By Jordan Boyd, The Federalist, May 06, 2025
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
Media smeared the findings as ‘junk science,’ but tens of thousands of data exclusions show researchers were careful not to overstate risk.
The most comprehensive U.S. study of the abortion pill excluded tens of thousands of insurance claims from its analysis of mifepristone-linked complications to ensure it did not exaggerate the harms the abortion drug could inflict on women.
The exclusion of those data points further legitimizes findings that 10.9 percent of women suffered sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious complications within 45 days of a chemical abortion. It also puts to bed criticisms raised by bad-faith actors who questioned researchers’ conclusions that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration should reinstate mifepristone safeguards or potentially rescind its approval altogether.
Corporate media, which have spent the years since the U.S. Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson decision aiding Democrats’ abortion for all agenda, largely ignored the landmark study. Those outlets that did mention it claimed the “bogus” findings were “junk science” that stemmed from “bad data.” …
Continue reading >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
