As a bioethicist who conducted research at three highly ranked research universities across the country, the continued efforts to undermine medication abortion, including the promotion of ‘abortion pill reversal,’ deeply worry me. And it should worry you, too.
Anti-abortion advocates aim to confuse women by promoting ‘abortion reversal,’ a term that sounds reassuring but lacks credible scientific support. Quite simply, there is no ethical way to design an abortion reversal study. Meanwhile, we have 25 years of evidence proving that medication abortion is safe and effective.
Research involving pregnant patients demands the highest ethical scrutiny. The original study promoting abortion reversal lacked basic safeguards meant to protect human research subjects. Later research attempting to test the protocol was halted due to safety concerns. When studies bypass protections or expose participants to preventable harm, biased exploitation, and inadequate advancements in healthcare, they serve as the basis for legal and legislative overreach.
Anti-abortion advocates promote the idea of an antidote and that the hormone progesterone could be given after Mifepristone, the first drug prescribed for a medication abortion, in hopes of counteracting its effects. This treatment is based on one study that did not have institutional review board approval, a prerequisite for most studies involving human subjects.
Even the authors of the original study promoting abortion reversal as a legitimate practice called for further studies before routine use of their protocol. Subsequent reviews have failed to find reliable evidence that progesterone alone is capable of reversing a medication abortion. Out of over 1,000 studies, only the original study showed a correlation that progesterone counteracted the effects of mifepristone.
The American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists conducted its own study to test the effects of progesterone in women who had taken mifepristone and were forced to end the study early due to a high rate of medical complications, including severe bleeding. Not only is this method ineffective, but it can also be dangerous to women.
That small, methodologically flawed study was later used to justify abortion reversal legislation in multiple states. Multiple states now have a mandate that physicians discuss the potential for abortion reversal when a patient seeks a medication abortion.
By allowing this practice to continue, we introduce unnecessary doubt into a time-sensitive medical decision. And with many states implementing abortion bans early in pregnancy, even short delays in access can have life-altering consequences. A center second-guessing a woman’s choice, or attempting to steer her toward unproven interventions, can leave her with no choice at all.
Since 1967, Colorado has led the nation in reproductive freedom. From expanding access to contraception and family planning to protecting abortion rights at the ballot box, Colorado has long been at the forefront of public access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare. That access was constitutionally protected in 2024 when Colorado citizens passed Amendment 79, which recognizes this right to an abortion and prohibits state and local governments from denying or impeding this right.
However, this right is being degraded by crisis pregnancy centers that offer unproven and potentially dangerous procedures under the guise of “comprehensive care.”
Crisis pregnancy centers seek to intercept women who might be considering an abortion and persuade them that adoption or parenting is a better option. They are not licensed clinics, and their staff are not licensed professionals, which means they are not required to follow regulatory laws such as HIPAA. Unlike licensed medical providers, they are not held to the same clinical or ethical standards. Yet many advertise services in ways that make them appear equivalent to medical clinics offering high-quality reproductive healthcare.
Defining comprehensive as “covering completely or broadly,” it remains inadequate for a clinic to offer “comprehensive” reproductive care to patients at the exclusion or dissuasion of pregnancy termination entirely. By failing to state that they do not offer abortions plainly, these centers blur the line between counseling and advocacy. When a clinician’s or organization’s beliefs are not disclosed clearly to a patient during the decision-making process, that patient’s right to self-determination is undermined, and the clinician is acting unethically. True access requires accurate information, not strategic or biased omission.
Health care ethics means supporting patients in all of their reproductive decisions, including moments of doubt. That is not the case here. There is no safe, ethical, proven way to implement ‘abortion reversal.”
While the Colorado legislature tried to protect us from this unproven therapy, they were unsuccessful. That means the task falls on the medical community and the general public to demand transparency. The right to an abortion is protected in our state constitution, but constitutional protection alone does not guarantee meaningful access. Here, access depends on clear information, ethical practice, and healthcare rooted in rigorous, high-quality research.
Colorado has been a national leader in reproductive healthcare precisely because it has prioritized evidence over ideology. We should not retreat from that commitment now. Transparent healthcare is ethical healthcare. And ethical healthcare is the foundation of real access.
Chase Binion, MA, HEC-C is a current MD-PhD candidate at the University of Virginia and University of North Carolina School of Medicine, where he serves as a certified clinical ethicist. His research interests span bioethics with a focus on reproductive technology, research in pregnancy, and maternal-fetal surgery.
Olivia Widman is currently a JD candidate at the University of Denver Sturm College of Law and is interested in health law and reproductive rights. She is currently an intern at Cobalt Advocates in Denver.
