Listen to the article
Florida’s attorney general has filed a lawsuit against Planned Parenthood, alleging the organization is “misrepresenting the safety” of abortion pills in what represents the latest legal challenge targeting medication abortion in post-Roe America.
Attorney General James Uthmeier filed the complaint in a Santa Rosa County state court on Thursday, claiming the reproductive health provider is “making false claims about the safety of abortion drugs,” particularly taking issue with Planned Parenthood’s statements that abortion pills are “safer than Tylenol.”
The lawsuit alleges violations of Florida’s law against deceptive and unfair trade practices and goes so far as to claim the organization’s activities constitute “racketeering” – a charge originally designed to combat organized crime. It seeks an estimated $350 million in damages and requests a range of severe sanctions, including forcing Planned Parenthood to sell off real estate, prohibiting it from providing abortions, or even ordering the organization’s complete dissolution.
“Planned Parenthood and its Florida operations mislead women about the critical and undeniable risks of a chemical abortion by deceptively claiming these powerful drugs are less risky than everyday pain medication,” the complaint states.
Planned Parenthood officials responded forcefully, describing the lawsuit as a “politically motivated attack” designed to further restrict abortion access in Florida, where most abortions are banned after six weeks of pregnancy – before many women even realize they’re pregnant.
“Anti-abortion lawmakers and officials are relentless in their effort to end access to all abortion care, and to stop patients from getting accurate medical information,” said Susan Baker Manning, general counsel for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. “We will continue to be just as relentless in our effort to defend access to this safe, effective care. See you in court.”
The Florida lawsuit mirrors a similar legal action filed by Missouri’s attorney general in July, with the next hearing in that case scheduled for February. These cases represent a new front in the ongoing battle over abortion access following the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade.
Caroline Mala Corbin, a constitutional law professor at the University of Miami School of Law, noted that Florida’s legal strategy is part of a broader effort to restrict what has become the predominant method of ending pregnancies in the United States.
“If this one succeeds, it may become a model for other states. And if it fails, no doubt they’ll come up with something else,” Corbin said.
Abortion opponents have increasingly focused their efforts on restricting access to medication abortion, which currently accounts for nearly two-thirds of all abortions provided across the country. The method typically uses a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol and has become even more crucial as 12 states now enforce total abortion bans, with four more prohibiting the procedure after approximately six weeks of pregnancy.
The shift in focus to medication abortion follows a Supreme Court ruling last year that unanimously preserved access to mifepristone, finding that abortion opponents lacked legal standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug. Undeterred, Republican attorneys general have renewed legal efforts, arguing that mifepristone is too risky for telehealth prescriptions and that the FDA should tighten access requirements.
However, scientific research contradicts these safety claims. Studies have consistently found that mifepristone and misoprostol are generally safe and effective, resulting in completed abortions more than 97% of the time. Medical organizations supporting mifepristone’s availability compare its safety profile to “ibuprofen, which more than 30 million Americans take in any given day.”
Since the FDA approved mifepristone in 2000, approximately 6 million patients have used the medication. A comprehensive 2021 review of agency records identified just 13 deaths likely related to the drug – representing about 0.00027% of patients.
On its website, Planned Parenthood provides context for its safety claims: “Medication abortion is very safe. In fact, it’s safer than many other medicines like penicillin, Tylenol, and Viagra. Serious problems are rare, but like all medicines, there can be risks.”
The legal battle over abortion pills highlights the continuing state-by-state contestation over reproductive rights in America, with Republican-controlled states working to restrict access while Democrat-led states pass shield laws to protect medical providers who facilitate interstate care.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
This lawsuit raises valid concerns about the safety and transparency around abortion pills. While Planned Parenthood may have a different view, it’s important to ensure women have accurate information to make informed choices.
I agree, all medical procedures should be subject to rigorous safety standards and oversight. Hopefully this lawsuit leads to a balanced and evidence-based resolution.
The claims around ‘racketeering’ seem quite extreme. While safety concerns should be taken seriously, this language feels more political than focused on the real issues at hand.
I share your view. Inflammatory rhetoric tends to cloud the nuances of these debates. A measured, evidence-based approach is more likely to yield constructive outcomes.
This lawsuit highlights the ongoing tensions around access to abortion services post-Roe. Both sides will likely dig in, making it hard to find common ground. I hope cooler heads can prevail.
Agreed. These polarized debates seldom lead to durable solutions. Perhaps a panel of medical experts could provide impartial guidance on the safety and efficacy of abortion medications.
I’m curious to see how this case unfolds. Medication abortion is a sensitive and complex issue, and both sides will likely make strong arguments. A fair and impartial review of the facts is needed.
Absolutely, these are important matters that deserve thorough and objective analysis. Reasonable people can disagree, but the priority should be women’s health and safety.
It’s concerning to see such a high-stakes legal battle over something as fundamental as women’s reproductive health. I hope the courts can navigate this issue objectively and protect the wellbeing of all parties involved.