The abortion pill crisis Big Pharma doesn’t want you to see



A bombshell new study has found that women are suffering serious harm from chemical abortions at a rate 22 times higher than what the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or abortion pill manufacturers are reporting to patients.

The federal government must step in now to protect women. It can no longer shirk its responsibility by “leaving it up to the states.”

If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women.

The study from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, which analyzed insurance claims of 330 million U.S. patients and over 850,000 cases of mifepristone abortions since 2017, is the largest and most comprehensive study ever conducted on the effects of America’s most common chemical abortion drug.

The numbers don’t lie

While the FDA and abortion drug manufacturers tout serious side effects in only 0.5% of cases, actual insurance claims from patients reveal the number is much higher: Nearly one in nine women experience severe or life-threatening events within 45 days of taking mifepristone, including sepsis, hemorrhaging, blood transfusion, infection, and surgeries tied directly to the abortion drug.

Nearly two-thirds of abortions in the United States are now chemical, according to the Planned Parenthood-founded Guttmacher Institute, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of women over the past 10 years have suffered serious complications. That is neither “rare” nor “safe” by any definition.

By contrast, according to the EPPC, the federal government’s claims of the drug’s “safety” rely on small, outdated trials — some conducted over 40 years ago — on a combined total of only 31,000 mostly healthy women in doctor-controlled environments.

In real-world environments, however, the abortion drug has proven significantly more dangerous.

The EPPC study found 10.93% of women suffered significant harm from taking the drug. What other FDA-approved drug would remain on the market with such a high rate of serious adverse events?

No state is safe

In light of this data, the federal government can no longer justify the lifting of oversight protocols for the abortion drug. Under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, critical safety measures — such as in-person supervision by a doctor and adverse event reporting — were eliminated. These federal safeguards must be restored, and the drug’s safety and FDA approval must be re-evaluated.

This is not a mere “states issue.” Abortion drugs are often shipped across state lines without a doctor’s involvement. Pro-abortion states like California should not be allowed to pump this dangerous drug into Texas or other states that have enacted reasonable protections for women and their babies.

The leaders we send to Washington, D.C., cannot hide behind federalism on this issue under the guise of “leaving it up to the states.” If just one aggressively pro-abortion state is allowed to ship abortion pills nationwide, women across all 50 states remain at risk — even if the other 49 state legislatures vote to protect them.

Women deserve the truth

Regardless of opinions on abortion, all Americans should agree on this: Women have a right to accurate information about the drugs they take. If a drug is this dangerous, Big Pharma should not be allowed to hide its risks from women. And the FDA cannot turn a blind eye, becoming complicit in a cover-up.

We must demand that the FDA take action. I’ve joined with dozens of pro-family leaders nationwide in writing a letter to President Donald Trump urging him to act. The letter reads, in part:

All the original safety protocols on mifepristone must be restored, and the FDA must investigate mifepristone, reconsidering its approval altogether. The lives of women and unborn children and the rights of states depend on it.

Furthermore, here in Iowa — home of the first-in-the-nation presidential caucus — we are committed to making safeguarding women from the dangers of mifepristone an issue for any candidate who seeks to follow President Trump in the White House. We urge voters to ask the same of any of their candidates: If you seek federal office, will you insist on seeing the safeguarding of women as a federal issue?

Is adult film star Bonnie Blue sending a pro-life message?



OnlyFans “influencer” Bonnie Blue rose to fame after sleeping with over 1,000 men in a single day — and she doesn’t seem fazed by it one bit.

“The big 1,000 was completely done,” Blue happily said in a video posted to social media while clad in a robe. “The room was absolutely full. Then we did groups of five, like one after the other of fives. I wanted to give people more time, so then it went down to, like, one-on-ones.”

“So, like, one person would watch whilst I was with somebody, and then it would literally just be like a rotating circle,” she continued.

And Bonnie Blue might have even more news.


“There’s good news, everybody,” Stu Burguiere of “Stu Does America” says. “You’re going to be surprised to hear, if you took health class in eighth grade, that experience of having 1,000 different men inside of her may have — we don’t know for sure because we don’t know when this happened — but may have resulted in a pregnancy.”

“In just eight months' time, I am so excited to do the world’s biggest livestream of a birth,” Blue said in another video uploaded to social media.

“Now, look, I don’t think a lot of people want to see her have sex with 1,000 men. I think it sounds pretty icky. But I assure you, no one wants to watch a livestream of the birth. That’s not a thing,” Stu comments.

But it’s not just the potential for a livestream that bothers Stu.

“We’re talking about an obviously horrible way to build a family, and I don’t even know how big that family would be. Would you have 1,000 different dads? Would you go on Maury Povich and maybe try to figure out who the dad was? That would be highly rated, I suppose,” he says.

“It’s a horrible way to conceive a child, a horrible way to go through this. This is — you’re going to be surprised to hear — not really all that biblical. It’s not the path to a nuclear family that most people would design,” he continues.

“That being said, that child still deserves a chance to live. Even a baby conceived in these bizarre and ridiculous circumstances still has value,” he says, adding, “In a very strange, roundabout way, she should be commended, and has a heck of a lot more moral fortitude than a lot of women who go and abort their child and end their lives for no good freaking reason.”

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Blaze News original: OB/GYNs not fleeing pro-life states after all, new study shows



A new study from the University of California at Berkeley, of all places, reveals that physicians specializing in obstetrics and gynecology are not fleeing states that have restricted induced abortions in the wake of the 2022 Dobbs decision from the U.S. Supreme Court.

To better understand the implications of the study, Blaze News spoke with Dr. Christine Francis, a board-certified OB/GYN with decades of experience, a current obstetrics hospitalist who specializes in high-risk pregnancies and deliveries, and the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

'Opposite to the expected finding if OBGYNs were leaving states where abortion is threatened.'

The study, published by JAMA on April 21, which obviously presumes abortion to be a critical component of "quality" OB/GYN care, surveyed more than 60,000 OB/GYNs to determine whether the Dobbs decision might impact where they decided to practice medicine. To the surprise of authors Becky Staiger and Valentin Bolotnyy, abortion policies in the individual states "did not significantly" affect the number of OB/GYNs working there.

The authors attempted to minimize the results, stating only that "there were no significant differences in trends in OBGYNs’ practice locations across states with different abortion-related policy environments after the Dobbs decision."

But that assertion ignores a key finding from the study: States with the most permissive abortion laws post-Dobbs saw the smallest increase in the number of OB/GYNs. While all states apparently had an increase, according to the study, permissive states saw just a 7.7% increase, while states with abortion bans saw an increase of 8.3% and those that have "threatened" abortion saw a startling 10.5% increase.

These results left Staiger and Bolotnyy scratching their heads. Staiger has a Ph.D. in health policy and management and has attempted to identify "racial health disparities" in public health insurance programs in New York. Bolotnyy's Ph.D. is in economics, and he is tied to the Deliberative Democracy Lab at the Center on Democracy at Stanford University.

"The only statistically significant difference suggested that the share of physicians who are OBGYNs decreased less in threatened states than in protected ones, opposite to the expected finding if OBGYNs were leaving states where abortion is threatened," the authors ultimately determined (emphasis added).

The conclusion of the study was so out of step with liberal orthodoxy that Dr. Francis made a point of expressing her appreciation to Staiger, Bolotnyy, and JAMA for publishing it even though "it theoretically goes against the ... prevailing political narrative."

"We need to give credit where credit is due," Francis said.

'Induced abortion can't be part of comprehensive reproductive health care if reproductive health care specialists ... are not doing it.'

Unlike the authors and the journal, though, Dr. Francis is not at all surprised by the findings of the study. She told Blaze News that they merely reaffirmed what she and her group, AAPLOG, have known all along: that restrictions on abortion would not have any meaningful impact on the vast majority of practicing OB/GYNs.

The main reason they were so confident that Dobbs would have little effect on OB/GYNs is that so few OB/GYNs perform induced abortions. According to statistics Francis cited, anywhere from 76% to 93% of all practicing OB/GYNs do not offer abortions.

"Induced abortion can't be part of comprehensive reproductive health care if reproductive health care specialists, the vast majority of them, are not doing it," Francis explained.

Francis noted that such statistics cast doubt on talking points and narratives promulgated by what she called "the abortion industry." Such narratives have attempted to dupe people into thinking that any abortion restrictions will lead to compromised medical care for women.

False though it may be, the presumption that quality health care for women depends on the ready availability of elective abortion appears to be far-reaching. A quick internet search turned up articles and research that all insisted the Dobbs decision posed a real threat to women and doctors:

  • "In states with strict abortion policies, simply seeing an OB/GYN for regular care can be difficult," claimed a headline from NBC News.
  • "States With Abortion Bans See Continued Decrease in U.S. MD Senior Residency Applicants," warned a study from the Association of American Medical Colleges.
  • "Over time, the inability of abortion-restrictive states to recruit new and existing clinicians will exacerbate widening health workforce disparities, with negative consequences for health care access, quality, and outcomes," wailed a Health Affairs Scholar study.

Even a January 2024 article from JAMA suggested that abortion bans had created an "occupational health crisis for OB-GYNs," who reported experiencing anxiety and "moral distress," fears about possibly violating the law, and even symptoms of depression.

Not only does the new study challenge some of those reports, since the number of OB/GYNs seems to be growing across the board despite Dobbs, but, according to Francis, the increase in numbers of OB/GYNs in pro-life states likewise suggests better medical care for the women living there.

"Women that live in states that decided to protect life, it seems, have actually better access to the care of an OB/GYN," she explained.

Francis described that trend as "encouraging" and "heartening" and expressed hope that it will continue.

Francis cautioned that while the study indicates that states that ban or restrict abortion have enjoyed a higher increase in OB/GYN counts since Dobbs, the study did not attempt to determine the reasons that some physicians moved to a new state.

In fact, Francis said she personally knows multiple physicians who left Indiana and its near-total abortion ban specifically because they wanted to continue performing elective abortions. Still, she claimed that pro-lifers should be encouraged that abortion restrictions have not prompted OB/GYNs to leave states in droves, as had been expected.

"At the very least," she said, "these pro-life laws are not discouraging OB/GYNs from either coming to that state to practice or remaining in that state if they were already in that state."

Moreover, Francis continued, by staying put regardless of abortion restrictions, OB/GYNs are signaling the irrelevance of abortion to the overall care they provide. To demonstrate her point, Francis imagined how she might react to restrictions on an obstetrics procedure she considers essential.

"If I was trying to practice in a state that said you can't do a C-section for any reason," Francis explained, "then I would probably leave that state because I wouldn't be able to provide good care to my patients."

Though promising, the new study is by no means a game-changer and will likely have no impact on any abortion laws at the local, state, or national level. However, it does at least call into question prevailing pro-abortion assumptions as well as demonstrate a willingness from apparently doctrinaire leftists to follow the truth wherever it leads.

As Francis neatly summarized, "This study just goes into that group of studies that help support the notion that we see in real-life, everyday practice that induced abortion is not a part of good health care.

"It's not a part of essential reproductive health care."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge Strikes Down Illinois Law Requiring Pro-Life Doctors To Promote Abortion

A judge struck down Illinois' abortion promotion mandate as a violation of the First Amendment in a resounding victory for free speech.

Texas House's SHOCKING plan to honor abortion icon unravels



In a major shock to all pro-life Texas conservatives, the Republican-led Texas House just tried to honor the life of Cecile Richards — a former Planned Parenthood president.

While memorial resolutions are a long-standing tradition that involve honoring the lives of people who have passed in their district, this one stood out. The resolution was submitted by Democrat Representative Donna Howard.

“They wanted to honor Cecile Richards, the former president of the Planned Parenthood of America, that was the intention. That is diabolical. This woman was responsible for the deaths of millions of unborn babies, and the Texas House was set to honor her memory,” Sara Gonzales of “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered” explains, disgusted.


“Texas, the very same state that is supposed to be pro-life. We are supposed to be a pro-life state with a Republican legislature voted in by your constituents,” she continues, noting that they made a “conscious decision to honor the ringleader of baby killers” and a “woman who made her career” on the idea that babies don’t always deserve to live.

“Tell me how a pro-life state could even consider something like that? And yet, there it was on the Texas House floor,” she adds.

While the resolution was shot down by his Republican colleagues, Texas Republican and House Representative Jared Patterson was also in favor of memorializing Richards.

But the betrayal gets worse.

“So there was another layer if you will to how deep this disgusting act goes, because it also happened to be in the same memorial resolution as conservative pro-life activist Jill Glover, who unfortunately passed away from cancer last year,” Gonzales explains.

“Now, being a conservative activist, she quite literally fought against everything that Cecile Richards stood for,” she continues, asking, “So how could a true conservative, in good conscience, sign off on a resolution honoring a woman who made it her life’s work to kill as many babies as possible in the womb? How could a true conservative even send this to the floor?”

Want more from Sara Gonzales?

To enjoy more of Sara's no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Abortions Drop By 12,000 After Red State Heartbeat Protection Law Takes Effect

73,710 abortions were administered in the state

She used to be pro-choice — until a Facebook comment changed her mind



As one of the most vocal conservative advocates for the pro-life cause, it may come as a shock to some that Allie Beth Stuckey used to be pro-choice — but without realizing it.

“I’ve always considered myself pro-life. I just have known reflexively and because I was raised in a Christian household that abortion is wrong, that it’s killing a human being, and that that is wrong, but I also knew that there were these rare exceptions that I thought needed to happen sometimes,” Stuckey explains on “Relatable.”

“I posted something to that effect on Facebook; I guess maybe I just adopted the general Republican position that yes, abortion is wrong, should be illegal, but there’s rape, there’s incest, there’s fetal anomalies. And I thought that was a sophisticated, nuanced, but fully pro-life position,” she continues.


When Stuckey posted this to Facebook, someone replied in the comments asking what the difference is between a baby conceived in rape and a baby not conceived in rape.

“That comment stopped me in my tracks,” she recalls. “I think that really had a big effect on how I started thinking about abortion, but I realized either in that moment or just over time that I was thinking about abortion, even as someone who called myself staunchly pro-life, as an abstract issue, as a political issue, and not from the perspective of the baby, and not really as murder.”

When she changed the lens through which she was viewing what she thought was just a “procedure,” she ultimately changed her mind.

“I wasn’t thinking about it in realistic, stark, terms, and that is that it murders a child and that the humanity of that person that’s being killed does not change based on the circumstances surrounding its conception,” she explains.

“I don’t know who that commenter was, but I’m thankful for them,” she continues, adding, “And you just never know how God is going to use your insistence upon speaking the truth in love.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Georgia pro-life organization attacks bill that would classify abortion as homicide: 'Sad, but it is not a surprise'



Georgia state Rep. Emory Dunahoo (R) introduced legislation in February that would define life as beginning at conception and classify the act of abortion as homicide. House Bill 441, the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, is popular among state Republicans, having secured over 20 co-sponsors in the state legislature. It has also managed to enrage the usual suspects — those alternatively keen on stripping unborn babies of legal protections.

The pro-abortion advocacy group Reproductive Freedom for All, for instance, condemned HB 441, calling it "an extreme and politically motivated measure that would criminalize abortion at all stages of pregnancy by establishing legal personhood at fertilization."

Reproductive Freedom for All and similar radical organizations have found an unlikely ally in Georgia Life Alliance, an advocacy group that claims on its website to be "leading the fight for life in elections, policy, and education statewide."

Georgia Life Alliance recently raised eyebrows with a publicized March 19 letter to the state House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee asking that it refrain from holding its hearing on HB 411 or at least kill it in committee.

The pro-life group's executive director, Claire Bartlett, and its board chair, Bryan Tyson, noted in their letter that while the legislation "appears well-intentioned and partially aligns with Georgia Life Alliance Committee's mission," they "hold grave concerns with the impact, consequences, and outcomes of the bill which conflicts with our organizational mission."

'This is totally false.'

The duo suggested that women seeking to eliminate their babies "require compassionate support, not punitive measures"; criminalizing women "could deter them from seeking necessary medical care and support"; penalties for killing babies in the womb might lead to "unregulated abortions" or dissuade women from seeking medical or mental health care after the fact; and the recognition of the unborn child's personhood in criminal law "would add immeasurable stress to Georgia's already-existing mental health crisis."

While HB 441 clarifies that mothers who get abortions under coercion — where they reasonably believe that the execution of their child is the only way to prevent their own death or great bodily injury — would not be held guilty, Bartlett and Tyson suggested that coercion "extends to intense psychological abuse such as gaslighting, overt devaluation, control, manipulation, and oppression."

"HB 441 changes long-standing Georgia protections for women and does not address or hold accountable the abortionist, the pimp, the sex trafficker, and the irresponsible man who will face no consequence and continue to prey on women and girls for their own selfish gain," wrote Bartlett and Tyson.

Bradley Pierce, president of the Foundation to Abolish Abortion — a national pro-life nonprofit that has championed the legislation from the start — stated that "House Bill 441, the bill that Georgia Life Alliance is opposing in Georgia, would simply protect the lives of innocent preborn children with the same homicide and assault laws that protect the rest of us as born people. This is what God commands and the U.S. Constitution requires."

"[Georgia Life Alliance] claims that House Bill 441 criminalizes only women and exempts abortionists, pimps, and sex traffickers. This is totally false," continued Pierce, whose organization drew significant attention to the letter this week. "The truth is that current pro-life laws in Georgia protect a woman's 'right' to knowingly and willingly murder her preborn child by abortion. House Bill 441, on the other hand, is the only bill that is impartial and would treat everyone equally under the law."

In addition to recognizing the personhood of the unborn and applying the same penalties to the slaying of unborn babies to those on the books for killing a born person, the bill would enable the Georgia attorney general to prosecute baby slayings if local prosecutors fail to and enable parents to pursue legal action for the death of their unborn children.

Pierce added, "It was sad, but it is not a surprise to see a well-established Pro-Life lobby group oppose equal protection of the laws for preborn children in Georgia. We have seen this happen repeatedly across the country."

'Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year.'

Ben Zeisloft, head of communications at the Foundation to Abolish Abortion, similarly blasted Georgia Life Alliance over its characterization of the bill, suggesting with a meme that the pro-life organization might be captive to feminism, secularism, and humanism.

Blaze News reached out to Georgia Life Alliance for comment but did not receive a response by deadline.

The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer reported that the state House Judiciary Non-Civil Committee hearing, which Georgia Life Alliance tried to torpedo, ultimately took place, but the bill did not clear the state House before day 30 of the legislative session. The bill is, however, not dead. It will remain active for reconsideration through the next legislative session.

Republican state Rep. Dunahoo said during the hearing, "Tens of thousands of babies, made in the image of God, continue to be murdered in our state every year, all within the bounds of the current law. That must be changed," reported the Georgia Recorder.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

How State-Sanctioned Donor Doxxing Threatens The Pro-Life Movement

In many states, legislators have introduced bills to make advocacy organizations disclose their donors; the goal is silencing conservatives.

Planned Parenthood Oral Arguments Will Further Expose Abortion Giant’s Filth

Planned Parenthood has used the massive government funding it receives to promote abortion while financially starving its “clinics."