Former VP Mike Pence’s Think Tank Requests FDA Documents on Abortion Pill

Advancing American Freedom, the think tank led by former Vice President Mike Pence, has officially requested the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide documents concerning the risks linked to the abortion pill, mifepristone. This request was made public on Friday.

The organization argues that the FDA, during prior administrations, may have taken questionable actions that resulted in the approval of a drug whose dangers were inadequately disclosed. It’s a significant move, especially considering the background of ongoing debates surrounding this medication.

Dr. Marty Makary, an FDA Commissioner, recently shared with Politico that he hasn’t made any definite plans to alter policies regarding mifepristone. However, he stated that he is open to listening to those who express concerns about the drug.

Nearly a year ago, Advancing American Freedom submitted a Freedom of Information Act request for documents that Congress had previously asked from the FDA concerning the abortion drug, with specific dates in June and July 1996, as well as September 1996.

As no response was received from the FDA, the organization decided to take legal action to ensure compliance with their request.

In their latest correspondence to the FDA, they expressed hope that the documents could be made available under the new Trump administration as part of their FOIA request, ideally avoiding further court proceedings.

The think tank referenced a study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, revealing that around 11% of women who used mifepristone experienced severe complications, including sepsis and hemorrhaging, within a 45-day period. This rate is notably higher—22 times—than earlier reports suggested.

The letter commended the FDA for its commitment to thoroughly review mifepristone’s safety in light of this new study, which indicates significant risks to women using the drug.

Advancing American Freedom is optimistic that the requested documents are still available and can shed light on what they argue were improper procedures by the FDA in the past. They believe these documents are essential to understanding how a drug with serious adverse effects was approved with insufficient transparency.