On October 30, 2025, Scientific American published an in-depth article by veteran health journalist Liz Szabo exploring growing concerns among scientists regarding the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) newly announced review of the abortion pill mifepristone’s safety. Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. recently disclosed that the FDA would conduct a safety evaluation of mifepristone, a drug approved in 2000 and currently used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States. While the drug has been extensively studied and found to be safe and effective in over 100 published scientific studies, many experts fear that the review may be politicized and influenced by flawed or misleading information.
Mifepristone, often referred to as the abortion pill, has a long track record of safety and efficacy. Since its FDA approval over two decades ago, numerous peer-reviewed studies have consistently demonstrated its ability to safely end early pregnancies. In recent years, the Biden administration even eased restrictions by allowing mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth and dispensed through certified pharmacies, removing the prior requirement for in-person doctor visits. These regulatory changes followed robust scientific evidence showing that the drug’s risks are minimal and manageable under carefully controlled protocols.
Despite this scientific consensus, Secretary Kennedy, who has a history of promoting controversial and scientifically questionable views on vaccines, autism, and other health topics, has announced a review of mifepristone’s safety that many researchers worry will be biased. Critics express concern that the review will rely heavily on “junk science” and politically motivated reports that misrepresent the true risk profile of the drug. Peter Lurie, a former FDA official, voiced fears that the upcoming study might selectively use data and distort findings to arrive at a predetermined conclusion that mifepristone is unsafe.
Department of Health and Human Services spokespersons have defended the review, stating that it aims to ensure the FDA’s risk mitigation strategies are adequate to protect women from “unstated risks.” However, details about the scope, timeline, and methodology of the review remain vague. Kennedy has publicly promoted the review to conservative audiences eager to see the abortion pill restricted or banned. This move follows the FDA’s recent approval of a second generic version of mifepristone, which drew ire from antiabortion advocates.
A key point of contention is a report from the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), a conservative think tank, which Kennedy cited in a letter to state attorneys general. The EPPC report claims that mifepristone is more dangerous than official FDA analyses suggest and calls for banning telehealth prescriptions of the drug. The availability of mifepristone via telehealth has been a major factor in expanding abortion access nationwide, even in states with total abortion bans.
Medical experts have strongly criticized the EPPC report for serious methodological flaws. Ushma Upadhyay, a reproductive sciences professor at the University of California, San Francisco, described the report as “junk science.” She noted that the report was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a reputable medical journal, lacked transparency about its data sources, and misclassified routine medical follow-ups as “serious adverse events,” thereby painting an inaccurately negative picture of the drug’s safety.
Kennedy’s involvement in the review raises additional concerns. He has a documented pattern of promoting questionable sources that appear scientific but lack credibility, particularly on polarizing issues like vaccines and abortion. Timothy Caulfield, a health misinformation researcher, warns that Kennedy’s approach often involves “doubt mongering,” which can have widespread negative impacts on public health by undermining trust in proven interventions. Caulfield also pointed out that Kennedy’s tactics have previously sown unwarranted fears about common medications like Tylenol.
Antiabortion organizations have welcomed the FDA review as a potential opportunity to restrict mifepristone’s availability. Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life of America, called it an “historic opportunity” to reduce abortion pill use if the review is “handled thoroughly.” These groups advocate for an “original investigation” rather than a review of existing studies, arguing that prior research is biased in favor of wide availability. They question the safety of mailing mifepristone and the rigor of earlier scientific work supporting its use.
In response to the opaque nature of the review, the Center for Reproductive Rights, a global nonprofit defending abortion access, filed a lawsuit against the HHS