Misinformation and junk science about abortion are spreading at alarming rates and becoming key components in legislation, litigation, and federal regulatory action, according to reproductive health experts and advocates. The latest front is a lawsuit filed by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill’s office seeking to reinstate in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortion. The case, Louisiana v. FDA, was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-abortion legal group, on behalf of the state and a plaintiff who said she was coerced by her partner into taking abortion medication after receiving it in the mail. The suit challenges the Food and Drug Administration’s 2023 decision to allow telehealth prescribing of mifepristone, calling it unlawful and dangerous. Meanwhile, anti-abortion lawmakers in Congress introduced the Clean Water for All Life Act in March, citing junk science to claim that mifepristone contaminates drinking water and seeking to prohibit telehealth dispensing; the bill remains in committee. Pressure from anti-abortion advocates has also led the Environmental Protection Agency to include mifepristone in a study of potential drinking-water contaminants and the FDA to conduct a “safety study” of the drug based on a self-published report that has been widely debunked. Mifepristone has been FDA-approved since 2000, and more than a hundred peer-reviewed studies have shown it to be safe and effective. Despite that record, the repeated focus on the drug by officials and litigants is creating doubt and confusion among patients and the public.
The pattern of relying on junk science is not new, but experts say it has become more aggressive since the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision. Anti-abortion advocates have long used studies that do not adhere to rigorous standards and lack transparency about methods or data sets, making them impossible to replicate as reputable peer-reviewed journals require. These studies are used to advance false narratives about abortion: that it is unsafe, that it causes fertility problems and mental health harm, and that medication abortion is often the result of coercion. Anna Bernstein, principal federal policy advisor at the Guttmacher Institute, said the junk-science papers about mifepristone draw conclusions that go far beyond their findings. “They are just calling for increased restrictions on mifepristone that don’t have anything to do with what outcomes they’ve actually looked at, which points to this political motivation rather than rigorous scientific methods,” she said. Bernstein said misinformation is ramping up because, even after Dobbs, many people can still access abortion care. “It’s already difficult to navigate state laws, which are often changing, and bans around abortion, and misinformation just adds further confusion to abortion seekers,” she said. “These narratives trickle down and make it less clear what care is available and how safe medication abortion is.” The result, she said, is an environment in which people are uncertain whether a safe, FDA-approved drug is safe at all.
Providers see the consequences of that uncertainty every day. Dr. Kassi Avent, a New Jersey-based family medicine doctor and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health who has provided abortions in three states, said that nearly every patient arrives with questions fueled by false claims, especially the idea that abortion will harm future fertility. “Their ability to conceive in the future is so important to them, so the misinformation that abortion affects fertility really impacts how they think about their decision in that moment,” Avent said. Patients also express fears that abortion will cause dangerous bleeding or other complications. The confusion extends beyond abortion seekers. Recent polling by KFF, a health policy research organization, found that 60% of adults are now aware of mifepristone, but 41% are unsure whether medication abortion is safe. Only 22% believe it is unsafe. Audrey Kearney, senior survey analyst for KFF’s Public Opinion and Survey Research Program, said the large share of “unsure” responses points to a lack of awareness about the safety of abortion pills. “As the safety is called into question by high-ranking officials, it could cast doubt for people,” she said. “As [mifepristone] is getting re-reviewed, why would they trust that it is actually safe?” Kearney also noted that public trust in public health agencies has declined since the COVID-19 pandemic, while doctors remain the most trusted source on health issues. “Having a trusted doctor, a relationship with a provider, makes you less susceptible to misinformation,” she said. “It doesn’t mean that people who don’t have trusted doctors believe misinformation, but they might be more unsure about certain claims.”
Communities that are already underserved by the healthcare system are particularly vulnerable to false information, advocates warn. Lupe M. Rodríguez, executive director of the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, said anti-abortion groups have targeted communities pushed to the margins of healthcare. “When folks don’t have access to care, they’re looking for whatever resource is presented to them,” she said. “Many of our communities rely on social media and messaging platforms, which are lifelines for communication, and they are also places, unfortunately, where misinformation and disinformation is rampant and unmitigated and unchecked.” She noted that tech platforms already struggle to moderate false content in English and often have little or no capacity for Spanish-language misinformation. “It forms the basis for misinformation that folks carry in the real world,” Rodríguez said. “We see the consequences of this every day: rising rates of maternal mortality, shortages and delays in care. This is compounded with the fears that folks have about immigration enforcement. Misinformation on top of that has the ability to thrive.” For people who are already navigating immigration fears, work schedules, childcare, or lack of transportation, the added burden of false information can be overwhelming and may prevent them from seeking timely care.
The legal fight over mifepristone has become a particularly acute source of confusion. Louisiana v. FDA is one of several lawsuits in which anti-abortion activists have used narratives about medication abortion to justify restrictions. The state is seeking to reinstate in-person dispensing of mifepristone, arguing that the FDA’s decision to allow telehealth dispensing in 2023 was unlawful and dangerous; the plaintiffs have cited faulty studies as part of their evidence. On May 1, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Louisiana’s request to reinstate in-person dispensing while its appeal was pending, and the order briefly took effect nationwide. The next day, defendants in the case, including the two companies that manufacture mifepristone, filed emergency appeals with the Supreme Court, which quickly preserved telehealth dispensing as the case proceeds. But the damage was done. “Confusion was the goal, and the runaround with mifepristone meant misinformation spread that it wasn’t safe or the efficacy wasn’t there,” said Vanessa Borjon, director of helpline services at the Chicago Abortion Fund. “It certainly made people question, ‘If I schedule my appointment today and then something changes by the end of the week, what am I going to do?’” The confusion, she said, may lead people not to choose telehealth and instead travel for procedures. “Of course, everyone deserves to seek the type of procedure they want,” she said. “But a lot of times, telehealth just works better for people.”
Even medical professionals have difficulty keeping track of what is legal as rulings and stays shift rapidly. “Any time there’s a news report or mention that access to certain medications might be going away, people will automatically think that it has actually already gone,” said Dr. Bhaskari Burra, a North Carolina-based OB-GYN and fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Health. She described the push to label medication abortion as unsafe as “a purposeful and manipulative scare tactic so that people are scared out of accessing an abortion.” Despite the efforts to restrict access, abortion rights advocates say people are still finding ways to get care. “Advocates have been doing a really great job to inform the public, and more people are learning about telehealth and self-managed abortion,” said Kwajelyn Jackson, executive director of the Feminist Center for Reproductive Liberation in Atlanta. She emphasized that social media can also amplify accurate guidance. “It can be hard to discern on social media, when you’re just hearing from a lot of different voices, which ones are the right ones, so we as abortion advocates and reproductive justice leaders have to ensure that the accurate stories make their ways to the top.” In states with bans, such as Florida’s six-week abortion ban, patients face additional stigma and anti-abortion presence. “They’re scared,” said Dr. Robyn Schickler, chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood of Florida. But after receiving care, she said, many are struck by how routine it is. “After all the misinformation they’ve gotten, people come in and are pleasantly surprised that everyone is really kind and everything goes very smoothly for them. Once they’ve either taken the medication or had the procedure, they’re like, ‘Oh, that was it?’”