02 U.S. Politics

Most observers of the abortion debate would likely agree that it is primarily a matter of ethics, a contest between the Hippocratic standard of respect for human life and various forms of humanistic pragmatism that allow abortion as a way to address personal and social problems. Resolving that debate has engaged philosophers of medicine, religious leaders, and the few political figures who seriously address it, for decades, with shifts in public policy and law back and forth. The debate also necessarily involves the matter of real-world consequences, making data collection and analysis a crucial part of the discussion, even if they are not ultimately the primary drivers of convictions on so profound a set of questions.

This fact has led to a range of skirmishes and debates all their own. One example is the decision of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the Obama administration to drop the requirement that abortion pill (mifepristone) manufacturers report non-fatal events to the FDA involving the drug. Only deaths were, and still are under the Trump administration, subject to mandatory reporting.

As fresh controversy swirls around the FDA’s promise to review the safety of mifepristone, the status of future injury reporting remains in doubt, although it would be a welcome restoration of a policy with virtually no downside, especially as other FDA policy changes have increased risks to women who are taking the abortion drug regimen later in pregnancy, without a doctor’s visit, and no tests to rule out ectopic pregnancy and other serious health concerns.