Page:Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (5th Cir. Aug. 16, 2023).pdf/16

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Case: 23-10362 Document: 543-1 Page: 16 Date Filed: 08/16/2023

of heavy bleeding (.03% to .05%). Id.[1]

The data FDA cited in its 2000 approval memo is similar. For the American clinical trial, surgical intervention was required for 7.9% of women (4.5% for the French studies). Approval Memorandum at 1. Of that percentage, 1.2% of women required surgery due to heavy bleeding (.3% for France) and .12% required a blood transfusion (.11% for France). Id. FDA and Danco agree that over five million women have taken Mifeprex since it was first approved. These figures show that thousands of women, and as many as hundreds of thousands, have experienced serious adverse effects as a result of taking the drug, and required surgery or emergency care to treat those effects.

The Medical Organizations contend that their members treat women who suffer serious complications after taking mifepristone. These doctors submitted declarations testifying to their experience giving this sort of emergency care. For example, Dr. Christina Francis recounted an instance where a patient took mifepristone at approximately ten weeks gestation. The woman experienced serious complications and the doctor was forced to perform a surgical abortion because the drug failed to terminate the pregnancy:

[T]he patient presented back at our emergency room with heavy vaginal bleeding and unstable vital signs as a result of taking chemical abortion drugs. One of my partners was able to detect a fetal heartbeat. Due to the amount of bleeding that she was experiencing and evidence of hemodynamic instability, however, my partner had no choice but to perform an emer-

  1. To be clear, we do not understand the Medical Organizations and Doctors’ standing theory as applying only to women who present to the emergency room with severe complications such as those listed above. Rather, they also contend that they are injured by treating women who experience less urgent medical side-effects because such treatment forces the doctor to participate in the abortion process.

16