Introduction

Drug innovation has been crucial to reproductive freedom, enabling a range of care to meet people’s reproductive health needs and preferences. Yet these advances are under threat from junk science proponents in the administration who are falsely painting them as dangerous, misleading, and ineffective, despite overwhelming scientific consensus to the contrary. These tactics lay the groundwork to eliminate abortion pills and to put new restrictions on birth control and assisted reproductive technology (ART) like in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Abortion pill safety

Abortion pill safety

Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Commissioner Marty Makary, anti-abortion Trump appointees who lead the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA), respectively, have repeatedly stated that the FDA is re-evaluating mifepristone’s (the abortion pill’s) safety record and drug protocols. Administration officials justify this using an unpublished policy paper from a far right think tank, instead of using the designated FDA tools and systems for identifying real drug safety concerns. The paper has been thoroughly discredited for its many flaws, including conflating common symptoms with medical emergencies.

Over 7.5 million women in the U.S. have safely used the abortion pill to end pregnancies, with 99% of them reporting no serious safety concerns. The abortion pill has become the cornerstone of abortion access in the U.S., accounting for at least 63% of clinician-provided abortions.

Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the abortion pill has become a lifeline for those in states where abortion is banned or severely restricted. As more states move to restrict abortion access, medication abortion will become people’s only option for care. If the Trump administration’s FDA further restricts access to the abortion pill based on this junk science, it could increase the cost and burden for people to access it.

Anti-abortion extremists, such as Students for Life and Liberty Counsel, have used misinformation in another attack on the abortion pill, by making false environmental impact claims. While these claims have been thoroughly debunked by scientists, including the FDA, this issue persists due to the influence of anti-abortion groups on the Trump administration. Earlier this year, Trump appointees directed scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to assess whether the agency could develop methods for detecting traces of abortion pills in wastewater and others are pushing for an analysis of drinking water. There is no scientific evidence that use of the abortion pill negatively affects water quality. By contrast, an estimated 2.2 million people in the U.S. live in homes without running water or basic plumbing, which is a legitimate public health crisis.

As part of its abortion pill defense, the Center filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Virginia that challenges the FDA’s Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for mifepristone. Brought on behalf of independent abortion providers in Virginia, Montana, and Kansas, the lawsuit seeks to eliminate the REMS—a unique set of restrictions that limit the number of providers who prescribe mifepristone and pharmacies that dispense it and impede patient access to time-sensitive abortion care. Oral argument was held on May 19, 2025, and a decision on the Center’s motion for summary judgment is pending.

Additionally, as part of its commitment to hold the Trump administration accountable, the Center filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against HHS and FDA seeking records that would provide information to the public about their actions on mifepristone, including the supposed safety review. The Center filed the underlying FOIA requests between July and September 2025 and did not receive a substantive response. The government is expected to respond to the complaint in early 2026. Now awaiting the government’s response, the Center is committed to publicly sharing any records received.

Abortion vs. birth control differences

Abortion vs. birth control differences

At a time when the U.S. should be championing access to care and international health and human rights standards, the Trump administration has done the opposite. President Trump has withdrawn from key international institutions, aligned the U.S. with authoritarian regimes, and cut critical foreign aid for health care. According to the Guttmacher Institute’s calculations, more than 45 million women and girls have been denied contraceptive care because of the foreign aid funding cuts alone. Trump’s regressive policies have jeopardized global health, gender equality, and human rights.

In July 2025, the Trump administration announced plans to destroy truckloads of birth control procured by U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), prior to its dismantling, for distribution to low-income countries in Africa. The U.S. government is currently paying for the contraceptives’ storage in a warehouse in Geel, Belgium, and incineration would cost at least an additional $167,000. The State Department falsely labelled the supplies as “abortifacient birth control” to justify refusing offers from humanitarian organizations to purchase or redistribute them. To be clear: there is no such thing as “abortifacient birth control.” By definition, birth control prevents pregnancy; it does not disrupt an existing pregnancy.

Although originally reported to be $10 million worth of birth control, new reporting estimates that the supplies could be worth closer to $40 million. Recently, the Flemish Minister of the Environment, in response to a series of questions submitted by a member of the Flemish Parliament, confirmed that there were 20 truckloads of abandoned birth control products stored incorrectly sitting in another warehouse in Kallo, Belgium. Destroying $40 million in birth control or letting it expire could lead to nearly 1.5 million unintended pregnancies, 644,000 unplanned births, 440,000 unsafe abortions and 2,872 preventable maternal deaths.

As part of its commitment to hold the Trump administration accountable, the Center filed a FOIA lawsuit against the State Department seeking records that would provide the public with information on: 1) the decision to destroy tens of millions in contraception, resulting in a massive waste of taxpayer money; 2) any alternatives it considered, 3) the rationale for selecting destruction over these alternatives; and 4) any political pressure from within the Trump administration or external anti-rights organizations to falsely conflate birth control and abortion. The Center filed the underlying FOIA on August 29, 2025, and received no substantive response. Now awaiting the government’s response, the Center is committed to publicly sharing any records received.

Effective fertility care

Effective fertility care

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., HHS Secretary, has major ties to the anti-science community, having founded the country’s leading vaccine disinformation organization. Since taking office, he has misstated basic biology and promoted conspiracy theories about using painkillers, anti-depressants, and vaccines in pregnancy. His Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) Commission report, “Make Our Children Healthy Again,” promotes anti-science propaganda that attributes infertility to personal lifestyle choices, while excluding IVF or ART from its recommendations.

President Trump’s nominee to be the next Surgeon General, Casey Means, is a close ally of RFK, Jr. and a vocal proponent of the “blame and shame” fertility approach (an anti-reproductive freedom doctrine). The White House also previewed a 1.5 million dollar funding opportunity to promote “blame and shame” fertility. Called “restorative reproductive medicine” by its fans, this approach frames infertility as a personal failure, assumes infertility is the pregnant person’s fault—based on their diet, lifestyle, age, etc.—and disparages the use of modern ART like IVF. While many people’s fertility journeys already incorporate holistic care, including ovulation tracking and homeopathic treatments, “blame and shame” fertility positions these methods against IVF, rather than as complementary.

“Blame and shame” fertility focuses nearly exclusively on female infertility, even though male-factor infertility accounts for or contributes to 20-40% of infertility diagnoses in heterosexual couples in the U.S. “Blame and shame” fertility also ignores single people and LGBTQ+ couples for whom IVF is a critical method of family building. Indeed, IVF is the most commonly used form of ART, and in 2023 accounted for over 95,000 births in the country.

The Center filed a FOIA request with HHS seeking information about the administration’s recent IVF announcement and political pressure from within the Trump administration or external anti-rights organizations to promote “blame and shame” fertility. The administration has yet to respond, risking future litigation.

What’s next?

What’s next? Abortion pill restrictions.

The FDA may add new barriers on its own or by court order. The Center is also tracking state restrictions on abortion pills.

The overwhelming scientific consensus is clear: abortion pills, birth control, and IVF are all safe, effective, and commonly used. Mis- and dis-information from the administration leaves people vulnerable to false narratives and inadequate health care. Nonetheless, public policy should support more reproductive health innovation and access, not less. The Center is working tirelessly in the courts and legislatures to strengthen legal protections that ensure comprehensive, evidence-informed reproductive health services are available across the country.