A newly released analysis is raising serious questions about the safety profile of mifepristone, the drug responsible for over half of abortions in the United States. While abortion-rights advocates, corporate media outlets, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintain that the drug is “safe and effective,” a comprehensive study based on real-world insurance claims paints a far more concerning picture.

Described as the “largest known study of the abortion pill,” the report was conducted by Ethics and Public Policy Center President Ryan Anderson and Director of Data Analysis Jamie Bryan Hall. Using a massive dataset that included Medicaid, TRICARE, Medicare, Department of Veterans Affairs, and private insurance claims, the researchers analyzed 865,727 prescriptions of mifepristone distributed to 692,873 women between 2017 and 2023.

The findings are striking: approximately 10.9 percent of those chemical abortions—about 94,605 cases—involved potentially life-threatening “serious adverse events” within 45 days of taking the drug. These complications included emergency room visits, hemorrhage, sepsis, infection, and follow-up surgeries. This complication rate is at least 22 times higher than the <0.5 percent figure cited by the FDA on the Mifeprex label.

The researchers noted that some patients experienced complications in multiple categories, and that the 45-day window used for measurement was “conservative,” especially considering that the FDA has relied on studies using a timeframe of up to 72 days.

One chart from the study revealed that among women who sought post-abortion care within 45 days:

• 15.1% visited the emergency room,
• 8.5% required surgical treatment,
• 2.5% experienced hemorrhage,
• 1.9% suffered infections, and
• 0.9% were diagnosed with sepsis.

“These outcomes were drawn from actual claims data,” the researchers emphasized, “not modeled projections or self-reported surveys.” In Anderson’s words to The Federalist: “This study is the statistical equivalent of a category 5 hurricane hitting the prevailing narrative of the abortion industry. It reveals, based on real-world data, the shocking number of women who suffer serious medical consequences because of the abortion pill.”

The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000 based on 10 clinical trials involving only 30,966 patients—women who were described as “prescreened,” “generally healthy,” and treated in controlled environments. The authors of the new study argue that those trials are both outdated and unrepresentative of today’s broad and diverse patient base.

“The women in our dataset receive (or fail to receive) pre- and post-abortion healthcare of the real-world quality that prevails in the U.S. today, not the carefully controlled regimen of care that ordinarily prevails in a clinical trial,” the study says.

Despite repeated petitions from pro-life medical groups to revisit the approval of mifepristone, the FDA has consistently declined to take action. Critics argue the agency failed to meet its legal obligation to address the concerns. Meanwhile, regulatory oversight has continued to loosen. By 2016, the FDA under the Obama administration had altered the drug’s dosing, cut down the number of in-person doctor visits required, broadened who could prescribe it, and eliminated requirements to report non-fatal complications.

The Biden administration went further. In 2021, the FDA permanently allowed mifepristone to be delivered by mail, bypassing the need for a clinic visit. Pharmacies like Walgreens and CVS were later authorized to dispense the pill. As of 2023, a woman can obtain mifepristone with just one telehealth appointment with “any approved healthcare provider (not necessarily a physician)” and self-administer the drug at home. Alarmingly, prescribers are not required to report adverse events unless they learn the patient has died.

The study recommends that the FDA reinstate its original safety protocols. These would include requiring multiple in-person visits, physician-only prescribing, ultrasound confirmation of gestational age and the absence of ectopic pregnancy, and mandatory reporting of complications. The goal, according to the authors, is not only to reduce immediate harm but also to facilitate better long-term safety tracking.

“The FDA should further investigate the harm this drug causes to women and, based on objective safety criteria, reconsider its approval altogether. Women deserve better than the abortion pill,” the study concludes.

While legal efforts to challenge the pill’s availability have so far been unsuccessful, the issue remains live. In 2023, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the merits of mifepristone’s approval, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. However, Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s opinion left open the possibility for the Court to consider a more suitable challenge in the future.

SOURCE: THE FEDERALIST

Newly released chat logs reveal that the FBI silenced an employee who attempted to confirm to Twitter that the Hunter Biden laptop story was legitimate on the day it was published. On October 14, 2020, the same day The New York Post first reported on Hunter Biden’s laptop, the FBI instructed employees, “do not discuss [the] Biden matter,” according to chat logs released by the House Judiciary Committee. The logs also indicate that an analyst who confirmed the laptop’s authenticity to Twitter during a meeting was subsequently subjected to a “gag order” and reprimanded by FBI officials.

Laura Dehmlow, an FBI official with the bureau’s foreign influence task force, previously testified that during the call with Twitter, an analyst confirmed the laptop was real before an FBI attorney stated the bureau would not comment further. The chat logs show internal discussions within the FBI on how to handle the situation, with messages reiterating the directive not to discuss the laptop.

Following the meeting, the analyst was “admonished” for speaking up, and one FBI staffer complained that the analyst “won’t [sic] shut up” as instructed. The FBI declined to comment on the matter. The bureau had already verified the laptop in late 2019 by cross-referencing the device’s serial number with Biden’s iCloud storage, according to FBI Special Agent Erica Jensen’s testimony during Hunter Biden’s gun trial last year. Federal agents obtained data from the laptop after securing a search warrant as part of an ongoing criminal investigation into Biden’s tax affairs.

IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley provided a similar account to Congress in 2023, alleging misconduct by IRS and DOJ officials in the investigation. Independent journalists Catherine Herridge and Michael Shellenberger first reported on the chat logs. Herridge has claimed that she was prevented from reporting on the laptop ahead of the 2020 election during her tenure at CBS News. Both Twitter and Facebook censored The New York Post’s reporting on the laptop after the FBI and other government agencies spent nearly a year preparing social media platforms to suppress the story.

Attorney General Pam Bondi later disbanded the foreign influence task force, which had played a role in coordinating content moderation efforts. House Republicans on the Judiciary Committee and the Weaponization Subcommittee have been investigating the suppression of the laptop story and other instances of political censorship.

Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has been vocal in opposing social media companies working with the government to restrict certain viewpoints. Last year, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg acknowledged that Facebook was wrong to suppress the Post’s reporting and criticized the Biden administration for pressuring the platform to censor certain discussions related to COVID-19.

Twitter, now rebranded as X, was acquired by Elon Musk in late 2022. Following the acquisition, Musk authorized the release of the “Twitter Files,” which detailed how company executives decided to censor the laptop story and limit the reach of conservative accounts. In December, then-President Joe Biden pardoned his son before his sentencing for federal gun and tax charges. Hunter Biden had been convicted on gun-related charges in Delaware and pleaded guilty to tax violations in California.

Hunter Biden’s foreign business dealings, along with the IRS whistleblower allegations, were central to the House GOP’s impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden. The investigation uncovered over $27 million in payments from foreign sources to Hunter Biden and his associates during and after Joe Biden’s tenure as vice president.

The inquiry also documented instances where Joe Biden met with his son’s business partners and joined them on speakerphone approximately 20 times. The Trump administration recently promoted Shapley and IRS whistleblower Joseph Ziegler to senior adviser positions after they faced alleged retaliation within the IRS.

Additionally, former President Trump granted clemency to two of Hunter Biden’s business associates, Devon Archer and Jason Galanis, both of whom testified during the impeachment proceedings.

SOURCE: NATIONAL REVIEW

The Idaho Legislature has passed a bill allowing the death penalty for adults convicted of sexually abusing children age 12 and younger. House Bill 380 now heads to Gov. Brad Little for final consideration.

The bill, cosponsored by Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, and House Assistant Majority Leader Josh Tanner, R-Eagle, introduces a new charge: aggravated lewd conduct with children age 12 and younger, which would be eligible for the death penalty. It also establishes mandatory minimum prison sentences for aggravated lewd conduct with minors under age 16 that do not qualify for the death penalty.

The bill passed the Senate on a 30-5 vote, with opposition from three Democrats and two Republicans. The House had previously approved it unanimously, 63-0, with seven members absent. Once transmitted to Gov. Little, he will have five days, excluding Sundays, to either sign the bill into law, allow it to become law without his signature, or veto it. If enacted, the law would take effect July 1.

Supporters Say Bill Sends a Clear Message

Skaug has argued that Idaho has some of the most lenient child rape laws in the country. Sen. Doug Ricks, R-Rexburg, a cosponsor, said the bill ensures severe consequences for the worst offenders.

“Unlike most states, Idaho currently lacks mandatory minimum sentences for these horrific crimes — meaning judges have the discretion to place the worst offenders on probation,” Ricks told the Senate. “This legislation ensures that those who commit the most severe offenses against children face significant consequences, sending a clear message that Idaho will not tolerate the sexual abuse of minors.”

Currently, Idaho law only allows the death penalty for first-degree murder with aggravating circumstances.

Idaho Senate Minority Leader Melissa Wintrow, D-Boise, opposed the bill, stating that while child abuse should carry severe penalties, this bill represents a significant policy shift for the state.

“Unfortunately, I only heard from four sources regarding this bill. And that feels very uncomfortable, when I think we need a vigorous and long debate and discussion,” Wintrow said.

Potential Legal Challenges

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) that imposing the death penalty for child rape is unconstitutional. However, Florida passed a similar law in 2023, followed by Tennessee in 2024.

Anticipating a legal challenge, Skaug told lawmakers he believes the Supreme Court could rule differently today.

“You can say, ‘Well, that’s unconstitutional, Bruce. Why would you bring that?’ Well, it was — according to a 5-4 decision in 2008. I don’t think that would be the case today,” Skaug, an attorney, told lawmakers. “That’s my professional opinion. That’s the opinion of many other attorneys.”

Skaug has stated that the death penalty would be rarely pursued under this bill. Currently, Idaho has nine inmates on death row.

Concerns Over Legal Ramifications

During a Senate Judiciary and Rules Committee hearing, David Martinez of the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers testified against the bill, warning that it could apply more broadly than intended.

“The bill doesn’t focus on ‘the worst of the worst,’ could potentially expose victims to decades of reliving trauma, and fails to account for Idaho’s shortage of qualified death penalty defense attorneys,” Martinez said.

The bill lists more than a dozen aggravating factors for seeking the death penalty, and Martinez argued that many cases would qualify under those criteria.

Holly Rebholtz, representing the Idaho Prosecuting Attorneys Association, disagreed, stating that aggravated lewd conduct cases would be rare.

“I don’t think these crimes are going to come into play very often. But when they do, they are the most serious crimes we see. And again, the prosecutors believe that the most serious crimes against children deserve a serious punishment,” Rebholtz testified.

Skaug estimated that, in a worst-case scenario, the bill could lead to two death penalty cases per year, with costs reaching up to $1 million per case.

Opposition From Some Republicans

Sen. Dan Foreman, R-Moscow, a retired police officer and combat veteran, voted against the bill, arguing that society is blurring the line between justice and revenge.

“I see society starting to go down a dangerous road here. Not just with this bill, but in general — where we are starting to equate revenge with justice. And that’s a slippery slope,” Foreman said.

Senate Majority Leader Lori Den Hartog, R-Meridian, countered that the bill is about accountability, not retribution.

“When I look at the types of circumstances that would lead to these charges — and I think about the irreparable and irreversible damage done to a child who then has to live with the consequences of these actions upon them for the rest of their lives — I think this is about accountability and about how we value life,” she said.

Second Attempt at Passing a Similar Bill

This is the second time Skaug and Tanner have introduced a child sex abuse death penalty bill. Last year, their proposal passed the House but never received a hearing in the Senate.

The new bill also establishes mandatory minimum prison sentences for aggravated lewd conduct with minors under 16. The minimum sentence would be 25 years in prison.

Under the bill, lewd conduct includes, but is not limited to, “genital-genital contact, oral-genital contact, anal-genital contact, oral-anal contact, manual-anal contact, or manual-genital contact” when intended to arouse, appeal to, or gratify “lust or passions or sexual desires.”

Gov. Little’s decision on the bill is expected in the coming days.