{"id":702085,"date":"2026-01-29T08:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-01-29T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":""},"modified":"2026-01-28T14:03:57","modified_gmt":"2026-01-28T19:03:57","slug":"abortion-pill-safety-decisions-by-fda-were-science-based-new-jama-study-finds","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.kff.org\/health-information-trust\/abortion-pill-safety-decisions-by-fda-were-science-based-new-jama-study-finds\/","title":{"rendered":"Abortion Pill Safety Decisions by FDA Were Science-Based, New JAMA Study Finds \u2014 The Monitor"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\t\n\n
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\n\n
\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

VOLUME 39<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n

Abortion Pill Safety Decisions by FDA Were Science-Based, New JAMA Study Finds<\/h1>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tIrving Washington\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t,<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tHagere Yilma\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t,<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\tand\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\tJoel Luther\t\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\n

Highlights<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A new study found that Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions about the abortion pill mifepristone consistently followed scientific evidence, even as misleading claims about the drug\u2019s safety continue to shape public understanding.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And Google removed some health AI summaries after a Guardian investigation reported that AI-generated summaries for search results about multiple health topics, including cancer screening, liver disease, and mental health conditions, shared false and potentially dangerous health information. While the full extent of inaccurate health information in these AI-generated summaries is unclear, patient advocacy organizations described the examples as \u201cdangerous\u201d and \u201calarming.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\n\n\n

What We\u2019re Watching<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

Claims That the FDA Failed to Properly Evaluate Mifepristone Persist as New Study Finds Decisions Were Science-Based <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

As FDA leadership initiates a new safety review of mifepristone following claims<\/a> by abortion opponents that the drug was not adequately evaluated before it was granted approval, a new study published in JAMA<\/em><\/a> examining more than 5,000 pages of internal FDA documents from 2011 to 2023 finds that agency decisions were consistently driven by scientific evidence, not politics. The study found that agency leaders almost always followed the recommendations of career scientists, repeatedly reviewed safety data, and reaffirmed that mifepristone is safe while making cautious changes to access. Despite this detailed analysis documenting the rigor of the FDA\u2019s review process, the Senate\u2019s Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing<\/a> this month framed as an inquiry into the abortion pill\u2019s safety, with statements describing mifepristone as putting women in \u201cserious danger.\u201d Evidence continues to demonstrate that mifepristone is a safe medication<\/a>. KFF polling<\/a> shows that while twice as many adults say mifepristone is \u201csafe\u201d (42%) than say it is \u201cunsafe\u201d (18%) when taken as directed by a doctor, four in ten express uncertainty over the pill\u2019s safety. Perception of the abortion pill\u2019s safety has declined since 2023 among the public overall (42% view as safe now v. 55% in 2023) and among women ages 18 to 49 (41% view as safe now v. 59% in 2023).<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Polling Insights:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

KFF\u2019s November 2025 Health Tracking Poll<\/a> found that the public is largely divided over the intention underlying the FDA\u2019s review of mifepristone. Just over half (53%) of adults and a similar share of women of reproductive age say that Secretary Kennedy\u2019s decision to have the FDA review the safety of the abortion pill is mostly to \u201cmake it more difficult to access abortion pills,\u201d while a somewhat smaller share of the public say the decision is mostly to \u201cprotect the health and safety of women\u201d (46%).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Views on FDA\u2019s review of mifepristone are largely shaped by partisanship, with most Democrats (81%) saying the decision is largely about curbing access to abortion pills and most Republicans (73%) saying the decision is mostly about protecting the health of women.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t<\/script>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n<\/div>\n\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

U.S. Withdraws from International Health Organizations as Trust in Public Health Institutions Declines<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. withdrawal from the World Health Organization took effect this month, with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus warning<\/a> that the decision “makes the U.S. unsafe” and “makes the rest of the world unsafe” by cutting access to disease surveillance and emergency response systems. The withdrawal is part of broader U.S. disengagement from international health efforts, including the recent announcement that the U.S. is withdrawing from 31 U.N. entities<\/a> such as the U.N. Population Fund, the lead U.N. agency focused on global population and reproductive health. Public opinion data suggests the decision lands amid declining and polarized public confidence in the WHO itself. According to an April 2024 poll from Pew Research<\/a>, about six in ten U.S. adults believed the U.S. benefitted from its membership in the WHO, fewer than the share who said the same in 2021, including an 8 percentage point decrease in the share who say the U.S. benefitted a “great deal.” These concerns reflect institutional and diplomatic trust and intersect with broader trust challenges in health. The withdrawal occurs as the U.S. public\u2019s trust in federal health agencies<\/a> has continued to erode.  As global health partnerships change, health communicators may benefit from tracking changes in trust in health agencies to better understand where audiences turn to for health information.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Fraudulent Ads on Social Media Continue Despite Enforcement Measures <\/strong><\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Fraudulent advertising on social media continues to expose users to misleading and dangerous health claims, impacting how people assess and trust health information online. In early January, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) issued a \u201cscam alert<\/a>\u201d about fraudulent ads using AI-generated videos of celebrities to promote fake weight-loss products, including unauthorized endorsements for supplements claiming to be GLP-1 medications<\/a>. The BBB reported receiving more than 170 reports about one such product, with customers spending hundreds of dollars after seeing the fraudulent ads. The use of celebrity likenesses and medical terminology may increase the perceived credibility of these claims, even when the products are not legitimate treatments. The persistence of these false health advertisements is part of broader challenges platforms face in content moderation, with recent investigations<\/a> finding thousands of deceptive ads remaining active despite prior enforcement. A\u00a0Reuters<\/a>\u00a0investigation also reported that Meta allowed a high number of ads from Chinese partners, including ads for fake health supplements, prioritizing revenue while some enforcement measures were delayed or paused. As misleading health advertising continues, KFF will continue<\/a> monitoring the types of health information that the public reports seeing and trusting on social media to better inform health communicators of when to intervene.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n
\n\n\n\n

AI & Emerging Tech<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n

Google\u2019s AI Overviews in Search Results May Give Harmful Health Information<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

What’s happening?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

An investigation<\/a> conducted by The Guardian found that the artificial intelligence (AI)-generated summaries that appear at the top of Google search results, called \u201cAI Overviews,\u201d at times provided inaccurate and misleading information about health topics, potentially giving users false reassurance about serious illness. The Guardian found that the overviews wrongly advised people with pancreatic cancer to avoid high-fat foods, provided misleading information about liver blood test results, and incorrectly identified pap smears as screenings for vaginal cancer. Since the investigation was published, Google removed<\/a> some AI health summaries tied to specific search queries, but similar prompts can still trigger AI-generated results and broader risks from AI-produced health information remain.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How often do people encounter and trust these overviews?<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n