Concerns Arise Over Changes to Abortion Drug Rules
When President Joe Biden adjusted regulations regarding abortion medications, allowing them to be ordered online and delivered through the mail, many in the pro-life community raised alarms about potential risks, particularly the threat to mothers facing undiagnosed ectopic pregnancies.
According to a report from ProPublica, 200 women died from 2020 to 2025 due to these conditions, a notable increase from 100 deaths in the preceding six years. Rather than linking this rise to the surge in “telehealth” abortions, the report attributes the issue to protective laws aimed at unborn children. ProPublica backs this claim with narratives from two women who were denied treatment at hospitals in Texas and Arkansas, along with a mix of assumptions and at least one glaring falsehood.
One of the pointed inaccuracies is the assertion that, “Telehealth clinics ask questions that filter out patients at higher risk of ectopic pregnancy and follow up with those they treat to screen for symptoms.” This statement comes from Ushma Upadhyay, a researcher at the University of California, San Francisco. Her studies tend to favor the view that abortion is safe and justified under any scenario, which, while perhaps not surprising, casts her credibility into question.
To illustrate the ease with which one can obtain abortion pills online—regardless of their identity—consider a few notable cases:
- A Toledo doctor, Hassan Abbas, lost his medical license and will serve six months in jail after he ordered abortion pills online using his ex-wife’s driver’s license and forced the medication on his girlfriend, leading to the end of their pregnancy.
- Emerson Evans of Normal, IL, received a seven-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter after giving his girlfriend mifepristone in a smoothie and inserting additional pills. He claimed he purchased the pills for $50 from someone on a campus.
- Justin Anthony Banta faces attempted capital murder charges in Texas for allegedly slipping abortion medication into his girlfriend’s food and drink, resulting in their child’s death.
These examples reveal just a fraction of the troubling incidents occurring nationwide. It’s difficult to believe any abortion-pill supplier genuinely questioned these men pretending to be women. To explore the online ordering process, Dr. Christina Francis from the American Association of Pro-life Obstetricians and Gynecologists impersonated a 13-year-old girl seeking pills while disclosing alarming medical factors. You’d think from that scenario, the provider would deny her request, right?
Not at all. She received the pills through the mail, even in a state where such medications are prohibited.
ProPublica’s exploration of ectopic pregnancies appears steeped in speculation and, reflecting its left-leaning bias, a bit of wishful thinking. It’s not the first instance of this kind of reporting; in an earlier investigation, they suggested that a Georgia law on abortion led to the deaths of two women, despite evidence indicating other causes were at play.
Founded in 2007, ProPublica markets itself as an independent investigative journalism outlet with strong ethical bearings. In practice, however, it often seems more like a platform for the progressive narratives that resonate with its financial backers.
From 2020 to 2023, ProPublica received a substantial grant from the Mariposa Foundation, which has a history of funding transformative initiatives, alongside significant financial support to Planned Parenthood. Additionally, ProPublica has also welcomed contributions from various left-leaning advocates, including George Soros.
As such, any claims made by ProPublica regarding abortion should be approached with caution.
The deaths of women seeking abortions is unacceptable. The tragic loss of life due to ectopic pregnancies certainly requires deeper investigation and understanding. Blaming pro-life laws for these deaths, however, misrepresents the issue and undermines the seriousness of these women’s experiences.
