Natalism and Family Formation: A Christian Perspective

 

This guest post is from Parker Brown, Regent Law 3L:

Questions regarding population trends, birth rates, and intergenerational care affect estate planning, social policy, and family law in consequential ways. Yet the contemporary movement known as "natalism" approaches these questions from a perspective that merits careful scrutiny.

Natalism. Noun: “an attitude or policy favoring or encouraging population growth.” This ideology is distinct from those of groups like the pro-life movement (which seeks an end or heavy restriction to the practice of abortion) or the consistent life ethic (which opposes war, euthanasia, the death penalty, and abortion from an anti-death perspective).

While natalism shares concerns about demographic trends with pro-life advocates, it approaches these questions primarily through the lens of birth rates and population growth. The interest with birthrates arises from a number of considerations, be they spiritual, social, political, or economic. The natalist lens sees the existence of children as an anodyne for familial, community, and national tensions/strife/dissolution. Right-wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation view lower rates of child having as a spiritual malaise impugning trouble for “the state of our souls.” And a variety of voices, from investment banks to advocates at the National Natal conference, view lowered levels of child-bearing as an existential crisis. Yet this position assumes inherent benefits (beyond a rational preference calculus) that having a child is a first order benefit for all persons as a first order consideration. Moreover, regardless of the severity and scope of natalists’ identified harms, their solutions present a metaphorical cure perhaps far worse than the disease.

 

Beginning with the first issue, we should recognize that universal parenthood as a policy goal presents significant challenges. Many potential parents would be poorly suited to the task, through either a lack of material resources, an absence of training, or a poor temperament mismatch. While the first two concerns could be alleviated with government intervention and aid, it does not follow that parenthood for all should be pushed before such considerations are weighed. The latter concern, however, is the simple truth that many people are ill-suited to be parents: through selfishness, propensity to violence, routine narcotic abuse, habitual indigence, and more. Given that more than 340,000 children remained in the US foster care system in 2023 and the rates of adoption from foster care have declined by 19 percent since 2019, it merits further consideration of why more children should be born before finding suitable and loving homes for all children already here. These realities suggest that our focus should include not only encouraging new births but also strengthening support systems for existing families and children that provide stable, loving homes (such as blended, multigenerational, multifamily, and adoptive arrangements). Additionally, though having children is tied to numerous prosocial benefits, there are numerous costs (pecuniary and personal) in having a child. Two studies in 2004 and 2012, respectively, found that recent parents report lowered levels of life satisfaction, marital satisfaction, and day-to-day levels of happiness (lasting for several years, including and up to the point at which children move out). These arise from factors such as less sleep, stress over a child’s wellness, and quarrels over the direction of child rearing. SoFi also estimates the cost of raising a child, in 2024, at $23,000 per year (totaling $414,000 over 18 years). These costs demonstrate that the decision to have a child should not be entered into lightly.

Natalists counter that parenthood is a duty, even if you do not want or enjoy it. Their reasons arise from the aforementioned economic concerns (“we need a supply of workers; we need more young people to pay into entitlement programs to ensure longevity”), societal dogma (“without children, humanity will die out!”), and religious postulations (“God commands us to have kids”). I will discuss these points next.

Economic

At the first national Natal Conference in 2024, speaker Kevin Dolan succinctly remarked on the natalist economic perspective: “The entire global financial system, the value of your money. . .depends on growth.” This is factually true—our present economic system (oriented toward macro measurement of GDP [gross domestic product]) is principally concerned with growth in the short and long term. As a descriptive statement, however, we must be careful not to conflate it with a normative one: mistaking what is from what ought to be. The mere existence of a system does not presuppose its preeminence or positive benefits. Indeed, the distinction of concepts like the “GDP” move focuses away from other measures of economic success and prosperity for individual citizens, such as real wages, unemployment, domestic investment, housing affordability, et cetera. Each focuses on prioritizing an economy that exists for the people, and not a people existing for the economy. (This also ignores models showing that a reduction of birth rates, in some contexts, actually raises GDP growth). We will not dwell at length on these counterfactuals, though; they could not be adequately discussed in a few hundred words.

Societal

This concern relates to a topic called the “fertility rate,” a metric that measures the number of children each woman capable of having children is expected to have. Natalists speak about this subject extensively. This framing continues the above mindset of perpetual growth as inherently good. The question, here, revolves around something called the “replacement rate,” equal to a fertility rate of 2.1 children per woman of childbearing age.¹ If the fertility rate is exactly 2.1, then the population size will be unchanged over two generations (~40 years). If the fertility rate is higher, e.g. 2.6, then the population will grow. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 2.6 will result in a population of ~156 million in two generations (~40 years).² By contrast, a fertility rate below the replacement rate, e.g., 1.6, will cause the population to shrink. Assuming an initial population size of 100 million, a consistent fertility rate of 1.6 will result in a population of ~56 million in two generations (~40 years).

In 2025, the fertility rate in the U.S. is 1.79. This amount is below the replacement rate (and below the apogee of the U.S. fertility rate of 3.65 in 1960). But this paints an incomplete picture: the U.S. fertility rate has risen from an all-time low of 1.62 in 2023 (an increase of 17 basis points and 10.49 percent). Furthermore, despite the U.S. fertility rate being below 2.1 since 2008, the U.S. population is not decreasing but increasing. The total U.S. population was 308.745 million in 2010; in 2020, the U.S. population was 331.449 million (a 7.4 percent increase). The U.S. population continues to rise as of 2025, too, currently estimated at 342.660 million. Given that the American population is not decreasing, why the concern from natalists?

The reason for their concerns and the reason for the population increase each point to a common thread, immigration,³ and the relationship between fertility concerns and immigration policy deserves careful scrutiny. Since they are interested in boosting the birth rates of their own citizens while the overall fertility rate around the world remains quite high, it is reasonable to view natalism as a subset of nativism. Given that the ostensibly first-order problem of overall population decline is not occurring (on the national or global level), the natalists’ viewpoint is thus ultimately concerned with fewer numbers of children from particular persons. Intended or unintended, the natalist movement at present has, unfortunately, attracted speakers whose views on race and immigration raise serious concerns.

The 2025 national Natal Conference found itself in precisely this quagmire. Though officially positioning itself as apolitical and ideologically unaligned (and the abstract idea of promoting child rearing could find support across the political spectrum), it has tethered itself to thought leaders on the radical right. Assembled at its last gathering was a consortium of eugenics supporters, white nationalists, and anti-immigration hardliners. Alas, they appeared not in the audience but as the keynote speakers. These included alt-right YouTuber Carl Benjamin (who publishes content online under the moniker “Sargon of Akkad”), Jonathan Anomaly (an academic and senior staffer at Heliospect Genomics, a startup that screens human embryos for high IQ points and other “superior” characteristics), Jordan Lasker (who, under the moniker “Cremieux,” publishes treatises on debunked pseudoscientific “race science”), and Jack Posobiec (an inveterate promoter of baseless conspiracies such as the Springfield, Ohio, pet-eating hoax, PizzaGate, and the white genocide conspiracy, and who has repeatedly posted antisemitic symbols and comments on social media). The connection between natalist advocacy and racialized population concerns was made plain by keynote speaker Posobiec, who stated at the conference, “Western civilization isn’t just worth preserving. It’s worth fighting for. . . . This is a war, and natalism is our sword and shield, and we will not abandon the front line.” His framing of reproduction as civilizational warfare against demographic change echoes longstanding far-right rhetoric about ethnic preservation. These troubling associations significantly detract from and undermine the movement’s stated goal of a bipartisan consensus to promote families.

In addition to speakers from Heliospect, the through line of eugenics was further bolstered by adverts for the company Orchid (another prenatal screening company that analyzes embryos for their risk of having any of thousands of genetically linked diseases) and Bootstrap Bio (that goes beyond the mere filtering of embryos to the genetic modification of embryos via CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing technology (selecting, again, for the most “superior” of genetic traits). Each calls to mind the dystopian film Gattaca, which imagined a world bifurcated between the genetically engineered first class and the genetically “inferior” invalid class. Altogether, this shows a concerning revival of eugenics discourse (the belief that society ought to have more of the genetically “fit” and less of the “unfit.”) 

To be clear, not every attendee or supporter of natalist policies endorses these extreme positions. However, when a movement’s marquee national event features multiple speakers with documented histories of promoting racial pseudoscience and white nationalist talking points (and when this has occurred at successive conferences), a reasonable observer must question whether these associations are incidental or integral to the movement’s animating concerns. Given that prominent natalists advocate for raising rates of children not just with tax credits but also with political maneuvers (such as restricting contraception access, banning no-fault divorce, and giving parents of minor children extra votes in elections), one can reasonably be skeptical of a movement that is neither pro-life nor pro-family but merely pro-birth.

Religious

Given the above fiscal and sociological points, what should a Christian response be to the topic? Children are counted as a blessing from God (Psa. 127:3-5;⁴ Deut. 7:13-14⁵), yet there is no Biblical command that all must wed and have children of their own. Indeed, marriage is labeled as good but not mandatory practice for Christians (1 Cor. 7:1-2).⁶ Far from extolling a universal view of married parentage for all, both Jesus (Matt. 19:12)⁷ and Paul are clear that singleness is a calling for some (1 Cor 7:7-8;⁸ 1 Cor. 7:38).⁹ Life is a sacred gift that is a monumental responsibility to steward (1 Tim. 5:8)¹⁰ and at times a heavy yoke to bear (Ecc. 6:3-5).¹¹ When children are understood as a blessing yet not a duty, and when pretensions to ethnic supremacy are thoroughly refuted and disgraced (Deut. 10:17-19;¹² Acts 10:34-35;¹³ Gal. 3:28¹⁴), the Christian response should be one of freedom and support, not coercion. Prospective parents should prayerfully consider and discern their calling, resources, and circumstances when deciding whether to have a child (biological, adopted, or otherwise). Our hope rests in God's sovereignty, not cultural power. A natalism that privileges certain populations over others (whether explicitly or implicitly) risks subordinating the gospel to nationalist ideology. This is not merely a political error but a theological one, as it fundamentally misunderstands the nature of God’s kingdom (which is built through spiritual regeneration rather than biological reproduction).

A Christian approach to family flourishing must extend beyond increasing birth rates to restoring and strengthening families in all their forms. Scripture’s call to care for the widow, the orphan, and the sojourner (James 1:27)¹⁵ directs us toward supporting struggling families, facilitating adoption and foster care, and creating communities where children already born can thrive. Rather than viewing low birth rates primarily as a crisis to be solved through political pressure, Christians might better address the root causes: Why do young adults feel unable to afford family formation? What barriers prevent willing parents from providing stable homes? How can churches create a culture that genuinely supports parents through the demanding seasons of child-rearing? I thus encourage the Church to champion healthy and happy families via promulgating policies that remove barriers to having children: affordable health insurance, paid parental leave, childcare support, and more. This push should be coupled with honor for those without children, whether or not by choice. The kingdom comes through disciples made, not babies born.

 

Endnotes

¹ The 0.1 is the mathematical representation of the tragedy of early deaths in childhood.

² Formula for population change in one generation: (initial population ÷ 2)*(fertility rate - 0.1)

³ Net migration to the U.S. has exceeded 1 million persons per year since 1990, with the exceptions of 2020 and 2021. https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/usa/united-states/net-migration

⁴ "Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate." [ESV]

⁵ "He will love you, bless you, and multiply you. He will also bless the fruit of your womb and the fruit of your ground, your grain and your wine and your oil, the increase of your herds and the young of your flock, in the land that he swore to your fathers to give you. You shall be blessed above all peoples. There shall not be male or female barren among you or among your livestock." [ESV]

⁶ "Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: 'It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.' But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband." [ESV]

⁷ "For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it." [ESV]

⁸ "I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am." [ESV]

⁹ "So then he who marries his betrothed does well, and he who refrains from marriage will do even better." [ESV]

¹⁰ "But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever." [ESV]

¹¹ "If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, so that the days of his years are many, but his soul is not satisfied with life's good things, and he also has no burial, I say that a stillborn child is better off than he. For it comes in vanity and goes in darkness, and in darkness its name is covered. Moreover, it has not seen the sun or known anything, yet it finds rest rather than he." [ESV]

¹² "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great, the mighty, and the awesome God, who is not partial and takes no bribe. He executes justice for the fatherless and the widow, and loves the sojourner, giving him food and clothing. Love the sojourner, therefore, for you were sojourners in the land of Egypt." [ESV]

¹³ "So Peter opened his mouth and said: 'Truly I understand that God shows no partiality, but in every nation anyone who fears him and does what is right is acceptable to him.'" [ESV]

¹⁴ "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." [ESV]

¹⁵ "Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world." [ESV]

Let Parents Parent

 

Is it child abuse to help your child transition to the other gender?  Or is it child abuse to prohibit your child’s transition to the other gender? Two states have passed legislation to clear up this dilemma towards the protection of children. But other states may be keeping parents out of the decision-making to allow for a child to follow further experimentation in this area. This type of experimentation on children is troubling at best, and potentially abusive and life-altering. Parents need to be allowed to parent their own children.

 Two states have passed a version of the model Defining Abuse Child Protection Act. They are Indiana (Senate Bill 143) and North Carolina (Senate Bill 442). These are links to the announcements about these new laws from Family Policy Alliance’s (FPA) state allies in those states, or what are known as state Family Policy Councils (FPCs). Both the Indiana Family Institute and the North Carolina Family Policy Council worked tirelessly to connect with and consult with legislators on passing these laws.  

FPA publicly endorses the model Defining Abuse Child Protection Act  and will be working to see many more states enact it in the coming years as a critical safeguard every state needs in order to protect their parents from increasing encroachment upon their rights by various lobbyists and the state agencies that have been captured by sexualizing children experiencing gender dysphoria. Even family courts and child protective services have very few if any legal anchors regarding these concerns. In fact the tragic case of an Indiana family of  M.C. and J.C. v. IDCS led to the bill’s passage. Parents need to be able to parent their own children.

If you are interested in policy work and its broader impact on parental rights visit Let Parents Parent.

Your Duty as a Man

 

This guest post is from Regent Law 3L Jarod Russo:

                 “The mark of a real man is a man who chooses to do the harder thing for the greater good.” -Matt Walsh.

 

Growing up, I frequently pondered what it means to be a real man. Does it mean being surrounded by beautiful women who cling to your every word? Does it mean having power? Does it mean being financially independent so you can pursue your every desire? Hardly.

Sacrifice. That is what makes a man a real man. Men who spend their lives pursuing illicit sex, fame, money, and power for their own sakes are not real men. They are overgrown children. The easy path is to be promiscuous. The easy path is to pursue wealth for its own sake. The easy path is not having a wife and children depending on you and only concerning yourself with yourself. If you still disagree with me, ask yourself this question. How does pursuing the things mentioned in this paragraph better those around you? Does it help your country? Does it help your community? Does it help your family?

The call to action is this: build yourself up into a person who has the capacity to serve a cause greater than yourself. Take care of your health. If you have unresolved trauma, see a therapist and a spiritual leader. Develop a skill that will support yourself financially. Develop the confidence in yourself to talk to women so you can find a wife. Confidence is not based on your perception of yourself. It is based upon stacks of wins in your life that prove to yourself you are capable of doing what you say you are going to do. You have the ability and the potential; now get to work!

Religion, Gender Based Violence, and Human Trafficking: A Dangerous Intersection

 

This guest post is from Jade Q. Heider, Juris Doctorate Candidate 2027, and current Bioethics student:

This summer I interned at a religious freedom nonprofit in Fairfax, Virginia, and attended multiple congressional briefings that exemplified an intersection of religion, gender based violence, and human trafficking. Through the briefings, I learned that in the most extreme cases religion can be forced upon women, or withheld from women, to violate their rights. And this can destroy families.

The first congressional briefing was titled, “Gendered Persecution: Targets of Forced Conversion.” According to the accounts of panelists, girls in Egypt and Pakistan are similarly abused through cycles of child marriage and forced faith conversions. Panelists for this event explained the process of young girls being abducted, raped, and then forced to convert and marry their abusers. This is a clear pattern, and oftentimes, officials and judges do nothing about this because they approve of the spread of their religion through forced conversion. This is a tragic fate for young girls, and even if rescued, survivors face stigma from their communities who value sexual purity. One speaker emphasized that in Egypt the authorities deny justice for the families of the stolen girls and keep a front internationally to cover the sexual crimes. A Coptic woman testified how she was assaulted by her coach and forced to convert to Islam. Even after escaping from her abuser, she was persistently harassed and her abuser claimed she was “his wife.” Another panelist spoke on the condition of women in Pakistan. Like in Egypt, Christian girls, have been forcefully abducted, converted, and married off to men far older than themselves. The panelist emphasized how religious principles were used to create laws allowing underage girls to be married off after their first menstrual cycle. This briefing made the argument that gender based persecution should be recognized as a form of genocide, and that religion used to legally do wrong should be given specific attention. In addition to the trauma inflicted through abduction and forced conversion, child marriage has correlated deleterious effects on girls. Girls who are forced into child marriage miss educational, economic, and social growth opportunities and are often subject to physical and sexual abuse. Additionally, if they fall pregnant, they face higher health complications and risk of death associated with adolescent pregnancy.

Another congressional briefing I attended was called, “North Korea’s Future Hope.” The speakers from this event were all North Korean defectors, and a surprising issue discussed was how women defectors are trafficked in China. This form of gender based violence, occurs when women escape from North Korea through China. Though the women flee in hopes of freedom, many are forced into marriages or tricked into sex work when they flee to China. Since the One Child Policy left the Chinese population unbalanced, there is a large market of desperate men searching for wives. Trafficked women have no rights as undocumented immigrants, and cannot report any abuse to the police. A survivor testified that after defecting she was sex trafficked in China and became pregnant. She explained that her story was not unique, and thousands of children are in China with no birth certificates because their mothers are undocumented themselves. Without birth certificates, these children are unable to receive an education and are legally unprotected. Defectors shared how the North Korean government exerts extreme control and deals harsh punishment over religious expression. However, speakers emphasized how sneaking in the Bible to encourage religious thought, or even other materials such as K-dramas and music from the west, inspired them to defect, and could influence others. In North Korea, religion is restricted as a means of controlling the way citizens think, and severe government control is what drives citizens to defect. Religion being taken away as a means of control, is radically different from Egypt and Pakistan where religion is used as a form of control. Gender-based violence and human trafficking are often interconnected and intersect with religion as a tool that may be utilized or taken away from women to further perpetuate harmful cycles.

Religious freedom, both the freedom to profess a religion as well as the freedom from a religion are fundamental human rights – and they work together to help restore families.

 

Abortion v. Adoption: The Adoption Paradox

 

A new article in the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy entitled, "Informing Choice: The Role of Adoption in Women's Pregnancy Decision-Making," describes the "adoption paradox," i.e., the reality that adoption is a widely admired but rarely chosen institution. By a ratio of 50:1, women choose to terminate a pregnancy over placing a child for adoption. Accordingly, many scholars (and the dissenting justices in Dobbs) question adoption's relevance in abortion policy specifically and in family policy more generally.

 

To investigate this tension, the authors examine never before-published survey data and analysis from the largest study on birth mothers’ decision-making and coercion experiences and aggregate and analyze existing social science studies of pregnancy decision-making regarding adoption. They found a prevalent stigma against the choice of adoption in women's pregnancy decision-making explained by many factors, such as feared emotional distress, social pressures to parent, and concern for the child’s safety. Adoption’s disfavor is amplified when legalized abortion is readily available, and decision-making often takes place in a situation of insufficient information or misunderstanding, for example, prevalent confusion between private domestic adoption and the foster care system. They also found that women who experience the highest satisfaction with adoption placement are those who were able to make a voluntary, fully informed decision.

Based on this data, the researchers recommend law and policy reforms to promote informed decision-making and education about adoption. The article includes the most comprehensive fifty-state survey of abortion-specific informed consent laws and, in light of these findings about the factors that most influence women’s decision-making, the researchers argue that major reform is needed.

This practical article can be useful to any individual in their decision-making process, or any state legislator seeking to promote adoption, or to anyone seeking to strengthen or defend state informed consent laws. Adoption is truly a better choice than abortion.

 

Must a Counselor Affirm Unwanted Therapy Because the State Says So?

 

    Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments in the case of Chiles v. Salazar, challenging Colorado’s counseling censorship law as a violation of the rights of patients and counselors to choose the type of therapy and treatment they wish to receive.

    Licensed counselor Kaley Chiles’ freedom of speech and that of her clients are prohibited by censoring and prohibiting certain private client-counselor conversations regarding sexual orientation and gender identity that the government disfavors while allowing—even encouraging—conversations the government favors. 

    Read the full summary at Chiles v. Salazar. A counselor should not have to affirm unwanted therapy for any patient. A government that requires such protocol is not a state of free people. That government is also not working to restore individuals and families, but to remake and reform them according to the state's totalitarian values. 

    This excellent summary of the case reminds us why this issue is so important to individuals who want counseling, their families, the counselors, and the integrity of any public health system. 

                            https://x.com/ADFLegal/status/1975598928255930461

Michigan's Adoption Conundrum

 This guest post is from Cassia Barker, Regent Law 2L:

          In Michigan, approximately 10,000 children rely on the state’s foster care system for immediate care and for the opportunity of future familial safety. Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services cares for these children by funding agencies that recruit and vet foster homes. MCL 722.124e states that agencies contracted with the State cannot be required to provide services that conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs.

          In 2017, plaintiffs brought a suit against the State, asserting that the State’s contract with agencies that used religious criteria to screen hopeful foster parents violated the plaintiff’s rights under the Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs, two same-sex couples who had been denied service by a Catholic agency, acknowledged the agency’s right to practice its religious views but asserted that the State had caused them a stigmatic injury by allowing the agency to perform a discriminatory practice that it, itself, could not legally perform. The court denied the defendant’s request to dismiss the case, and the two parties reached a settlement in which the State agreed to ensure that agencies it contracted with would not perform discriminatory practices. (Dumont v. Lyons, 2017)

          The Catholic agency, St. Vincent Catholic Charities, would bring its own suit against the State in 2019, arguing that the settlement agreement reached in Dumont v. Lyons violated their right to practice their religious beliefs. Due to the Supreme Court’s ruling on a similar issue in Pennsylvania in 2021 (Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, 2021) which held that refusing state contracts to agencies that would not certify same-sex couples was unconstitutional, the State also settled with St. Vincent, agreeing to not enforce their previous settlement against them. (Buck v. Gordon, 2019) In 2022, the State entered into a consent judgment that allows faith-based discrimination in adoption agencies’ screening processes within certain parameters.

          This legal back-and-forth highlights the tension placed on the State as a fundamentally secular entity that cannot discriminate against sincerely held religious beliefs or against individuals on the basis of their sexual orientation. What does the State do when a religious group’s beliefs require discrimination against a group of people, and yet the government cannot endorse that discrimination? Since adoption—for some, the only way to form a family, either as child or parent—is not recognized as a legal right, is some level of discrimination in the adoption process just a reality that hopeful parents and children must accept? Unfortunately, the present circumstance is Michigan replies, “it depends.”

          Adoption is a biblical concept used by God Himself to place family-less children safely in forever families, from Moses (Exodus 2), to Esther (Esther 1), to every single one of us in our eternal family (Ephesians 1), restoring a family to a child who needs one. Michigan and every state could benefit from that great picture of family restoration.    

Chemical Abortion Accountability Act

This post is reprinted with permission from Americans United for Life (AUL), Policy Counsel Emily Hoegler, Regent Law 2024:

Today, nearly two of every three abortions in the U.S. occur through the “abortion pill”—a two-drug regimen beginning with mifepristone, which starves the developing embryo by blocking access to essential nutrients, followed by misoprostol, which causes the pregnant woman’s body to expel the deceased embryo. As a result of actions by the Obama and Biden administrations, the abortion pill (also known as RU-486 or by its principal brand name, Mifeprex) is being used to circumvent state laws designed to protect women and girls from dangerous abortions. Individuals in pro-abortion states and countries overseas are making pills available through social media and other sources then shipping them through the mail. The ease and anonymity of mail-order abortions overrides commonsense regulations including in-person medical oversight, raising serious safety concerns.    The abortion pill carries heightened medical risks for women. The largest-known study of the abortion pill found that 10.9% of women who undergo chemical abortions experience severe complications—including hemorrhaging, infection, or sepsis—within 45 days. Abortions performed through the pill have a four times higher complication rate than surgical abortions, one in five women who take the abortion pill will experience significant enough bleeding to require medical attention, and as many as eight percent of women will require surgical completion of their abortion. Alarmingly, the risk of serious complications from the abortion pill is 22 times higher than the FDA warning label on the abortion pill bottle suggests, meaning that women who take the abortion pill are not properly informed of its risks.   Yet, women often have little to no recourse when they are injured by chemical abortion. Though some states allow for civil remedies following an unlawful abortion, they often fail to explicitly address harm caused by the abortion pill. It is necessary to include this provision in the law to ensure that all women who are harmed by the abortion pill have access to, at minimum, a civil remedy.   The Chemical Abortion Accountability Act closes this gap by explicitly establishing standing for a civil cause of action against any person who prescribes, dispenses, distributes, sells, or otherwise facilitates the provision of abortion-inducing drugs that cause harm to a woman. Those eligible to file a claim include the woman who underwent the chemical abortion, her close family members, the unborn child’s father (except in cases involving rape or other criminal acts), and others harmed—excluding anyone who facilitated the abortion. Available remedies under the bill include injunctive relief, monetary damages for physical or emotional harm, and legal costs and attorney's fees.   A woman can never truly be made whole from the harms of chemical abortion, but states should enact the Chemical Abortion Accountability Act to ensure women and families harmed by abortion pills have a clear legal avenue to pursue justice and restitution. For Life, Emily Hoegler, J.D. Policy Counsel Americans United for Life P.S. Take action today to protect women from the dangers of the abortion pill. Join our Stop Harming Women Campaign and make your voice heard. With just a few clicks, you can send a powerful message to Congress, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and FDA Commissioner Martin A. Makary, M.D., urging them to protect women from the abortion pill.