Mifepristone ruling is classic anti-science strategy

Casting doubt on science instead of debating actual policies

Creating confusion about science to avoid debating real issues is a tried and tested conservative move that goes back to the Scopes trial, which was not about whether evolution was real but whether parents should have the ability to contravene solid principles of public education based on their individual ideas. Likewise, casting doubt on and creating confusion about the science behind tobacco, ozone, acid rain, and climate change is preferable to conservatives to having a real debate about whether government regulation should be used to address these problems. This pattern repeated itself over and over during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade, which itself contradicts well established science showing that abortion is sound public health policy, has set the stage for more of these maneuvers. Most recently, the ruling from Texas invalidating the FDA approval of mifepristone runs the play again. When Roe was overturned, the justices stated that access to abortion would not be determined by the states. However, a rogue judge in Texas attempted to create a national ban on abortion, by ruling that the drug used for most abortions - which was been soundly tested and used safely for 20 years — was somehow, suddenly unsafe. In this ruling, a judge with no scientific qualifications baselessly cast doubt on the science underlying mifepristone approval, substituting his judgment for that of countless scientists using proven processes. We have an editorial out today from Peggy Hamburg and Josh Sharfstein - a former Commissioner and Principal Deputy Commissioner of the FDA — explaining the grave implications of this ruling for science.

The most immediate worry about the ruling is its ability to create a de facto national abortion ban. But as Hamburg and Sharfstein also point out, it has the potential to completely undermine the FDA for every single drug on the market. If this ruling stands, judges could undo decades - or even centuries - of medical science with one decision. All of this because anti-abortion forces would rather create confusion about the science of a pill they know nothing about than debate the real issues like whether they are breaking their promises that access to abortion will be determined by the states or whether abortion access is good health policy, should be used to protect the lives of mothers, should be used in cases rape or incest, and many other issues that are politically disadvantageous for conservative politics.

When in doubt, confuse people about science. 100 years and no end in sight.