Geneva: The World Health Organization (WHO) is under fire from pro-life groups after the inclusion of abortion-inducing drugs in its newly released Model List of Essential Medicines 2025, unveiled on International Safe Abortion Day. For the first time since 2005, the document omits a long-standing disclaimer that abortion medicines should only be used “where legally permitted or culturally acceptable,” a move that critics say amounts to global promotion of abortion.
In its updated list, the WHO states that abortion drugs are part of the global standard of care, emphasizing their importance in reproductive health. However, the decision to remove the caveat has drawn immediate backlash. For nearly two decades, the boxed warning served as a reminder that abortion remains heavily restricted or illegal in many countries.
Pro-life advocates argue that the removal sends a signal of normalization. “The list no longer carries the boxed caveat,” WHO confirmed, noting the change was made in alignment with its stance that abortion is a “critical public health and human rights issue.”
Dr. Ingrid Skop, vice president of the Charlotte Lozier Institute and a practicing OB-GYN, warned that the drugs pose serious health risks. Citing clinical data, she noted that “abortion drugs have a complication rate four times higher than surgical abortion,” adding that “as many as 1 in 5 women will suffer a complication and 1 in 20 will require surgical completion.”
Skop argued that the WHO’s recommendation could be especially dangerous for women in developing countries where access to emergency care is limited. “It’s part of a population control and eugenic agenda,” she said, urging WHO to focus instead on improving maternal health infrastructure such as blood banks, antibiotics, and critical care facilities.
Michael New, a senior associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute and professor at The Catholic University of America, called the decision “disappointing but unsurprising.” He accused WHO of “a strong pro-abortion bias,” pointing to its website’s assertion that restricting abortion does not reduce the number of procedures a claim he said is contradicted by many studies.
Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America also condemned the move. Kelsey Pritchard, the group’s political affairs communications director, applauded the U.S. decision to withdraw from WHO earlier this year. “They keep proving that decision right,” she said, alleging that abortion drug networks are exploiting loopholes to flood U.S. states with pills, regardless of legality.
Pritchard insisted that abortion pills are “far more dangerous than advertised” and described harrowing stories of women facing life-threatening complications. “Week after week these dangerous drugs cause more tragedies: women coerced and poisoned, girls rushed to the ER, mothers dying along with their babies all while the abortion industry profits,” she said.
The WHO controversy comes as American states continue to battle over abortion drug access. In California, lawmakers have advanced a bill that would allow pharmacists to dispense abortion drugs without listing patient or prescriber names, effectively enabling anonymous prescriptions. Critics warn the measure could undermine enforcement in states where abortion pills are banned, as medications could be mailed nationwide under “shield laws.”
Meanwhile in New York, Attorney General Letitia James has intervened in a high-profile case involving a doctor accused of prescribing abortion pills to a patient in Texas. James defended the state’s 2023 shield law, which prohibits New York officials from cooperating with investigations against abortion providers operating across state lines. The case could set a precedent for how far shield laws can go in protecting abortionists from out-of-state prosecution.
For supporters, the WHO’s decision affirms abortion access as a public health priority. For opponents, it signals an aggressive push to normalize abortion at the expense of women’s safety and unborn lives. As the legal, medical, and ethical debates intensify, the battle over abortion drugs is fast becoming a defining issue not only in the United States but also on the global stage.