Did the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) keep secret the names of “experts” who reviewed the abortion pill for approval, while accepting clinical trials and published reports by known abortion insiders, some tied to the pill’s investors?
Some have implied that they did, and this alleged conspiracy of silence has left some questioning whether the government agency might be trying to hide something, and whether there could be potential financial conflicts or personal motives for rubber stamping the rapid expansion of the abortion pill nationwide.
As shocking as it might sound, even typically pro-abortion media outlets have noticed the FDA’s apparent willingness to keep the names of experts reviewing the abortion pill a secret.
In a 2000 report on the abortion pill, the Orlando Sentinel wrote, “The pill’s 11-year journey to the United States included a cloak-and-dagger scheme to hide the identities of participants from anti-abortion activists, allegations of fraud, a dozen lawsuits, and a price tag of at least $50 million.” The article was ironically entitled “Secret Deals, Big Money and Abortion Politics.”
“In a strange twist, the FDA acceded to Danco’s request that the name of its manufacturer be kept secret — and even shielded the names of the FDA researchers who had overseen the pill’s approval,” the Sentinel added.
That same year, the Washington Post pointed out how the FDA “broke with precedent by not publishing the names of the experts who reviewed RU-486 [a.k.a. the abortion pill] for the agency.”
In 2000, the Washington Post wrote in another article that “FDA Commissioner Jane E. Henney said the agency broke with precedent by not publishing the names of the experts who reviewed RU-486 for the agency. In another first, it did not publish the name or location of the company that will manufacture the drug.”
Fast forward to 2020, where in an interview with early abortion pill advocates, Columbia University journalists located one of the FDA’s senior medical reviewers who “chose to remain anonymous” but admitted, “It’s definitely not standard. It’s not routine; you can look up almost every other drug that I was the primary medical officer for and my name would appear right there on the review.”
“And we did,” noted one of the journalists. “His name is listed on at least eight other FDA drug reviews. But no staff names are listed on the review of mifepristone.”
While the public may have no way of knowing whether those who reviewed the trials and studies had pro-abortion ties, what is known is that there are multiple conflicts of interest surrounding the abortion pill and related studies. Live Action News has documented many of these conflicts, including the fact that study authors touting the safety of chemical abortions have ties to the abortion industry and have at times even been on the payroll of the abortion pill manufacturer, Danco Laboratories (or the generic version from manufacturer GenBioPro). As Live Action News previously documented, incestuous funding from abortion pill investors has steadily flowed to individuals and organizations responsible for clinical trials of the drug.
But Live Action News wasn’t the first to address these concerns.
When the Family Research Council tracked the original abortion pill approval process, it noted how FDA Commissioner David Kessler, M.D., who chaired the 1996 Advisory Committee, was later given a lifetime achievement award by NARAL Pro-Choice America. Is the public to believe that there is nothing important to see here?
FRC’s report, “Politicized Science: The Manipulated Approval of RU-486 and Its Dangers to Women’s Health,” additionally pointed out that Kessler was also among those within the Bill Clinton administration who pressured Roussel Uclaf to assign its American RU-486 (abortion pill) rights to the Population Council.
The report found that “[e]ight of the 11 members ‘were either affiliated with an abortion organization or ha[d] made pro-choice statements in the past.'”
The report’s author, Christopher M. Gacek, wrote that “the Advisory Committee’s executive secretary was Philip Corfman, M.D., who served as an advisory committee member for the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Health Research and Policy, and currently sits on the board of directors for the pro-abortion Reproductive Health Technologies… where his web bio boasts of his role in the RU-486 approval.” Corfman went on to join the board of Physicians for Reproductive Health.
The question that needs to be answered is whether it is possible that an FDA expert could also be associated with abortion organizations, investors of the abortion drug, or the groups that conducted the studies.
And the answer, of course, is yes.
A simple Google search reveals some possibilities:
- The Curriculum Vitae (CV) of abortionist Eve Espey, MD, reveals that she has served on multiple FDA committees including the Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee, the Advisory Committee for Reproductive Health Drugs and the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee and a member of the Advisory Committee on Reproductive Health Drugs. Espey has contracted to train late abortionists in New Mexico. Espey was a Margaret Sanger Award recipient, served on the Board of Directors at Planned Parenthood of New Mexico, participated in National Abortion Federation conferences, and is a member of the pro-abortion Physicians for Reproductive Health group.
- According to the Curriculum Vitae (CV) of Connie B. Newman, MD, she sat on the National Medical Committee of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Leadership Council and Global Advisory Board at Planned Parenthood, and served in positions at multiple Planned Parenthood affiliates. She also claims to have served on FDA committees, and her Twitter page indicates that she is strongly pro-abortion.
While Live Action News is unaware whether either of these examples listed above operated as “experts’ for the FDA regarding the abortion pill, without full disclosure by the government agency, we may never know for sure who did. And while the abortion industry is recklessly collaborating to fast track the abortion pill for over-the-counter dispensing soon, shouldn’t we at least find out?
