A number of NSW Parliament members cited a questionable US report on the safety of the abortion drug mifepristone during discussions on new legislation expanding abortion access. The bill, which passed both houses, permits nurse practitioners and midwives to prescribe abortion medication for early pregnancies.
The US-based report, produced by the conservative Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), suggested that mifepristone led to serious adverse effects in 1 in 10 cases — a claim Australian health experts have dismissed as misleading and inaccurate.
Despite its lack of peer review and unclear data sources, the document was quoted by MPs from multiple parties — including Liberal, Labor, and independent representatives. Some used the report to argue that medical abortion carries more risk than previously understood.
Experts Reject Claims as Misinformation
Leading Australian medical professionals have strongly criticised the EPPC report. Professor Kirsten Black from the University of Sydney said the study lacked scientific credibility, transparency, and had not been peer-reviewed. She labelled it “propaganda.”
Professor Danielle Mazza from Monash University called it “scaremongering” and pointed to systematic reviews showing the safety and effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol.
Epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz described the report’s methodology as deeply flawed, noting that some conditions counted as “serious adverse events” — such as the need for follow-up surgical abortion or ectopic pregnancy — are not directly caused by the medication and should not be classified as such.
Questionable Data and Methodology
The EPPC claimed to have used comprehensive US insurance data but refused to disclose its exact source. It also gave inconsistent explanations about which cases were included or excluded from the analysis, such as mental health conditions and miscarriages.
Dr Meyerowitz-Katz pointed out that the report assumed any health issue following an abortion was caused by the procedure, without any proper method to prove causation. He concluded the report should be disregarded by anyone seeking accurate health data.
MPs Cited Report Without Scrutiny
Despite the controversy, at least 11 NSW MPs cited the report during the debate. Independent MP Dr Joe McGirr, a trained medical professional, acknowledged referencing it but didn’t confirm whether he verified its data. Labor’s Greg Donnelly also quoted the report, describing it as part of broader academic literature, without citing peer-reviewed research.
Liberal MP Susan Carter defended her use of the report, saying it offered a new perspective by tracking patients through insurance data, which she found compelling.
Political Origins and Timing
The EPPC is known for its conservative, religious stance and has ties to the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 — seen as a roadmap for a potential second Trump presidency.
The report was released days before key parliamentary debates in NSW and coincided with a renewed push in the US to restrict mifepristone. Republican senator Josh Hawley immediately used the report to call for FDA action. US health officials have since acknowledged the report but indicated no immediate regulatory changes.
Dr Meyerowitz-Katz concluded that the EPPC report was not legitimate scientific research but rather a politically motivated white paper. “It’s not credible evidence and does not belong in serious policy discussions,” he said.
