Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Falsely Claims That Sex And Gender Are The Same, Fueling Transphobia And Stigmatizing Gender-Affirming Health Care. “Our Values … Sanctity of the body asserting no difference between biological sex and gender except in the case of rare, diagnosable disorders of sexual development.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/28/23]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Signed A Letter Asking The Department Of Health And Human Services To Stop Its Proposed Non-Discrimination Rule, Which Would Interpret Section 1557 Of The Affordable Care Act To Define Sex Discrimination As Inclusive Of Sexual Orientation And Gender Identity, As Well As Strengthen Non-Discrimination Protections For Pregnant People. [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 3/11/22]

• The Letter Cites Medical Myths About Gender-Affirming Care. “[T]hese policies would be devastating for people—most especially children—struggling with gender identity issues. It would require dangerous and harmful treatments on physically healthy individuals that in many cases will lead to permanent sterility without off-setting mental health benefits. Under cover of ‘anti-discrimination’ the proposal would upend centuries of scientific understanding of what it means to be a man or a woman with respect to medicine and biology. Further, religious health care professionals and entities, as well as those who have scientific and medical objections to transition treatments, would be required to perform them.” [Ethics and Public Policy Center, 3/11/22]

As Opponents Of Reproductive Freedom And Medical Consensus, Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Believes That Abortion Is Not Health Care. “Abortion is not healthcare. As physicians and other healthcare professionals, we know that when we care for pregnant women, we are caring for two distinct patients. … The science is clear – at the moment of fertilization, a new distinct, living and whole human being comes into existence.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 11/1/2021]

• Several Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Partnering Organizations Called For Abortion Care To Be Suspended At The Start Of The COVID-19 Pandemic, Against The Expertise Of The American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists. “As representatives of over 30,000 physicians who practice according to the Hippocratic Oath, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG), the American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, the Catholic Medical Association, and the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons decry the call to continue elective abortion during the COVID-19 pandemic made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and others which falsely characterize elective abortion as essential healthcare. … ACOG spinning ‘elective’ abortion into ‘essential’ health care is more of the same. Continuing to perform elective abortions during a pandemic is medically irresponsible. Elective abortion is neither ‘essential’ nor ‘urgent,’ but it does consume critical resources such as masks, gloves, and other personal protective equipment, and unnecessarily exposes patients and physicians to pathogens.” [AAPLOG, accessed 3/28/23]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Spreads Medical Disinformation Which Falsely Links Accessing Abortion Care To Adverse Health Outcomes. “The evidence is clear that abortions increase the risk of preterm delivery in future pregnancies, increase a woman’s risk of mental health disorders and suicide and increase her risk of breast cancer if she has not yet had a full-term pregnancy. These risks, and the risks of her dying from abortion related complications, are even higher if the abortion is done in the second trimester and beyond.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 11/1/2021]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Infantilizes Pregnant People For Determining Their Own Reproductive Health Outcomes. “It is time for those of us in the medical profession to boldly defend the lives of all of our patients and demand that our preborn patients be protected and our pregnant patients be empowered instead of lied to. Women and their children deserve our support, not the destruction of abortion.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 11/1/2021]

Prior To Its Official Formation, The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Member Organizations Decried Fetal Tissue Research In A 2020 Statement On COVID-19 Vaccines. “It is … profoundly important to recognize the vaccines that may have been developed with the use of abortion-derived fetal cell lines. This awareness is necessary from the perspective of both the health care professional and the patient, and every participant in this process deserves to know the source of the vaccine used to allow them to follow their moral conscience. It is long overdue for researchers to abandon the use of abortion-derived cells.” [American College of Pediatricians, 11/2020]

When Texas’ Six-Week Abortion Ban Enforced By Civil Lawsuits Took Effect In September 2021, Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Applauded The Ban. “We represent approximately 30,000 physicians and other healthcare professionals who believe all pregnant women and their preborn babies deserve excellent healthcare. As such, we applaud Texas’s passion for protecting preborn children.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 9/2021]

• Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Uses Medical Disinformation About Abortion Care. “The medical evidence very clearly shows that it causes an increased risk of preterm birth in future pregnancies, increased risk of breast cancer, higher risk of mental health disorders (including suicide) and a significant risk for maternal mortality.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 9/2021]

• Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Uses Infantilizing Language Toward Pregnant People. “Abortion is not healthcare for the preborn child or her mother. … Since it is an antiquated myth that an unplanned pregnancy ruins every chance a woman or her child has to succeed in life, we recommend supporting women throughout and after their unplanned pregnancies.” [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 9/2021]

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 has represented herself as AHM’s president and is the current CEO of AAPLOG. 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.

American College of Pediatricians’ (ACPeds) former President Quentin Van Meter is a pediatrician and endocrinologist. In 2016, he was invited to give a lecture at the University of Western Australia that was then canceled following numerous student-led protests against Van Meter’s transphobia. Throughout 2020, Van Meter gave “expert testimony” twice to the Pennsylvania House Health Committee advocating against healthcare for transgender individuals despite a Texas judge ruling that he was “not an expert.” He was influential in ACPeds’ effort to develop and help states’ adopt transphobic model legislation. In submitted testimony that supported limiting access to gender-affirming care, Van Meter claimed to be on the clinical faculties of Emory University’s and Morehouse College’s medical schools as an adjunct professor, however, he hasn’t been affiliated with either school in years. Van Meter is listed as an officer of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (which ACPeds is a member of) on the organization’s 501(c)(3) application.

Erin Hawley, spouse of anti-abortion U.S. Senator Josh Hawley, is senior counsel at the anti-abortion and anti-LGBTQIA+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom. She also serves as vice president for ADF’s Center for Life & Regulatory Practice. She is arguing on behalf of the anti-abortion doctors and organizations in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. She argued the case before anti-abortion federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, who coincidentally previously donated to her husband’s senatorial campaign.

Leah Davis is listed as AHM’s registered agent with the Texas comptroller. She is a partner at Morgan Williamson LLP in Amarillo, Texas. Davis is a member of the Christian Legal Society, which filed an amicus brief in support of Mississippi in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

American Association Of Pro-Life Obstetricians And Gynecologists Is A Member-Organization Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 3/8/24]

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

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

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

Coptic Medical Association Of North America Is A Member-Organization Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. [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]

The American College Of Family Medicine Is A Member-Organization Of The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, accessed 4/18/24]

The American College Of Family Medicine Did Not Appear On The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Website Until After SCOTUS Heard Oral Arguments On Its Mifepristone Case. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 4/8/24]

The American College Of Family Medicine Was Newly Formed In 2023 And Incorporated As A Nonprofit On October 12, 2023; Equity Forward Is Unable To Locate The Organization’s Form 1023-EZ At This Time. [American College of Family Medicine, accessed 4/18/24]

Alliance Defending Freedom Is Representing The Anti-Abortion Plaintiffs In Their Attempt To Obstruct Access To Mifepristone. [Alliance Defending Freedom, accessed 3/8/24] 

In November 2022, 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]

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, 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 Rely On Biased, Non-Robust Citations, Using Footnotes From The Right-Wing Media Outlet National Review, AAPLOG Member Testimony Before Congress, An Article From The Catholic Medical Association’s Linacre Quarterly And Publications From The Anti-Abortion “Think Tank” Charlotte Lozier Institute, Which Serves As The “Research And Education Arm” Of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. [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’ 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]

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]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Strategically Filed Its Lawsuit In The United States 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]

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 Leadership) 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]

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]

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]

SCOTUS Will Hear Cert Petitions From The FDA And Mifeprex Manufacturer Danco Laboratories, But Not The Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine. [U.S. Supreme Court, 12/13/23]

If Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, Is Ultimately Decided In Favor Of The Plaintiffs, This Would Cause Significant Harm To Pregnant People. “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]

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]

Organizations That Submitted Amicus Briefs For Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine et al. Include Charlotte Lozier Institute, Concerned Women For America, Ethics And Public Policy Center, Family Research Council, Human Coalition And Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. [Justia, accessed 3/28/23]

Ahead Of SCOTUS Hearing The Case, 145 Anti-Abortion Congress Members Filed An Amicus Brief, Copying And Pasting Plaintiffs’ Pseudoscientific Arguments And Claiming The FDA Violated The 19th-Century Comstock Act. “Nearly 150 Republican lawmakers asked the Supreme Court Thursday to restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone—citing a law from 1873—when it hears a case on March 26. In a legal filing known as an amicus brief, 26 Senators and 119 Representatives argue that not only did the Food and Drug Administration not follow proper procedure when it updated the pill’s labeling in 2016 and then allowed telemedicine prescriptions in 2021, but they claim the agency ‘blatantly disregard[ed] the federal law’s prohibition on the mailing and interstate shipment of abortion-inducing drugs.’” [Jezebel, 2/29/24]

• Among The 145 Congress Members Was Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, Whose Wife Argued The Initial Case Before Judge Matthew Kacsmayrk, Who In Turn Gave Money To Hawley’s Senatorial Campaign. [Jezebel, 2/29/24]

Among Other Anti-Abortion Organizations Filing Amicus Briefs Before SCOTUS Are The Charlotte Lozier Institute And The Elliot Institute, Both Of Which Have Faced Retraction Scandals For Their Faulty Mifepristone Studies. [SCOTUSblog, 2/29/24]

Four Of Five Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Partnering Organizations 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]

Five Of Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Member Organizations Supported A Letter From Congressional Republicans To The U.S. Department Of Health And Human Services (HHS) And DOJ About A Dropped Lawsuit Over Anti-Abortion Conscience Protections. “U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) joined a bicameral letter led by Senators James Lankford (R-OK) and Tom Cotton (R-AR) and Representative Andy Harris (R-MD) to Attorney General Merrick Garland and Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) Xavier Becerra demanding answers about why the Department of Justice (DOJ) dropped a lawsuit against the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) […] The following groups voiced support for the letter: […] American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, […] American College of Pediatricians, Christian Medical & Dental Associations, Catholic Medical Association, Coptic Medical Association of North America […]” [U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer, 8/18/21]

• HHS’ Office Of Civil Rights (OCR) Is In Charge Of Enforcing Federal Conscience Protections. [HHS Watch, accessed 8/23/23]
• Under Its Director Roger Severino, The Trump Administration’s OCR Changed Federal Conscience Protections To Make It Easier For Providers To Deny Abortion Care As Well As Healthcare For Transgender People. “The department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) has been greatly strengthening and expanding protections for health care providers who have religious- or conscience-based objections to procedures such as abortion. […] Overseen by Severino, who has deep ties to the religious right, the makeover appears radical, one that critics worry will jeopardize the care of pregnant women and transgender individuals, as well as others who could be denied certain procedures.” [The Washington Post, 3/5/18]
• The Trump Administration’s OCR Filed The Lawsuit Against The University of Vermont Medical Center On Behalf Of A Nurse Who Objected To Assisting In Abortion Care. “The federal government says the University of Vermont Medical Center in Burlington, Vt., violated federal law by forcing a nurse to participate in an abortion despite her objections. The hospital issued a statement saying that the allegation is ‘not supported by the facts,’ as Vermont Public Radio reported. At the center of the dispute is a nurse, whose name is not public. According to a complaint her lawyers filed last May with the Office for Civil Rights, the nurse is Catholic and had informed her employer she could not participate in abortions because of her religious beliefs. Federal law protects health workers from discrimination based on religious or moral beliefs.” [NPR, 8/28/19]
• Under The Biden Administration, The OCR Dropped This Lawsuit. “In the August 28, 2019 NOV, OCR found that the University of Vermont Medical Center (UVMMC) violated the Church Amendments. The NOV stated that the violation was caused by UVMMC requiring a nurse to participate in an abortion despite her religious objection, and by maintaining an inadequate ‘Conflict of Care’ policy. The NOV was based on the premise that the Church Amendments create an ‘unqualified right’ of objecting employees to decline to participate in procedures to which they have a religious or moral objection. NOV, p. 4. That premise has been called into serious question by subsequent court decisions. […] Based on these subsequent legal developments and concurrent with the Department of Justice filing today, we are withdrawing the August 28, 2019 NOV and will continue to evaluate the underlying complaint.” [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 7/30/21]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Was Incorporated In Texas On August 5, 2022 And Shares An Address With Christian Medical & Dental Associations, One Of Its Member Organizations, In Bristol, Tennessee. 

[Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, accessed 3/28/23]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine’s Application For 501(c)(3) Status Was Approved On February 1, 2023.

[Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s Form 1023-EZ, obtained by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), 2/1/23]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Lists Former AAPLOG Executive Director Donna Harrison As Its Board Chair. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s Form 1023-EZ, obtained by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), 2/1/23]

Christian Medical & Dental Associations’ Jeffery Barrows, Former President Of ACPeds Quentin Van Meter, Coptic Medical Association of North America’s Mina Sawires, And Catholic Medical Association’s Michael Parker Are Listed As Officers Of AHM. [Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s Form 1023-EZ, obtained by Citizens for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington (CREW), 2/1/23]

Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine Was Registered In Tennessee As A 501(c)(3) Non-Profit In February 2023 And Has Tax-Exempt Status.

[ProPublica Nonprofit Explorer, accessed 3/28/23]