Correction: A previous version of this story misstated the potential timeline for U.S. adoption of tests that identify if a patient has taken mifepristone or misoprostol; a previous headline incorrectly stated that the tests were already available in the United States.
The prospect of modern medical technology and science being wielded by religious fanatics to enforce their dogma sounds like something out of dystopian fiction. However, thanks to some Polish scientists, elected Republicans in red states will soon have a new tool to identify people who seek medical abortions despite forced-birth laws they’ve imposed ever since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June 2022.
A simple blood test can now detect the presence of mifepristone, the progesterone-blocking medication colloquially known as the “abortion pill.” The test can be administered by any competent lab technician or medical practitioner who may suspect that their patient has taken the drug to terminate (or try to terminate) an unwanted pregnancy. Likewise, a tissue test has been developed to detect the presence of misoprostol, the uterus-emptying drug used in tandem with mifepristone. Both tests were developed by researchers in Poland—a nation which has effectively outlawed abortion and has imposed surveillance and threats of prosecution towards anyone suspected of violating the prohibition.
RELATED STORY: How red states are stripping power from urban voters
As reported by Patrick Adams, writing for The New York Times:
Even before Roe v. Wade was overturned last summer, Poland’s draconian crackdown, which was spearheaded by the governing right-wing Law and Justice party, should have been alarming to American supporters of abortion rights. It was always possible that some aspects of what has happened there could happen here.
Now there are reports that laboratory tests to detect abortion drugs have not only been created in Poland but are, in rare cases, also being used there to investigate the outcomes of pregnancies. These tests are not yet known to be in use anywhere else in the world. But Americans would be wise to plan for the possibility that the technology could one day be adopted on this side of the Atlantic and used by law enforcement to suss out whether women have taken abortion pills — which are now banned or restricted in more than two dozen states.
As Adams notes, patients who used these drugs could historically rely on the fact that the medical termination of unwanted pregnancies was indistinguishable from miscarriage, and the use of either mifepristone or misoprostol would not show up in toxicology screenings. Armed with the Polish tests, however, Republican legislatures and attorneys general could confirm their use and take whatever action—criminal or otherwise—they deem appropriate against both patients and those who may supply or facilitate the use of such drugs.
Adams points out that although the researchers in Poland involved in developing and validating these tests cite their concern about potentially hazardous “black market” abortifacients, the objective public health value in this research seems dubious, since both mifepristone and misoprostol have long been considered safe for usage. Adams doesn’t mention—but reasonably implies—that the fact such research is coming out of a prohibitive country like Poland is in itself a strong indication of its ultimate purpose.
Moreover, as set forth in the introduction to the paper that validates the test for mifepristone, the authors plainly acknowledge the value of their research as a tool for law enforcement:
Mifepristone (one of the active ingredients of abortion pills) is used to induce an abortion during an unwanted pregnancy, and is illegal in some countries. This aspect is particularly important in forensic toxicology. In some countries, mifepristone cannot be legally distributed; therefore, analysis of the blood of women who have had a miscarriage (and/or fetal blood) is necessary to confirm or exclude the possibility of using this drug.
The potential utility of these tests to forced birth proponents in their continuing assault on reproductive freedoms in this country would seem obvious. As the tests’ authors explain, their “rapid, sensitive and reliable” methodology (employing highly sophisticated tandem mass spectrometry) can be adapted for use and “successfully applied not only in forensic toxicology laboratories but also in other institutions that appreciate these advantages.” Adams quotes Glen P. Jackson, a forensics professor at the University of West Virginia, who confirms that most testing laboratories that operate as adjuncts to emergency rooms, coroner’s and medical examiners’ officers now have access to the technology to easily develop such tests using the methodology outlined in the Polish, state-sponsored research. Of course, these laboratories also work in tandem with law enforcement.
As Adams explains:
A small but growing group of abortion “abolitionists” are calling for women who get abortions to be charged with murder and criminally punished — even put to death. Some Republican lawmakers are listening; this year alone, more than half a dozen states have introduced legislation that would classify abortion as homicide, a strategy experts believe could gain greater support should others fail. One such existing effort: a serious legal challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s nearly 25-year-old approval of mifepristone that threatens access to the drug across the country. (In mid-August, a federal appeals court panel upheld mifepristone’s approval but with significant restrictions on patients’ access to the drug. The ruling cannot go into effect until the Supreme Court weighs in.)
Adams also cites Georgetown law professor Mary Goodwin, who notes that broad discretionary power afforded to medical practitioners under some state abortion laws allows them to report their clinical observations and data to the police. Thus, “a visit to a doctor’s office or hospital can double as a criminal investigation, leading to arrest and prosecution under a wide range of laws that purport to protect fetuses.”
It is theoretically possible that at least some of those American citizens who voted Republican over the years didn’t realize they were voting for this kind of malignant police-state intrusion into their own and their children’s’ reproductive lives. But in Republican-dominated states, thanks to the intersection of modern medical technology, law enforcement and the unrelenting demands of the religious right, that’s exactly what they’re going to get.
RELATED STORY: Fascist versus free: Comparing red state regimes with blue state control