63% of all U.S. abortions in 2023 were mifepristone-based according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Not only could the court's decision further curtail abortion access across the country, but it could also have wider implications for FDA regulatory authority.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have far-reaching effects on access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Not only could the court's decision further curtail abortion access across the country, but it could also have wider implications for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulatory authority. Americans have increasingly turned to medication abortions in recent years when seeking to terminate pregnancies, with 63% of all U.S. abortions in 2023 being mifepristone-based according to the Guttmacher Institute.
The article had been published by an anti-abortion research institute and concluded that medication abortion was far less safe than the accepted scientific consensus
Within a couple days of Adkins' complaint, Sage began investigating. Within weeks, Sage retracted not one but three papers by the anti-abortion researchers.
Researchers are skeptical that Sage's retractions alone will make a difference in the court's decision.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author of the study that was published by an anti-abortion research institute has been quoted as saying that he reached out to Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology after reading their editorial policy on junk science. However, this statement contradicts Sage's investigation into Adkins' complaint which found no evidence of any contact between the author and the journal prior to publication. Secondly, the article has been heavily cited in court briefs arguing against medication abortion despite being retracted by Sage due to poor-quality evidence. This is a clear example of deceptive use of scientific research for political purposes.
The author's statement that he reached out to Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology after reading their editorial policy on junk science contradicts Sage's investigation into Adkins' complaint which found no evidence of any contact between the author and the journal prior to publication.
The article has been heavily cited in court briefs arguing against medication abortion despite being retracted by Sage due to poor-quality evidence.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses anecdotal evidence to make a generalization about the quality of research produced by anti-abortion groups. This is an example of hasty generalization. Additionally, the author quotes experts who use inflammatory rhetoric when discussing their concerns about poor-quality evidence being used in court cases and legislation related to abortion access.
The way this study used this situation to exaggerate, and I’ll say obfuscate, the truth behind mifepristone's safety profile is where I thought: ‘I’ll reach out to the journal and say I’ve got these issues,”
Researchers are skeptical that Sage’s retractions alone will make a difference in the court's decision.
The anti-abortion movement pours money into research groups such as the Charlotte Lozier Institute, whose raison d’être is to produce articles its activists can cite in litigation, legislation and promotional materials.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses how a pharmacy professor named Chris Adkins emailed his concerns about an academic article to the editors of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. The article had been published by an anti-abortion research institute and concluded that medication abortion was far less safe than the accepted scientific consensus. Adkins' complaint led Sage, which publishes the journal, to begin investigating and eventually retract not one but three papers by the anti-abortion researchers. The article also discusses how judges have repeatedly adopted poor-quality evidence to justify litigation and legislation to restrict abortion, often that evidence is produced by the anti-abortion movement itself. Researchers are skeptical that Sage's retractions alone will make a difference in the court's decision.
The article discusses how Chris Adkins emailed his concerns about an academic article to the editors of Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology. The author is Jessica Glenza.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jessica Glenza has a conflict of interest on the topics of FDA and AHM as she is reporting for The Guardian which is known to have a liberal stance on abortion rights. Additionally, her article mentions Chris Adkins who was involved in an anti-abortion lawsuit against Planned Parenthood.
The author's employer, The Guardian, has a well-documented liberal stance on abortion rights.
The Supreme Court declared nearly two years ago that the rules on abortion were now up to the states.
Whether patients can access mifepristone at all isn't at stake; courts have agreed that the statute of limitations is up to challenge the FDA's 2000 approval of the drug. But when and how they can do so is still debatable: The 5th Circuit nixed changes made by the agency in recent years that made it possible for women to obtain mifepristone more easily.
The rest of the world has been engaged in similarly rigorous research and has come to a similar conclusion: At least 94 countries have approved mifepristone.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that reproductive rights rest 'yet again' in the hands of the Supreme Court when it has already ruled on this issue and set new rules for states to follow. This statement implies a sense of uncertainty or instability which does not reflect reality. Secondly, the article presents an opinion as fact by stating that mifepristone is safe and effective for almost a quarter century without providing any evidence to support this claim. Thirdly, the author uses emotional manipulation by claiming that patients seeking abortions are in more danger without mifepristone than with it. This statement is not supported by scientific evidence and may be misleading readers.
The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine must show existing or imminently impending injury caused by the broader availability of mifepristone. Yet they, emergency room doctors, neither use nor prescribe mifepristone.
Whether patients can access mifepristone at all isn't at stake; courts have agreed that the statute of limitations is up to challenge the FDA's 2000 approval of the drug.
The Supreme Court declared nearly two years ago when it overruled Roe v Wada, that the rules on abortion were now up to the states
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The first is an appeal to authority when the author states that 'doctors and scientists at the FDA know little about reproductive rights'. This statement implies that their expertise in this area is limited, which is not necessarily true. Additionally, it suggests a bias towards those who hold certain beliefs or opinions on reproductive rights. The second fallacy found in the article is an example of inflammatory rhetoric when the author states that 'patients seeking abortions are in more danger without mifepristone than with it'. This statement exaggerates the risks associated with not using mifepristone and ignores other factors that may contribute to these risks. The third fallacy found is an example of a dichotomous depiction when the author states that 'patients can access mifepristone at all' but then goes on to describe restrictions placed on health providers prescribing it. This creates a false sense of choice for patients and ignores other options available to them.
The court agreed to hear FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine after two panels of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled to impose significant restrictions on health providers prescribing mifepristone
Whether patients can access mifepristone at all isn't at stake; courts have agreed that the statute of limitations is up to challenge the FDA's 2000 approval of the drug.
The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine must show existing or imminently impending injury caused by the broader availability of mifepristone. Yet they, emergency room doctors, neither use nor prescribe mifepristone.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the FDA and their decision to approve mifepristone. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who oppose abortion rights such as 'emergency room doctors' and claims they have a hypothetical injury when treating patients who have taken mifepristone, which is exceedingly rare. The article also presents the FDA's decision to loosen regulations on mifepristone in a negative light by claiming it violated crucial safeguards, despite study upon study showing that fewer than 1% of mifepristone patients need hospitalization and even these can't be confidently attributed to the drug. The article also uses language such as 'terminating a pregnancy with mifepristone's usual companion pill, misoprostol, is possible but results in more cramping and bleeding.' which implies that taking mifepristone is dangerous when it has been proven safe and effective for almost a quarter century. The article also uses language such as 'The risk of severe complication from childbirth hovers around 1.4%' to make the reader think that taking mifepristine is more dangerous than giving birth, which isn't true.
emergency room doctors
hypothetical injury
terminating a pregnancy with mifepristone results in more cramping and bleeding.
The risk of severe complication from childbirth hovers around 1.4%
The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have far-reaching effects on access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
Not only could the court's decision further curtail abortion access across the country, but it could also have wider implications for the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory authority.
Americans have increasingly turned to abortion pills in recent years when seeking to terminate pregnancies. Medication abortions accounted for 63% of all U.S. abortions in 2023, the highest figure on record, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Supreme Court could determine abortion pill access when in fact they are only hearing arguments over whether the FDA erred when allowing for expanded access to mifepristone.
The title of the article implies that the Supreme court will be determining abortion pill access but this is not accurate. The article states that 'the Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Tuesday in a case that could have far-reaching effects on access to the abortion pill mifepristone.'
In paragraph 2, it says 'Not only could the court's decision further curtail abortion access across the country, but it could also have wider implications for the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory authority.' This is a lie by omission as there are no examples of how this would happen.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone in 2000 without providing any evidence or context for this decision. Additionally, the author presents a false dilemma when stating that if the Supreme Court reimposes restrictions on telemedicine appointments for abortion pills, it would effectively prevent patients from using them altogether. This is not true since many states allow doctors to prescribe mifepristone in-person up to 12 weeks into pregnancy. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric by stating that curtailing access to medication abortions could have wider implications for the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory authority, without providing any evidence or context for this claim.
The article cites the FDA's approval of mifepristone in 2000 as a fact without providing any evidence or context. This is an appeal to authority fallacy.
Bias
(80%)
The article is biased towards the idea that access to medication abortion should be restricted. The author uses language such as 'curtail' and 'restrictions' to portray any changes in regulations negatively.
If a ruling were made that reimposes restrictions on mifepristone, it would effectively prevent patients from using telemedicine appointments to acquire abortion pills and shorten the timeframe for mifepristone use. <br> Reimposing the FDA's old seven-week limit for mifepristone would have a more limited practical effect since in most states doctors can legally use medical discretion to prescribe the pill 12 weeks into pregnancy, but it would still curtail access even in legal states.
> Not only could the court's decision further curtail abortion access across the country, but it could also have wider implications for the Food and Drug Administration's regulatory authority. <br> The big picture: Americans have increasingly turned to abortion pills in recent years when seeking to terminate pregnancies.
The Supreme Court temporarily blocked any restrictions from taking effect while challenges to the FDA's authority played out. <br> State of play: In August, a three-judge panel at the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld portions of the previous ruling that limited access to mifepristone.
, a method of ending a pregnancy that can fit through the mail and be taken from the comfort of home. The drug was already the most common drug used in medication abortions before the court’s bombshell decision, and data shows that its use has ticked up as abortion clinics shuttered across conservative-led states.
a decades-long effort to legitimize right-wing legal theories that is fueled in large part by a network of dark-money groups — the dismantling of Roe v. Wade had been a pinnacle achievement, leading to short-lived questions about how to proceed.
August 2022, a collection of five anti-abortion medical groups filed to incorporate as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in Amarillo, Texas. None of the groups were based in the small city, or even the state. But anchoring the umbrella organization in Amarillo provided an excuse to file a federal lawsuit in Amarillo, where there was a 100% chance that the case would be picked up by one man: U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
Accuracy
The drug was already the most common drug used in medication abortions before the court's bombshell decision
A collection of five anti-abortion medical groups filed to incorporate as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine in Amarillo, Texas. None of the groups were based in the small city, or even the state.
The study Adkins complained about is central to the doctors' case and was cited heavily by a federal district court in Amarillo, Texas that kicked off the government's appeal when it found in favor of anti-abortion doctors.
Deception
(30%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that the Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to U.S abortion rights two years ago when it sent it back to the states with its ruling on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. However, this statement is misleading as Roe v Wade was overturned and not just sent back to the states for reconsideration.
The Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to U.S abortion rights two years ago
However, this statement is misleading as Roe v Wada was overturned
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to U.S abortion rights two years ago and that it ruled on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization which overturned Roe v Wade, without providing any evidence or context for these claims.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the Supreme Court took a sledgehammer to U.S abortion rights two years ago and that it ruled on Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization which overturned Roe v Wade, without providing any evidence or context for these claims.
Bias
(75%)
The article is biased towards the far right and their efforts to dismantle abortion access. The author uses language that dehumanizes those who hold pro-choice views by referring to them as 'ultraconservatives'. Additionally, the author implies that these groups are responsible for short-lived questions about how to proceed after Roe v Wade was overturned.
The campaign to dismantle abortion access continues, spurred on by a powerful network of ultraconservatives.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest with regards to abortion rights. The author is Sara Boboltz who was appointed by former President Donald Trump and serves on the Supreme Court.
.
“abortion pill” mifepristone, a method of ending a pregnancy that can fit through the mail and be taken from the comfort of home.
appointed Kacsmaryk to the court in 2017
Former President Donald Trump
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of abortion rights as they are reporting on an article that discusses the use and accessibility of mifepristone. The author also mentions their personal experience with Judge Kacsmaryk who was appointed by former President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court.
The article discusses how data shows that its (mifepristone) use has ticked up as abortion clinics shuttered across conservative-led states.
The author mentions their personal experience with Judge Kacsmaryk who was appointed by former President Donald Trump to the Supreme Court.
