Writing about politics is not something I do, but I do write about science. It appears to me our government and courts would benefit if they’d base their decisions and policies on scientific proof, versus information found on the Internet, chat rooms, and blog posts. Legal decisions and government policy with the underpinnings of actual scientific, objective, verifiable facts may very well, in the long run, better serve us all, irrespective of political viewpoints.
The example bringing this to my attention is a Federal judge in Texas ruling in April (2023) that the FDA must rescind its 23-year-old approval of mifepristone due to safety concerns. This drug, which has been on the market for over 20 years and with over 100 studies confirming its safety and effectiveness is now somehow unsafe. While no drug is completely risk-free, mifepristone is safer than pregnancy itself. Data on mifepristone show only five deaths for every 1 million users – a lower rate death rate than Tylenol, Viagra, or penicillin.
And yet, Federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk stopped its use, declaring it unsafe and illegal, basing his decision on two anecdotal stories provided by anti-abortion groups and blog posts.
Abortion and the laws surrounding it have legitimate arguments on both sides. But to be clear, an argument to ban mifepristone due to safety issues is not legitimate. Allowing profoundly unscientific and demonstrably false statements to stand is bad for both conservatives and progressives. If you wish to end abortion, good for you, but you need to find a different argument as this one does not hold water.