A remarkable consensus appears to be emerging among American voters regarding the regulation of abortion drugs, transcending the traditional battle lines that have long defined this contentious issue.
Recent polling data indicates that seven in ten likely voters support reinstating medical safeguards that would require an in-person doctor visit before prescribing abortion drugs. Perhaps most striking is that this majority includes 57 percent of liberal voters, suggesting a fundamental shift in how Americans across the political spectrum view these pharmaceutical protocols.
The polling reveals another significant finding. Most respondents who participated in the survey identify as pro-choice, yet they support stricter oversight of these medications. This suggests that concerns about women’s health and safety may be reshaping the abortion debate in ways that defy conventional political categorization.
The case of Catherine Herring illustrates why such safeguards matter. Her husband obtained lethal abortion drugs online and attempted to end her pregnancy by secretly adding them to her drinks. This tragedy was made possible, in part, by policy changes during the Biden Administration that eliminated in-person dispensing requirements for abortion pills under the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program. The removal of these safeguards has made it substantially easier for abusers and coercers to obtain these drugs through the mail.
The FDA’s recent approval of a generic version of the abortion drug mifepristone has intensified these concerns. Critics argue this decision makes dangerous medications even more accessible while evidence of their risks continues to mount.
An additional 70 percent of poll respondents support requiring doctors to screen for and report possible abuse or coercion before prescribing abortion drugs. This represents a clear public mandate for enhanced protective measures.
The safety profile of these drugs has come under increasing scrutiny. Research from the Ethics and Public Policy Center found that serious adverse events from abortion drugs occur approximately 22 times more frequently than the FDA currently reports. According to this study, more than one in ten women experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, or other serious side effects.
A peer-reviewed analysis from the Charlotte Lozier Institute has challenged the frequently repeated claim that abortion pills are safer than common over-the-counter pain medications. The American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs recently issued warnings about a dangerous sepsis-like infection that can occur after taking mifepristone.
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has publicly acknowledged that the previous administration manipulated data to conceal safety concerns, noting that approximately 11 percent of cases showed significant safety signals that were deliberately obscured.
Despite these documented concerns and the FDA’s own commitment to complete a comprehensive safety report on mifepristone, the agency proceeded with approving the generic version of the drug. In most areas of medical regulation, such evidence of harm would prompt immediate investigation and policy review.
The polling data suggests that Americans, regardless of their position on abortion itself, believe common-sense medical safeguards should govern the distribution of these powerful drugs. This emerging consensus may represent an opportunity for policy reforms that protect women’s health while acknowledging the legitimate concerns of citizens across the political spectrum.
That is the way it is.
Related: Schlossberg Announces Bid for Congress in Manhattan District
