legislation Across States. “‘Baby Olivia’ uses groundbreaking animation to depict medically-accurate information about life in the womb from the moment of fertilization all the way until birth. The video allows students to understand that human development starts well before birth, as it notes significant markers in the preborn child’s growth and development for every week of pregnancy, such as the baby’s heart, brain, and lungs. […] The video has also been endorsed by a panel of medical experts, including Dr. David Bolender, PhD, Cell Biology, Neurobiology & Anatomy, Medical College of Wisconsin; Dr. Donna Harrison of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Michelle Cretella, MD, Executive Director of the American College of Pediatricians; and Jeffrey Barrows, DO, MA, Senior VP Bioethics and Public Policy for the Christian Medical & Dental Associations.” [Live Action News, 2/29/24]
For Its Dangerous Dissemination Of Disinformation, AAPLOG Was Banned From ACOG’s Annual Education Conference In 2023, The Year After The Dobbs Decision. “The incoming president of AAPLOG, Dr. Christina Francis, announced on Monday that, despite 15 years of hosting a booth at the ACOG’s Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology meeting, AAPLOG was denied entry upon their representatives’ arrival.” [The Federalist, 2/28/23]
Influence
AAPLOG leaders frequently testify or offer to testify in favor of draconian anti-abortion legislation.
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 referred a candidate (and resume) for director of the HHS Office Of Population Affairs (OPA) to Steven Valentine, chief of staff to the HHS Assistant Secretary for Health, in January 2018…
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]
… Then, in January 2019, Foley was invited to speak at the 2019 AAPLOG conference, where she wanted to discuss changes to the Title X grant process.
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]
AAPLOG, On Behalf Of Itself And As A Member Organization Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, Is Trying To Remove The Abortion Medication Mifepristone From The Market By Suing The FDA
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.
Financial
AAPLOG Is Registered In Indiana As A 501(c)(3) Nonprofit
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]