-
Most Asia markets down as tech firms take fresh blow
-
Kane saves England as USA, Belgium reach last 16
-
South Korean school baseball team suspended over 'Tank Day' chants
-
Budding chefs cook up new career at China's BBQ academy
-
Ceuzany, Cape Verde's golden voice with volcanic emotion
-
One stitch at a time: Artist's mission to recreate the Bayeux Tapestry
-
Balogun scores and sees red as US beat Bosnia 2-0
-
Deadly Russian barrage pounds Ukraine capital
-
EU top court to rule on record 4.1 bn euro Google fine
-
Belgium coach salutes Tielemans after World Cup rescue act
-
'Job forever': trade schools are all the rage in the AI era
-
Cracking open a can of cannabis -- America's new pastime (for now)
-
Celtics reportedly trading Brown to Sixers in NBA blockbuster
-
Russia strikes Ukraine capital with missiles and drones, wounds five
-
Kane saves England after DR Congo scare; Belgium comeback stuns Senegal
-
Belgium late show floors Senegal at World Cup
-
Celtics to trade Jaylen Brown to 76ers for Paul George: report
-
Harry Kane: England's World Cup saviour
-
Streamex is making digital gold accessible
-
US actor Danny Glover says he has Alzheimer's
-
Mixed US auto sales in Q2 amid high gas prices
-
Trump sees progress as US, Iran hold Qatar talks
-
Pistons forward Harris reportedly headed to Spurs
-
Djokovic, Sinner into Wimbledon third round, Andreeva stunned
-
Jovial Djokovic dismantles Tsitsipas to reach Wimbledon third round
-
Spurs agree club record £100 mn move for Newcastle's Tonali - reports
-
US stocks retreat to open Q3 ahead of June jobs data
-
Rain has final say in 1st England-India T20 as Sooryavanshi still awaits debut
-
'Gus' the T. rex presented in New York ahead of auction
-
England refused to accept defeat in 'beautiful' DR Congo win, says Tuchel
-
Kane saves England after DR Congo scare; US eye last 16
-
'Let the dogs in': Sabalenka wants Wimbledon to lift ban
-
Catholic society defies Vatican by consecrating new bishops
-
Oppressive heat broils US during World Cup, July Fourth
-
New York prepares for Taylor Swift-Travis Kelce wedding
-
Can anyone stop France at the World Cup?
-
Pair climb to top of Empire State Building for apparent proposal
-
Sinner, Sabalenka into Wimbledon third round, Andreeva stunned
-
French Open champ Andreeva stunned by Krejcikova at Wimbledon
-
England have 'hero moments', says Kane after double downs DR Congo
-
Kane rescues England after DR Congo scare; US eye last 16
-
努莎·奧貝爾:為市民實施時速10公里限速,波茨坦的「坑洞政策」——是漠不關心還是無能為力?
-
Kane rescues England from DR Congo calamity to reach World Cup last 16
-
US refuses to extend North America trade pact in current form
-
'Iran, Iran!' Iranian World Cup squad serenaded on return home
-
Mixed US auto sales in 2nd quarter amid high gas prices
-
Pereira 'taken by complete surprise' as Forest let boss go
-
Swiatek, Zverev hoping to lay down Wimbledon markers
-
Нуша Аубель: «Скорость 10» для жителей: политика Потсдама в отношении выбоин — безразличие или некомпетентность?
-
Spray-painted letters spell tragedy for Venezuela quake victims
Mailed abortion pills found to be safe ahead of US ruling
Abortions administered as pills sent in the mail are just as safe and effective as those provided in person, a US study said Thursday ahead of a Supreme Court ruling on restricting the medication.
Abortion pills have become the latest battleground in the fight over reproductive rights in the United States after the conservative-dominated Supreme Court overturned the landmark Roe v. Wade ruling in 2022.
The decision led to more than a dozen states banning abortion, while others severely restricted it.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments next month on a bid led by anti-abortion groups to restrict access to mifepristone, one of two pills used in medical abortions.
In 2021, as medical visits became more difficult during the Covid-19 pandemic, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) removed the face-to-face requirement for dispensing abortion pills, allowing them to be posted.
The case before the Supreme Court includes a call for this decision to be overturned.
The new study, published in the journal Nature Medicine, looked at data from more than 6,000 abortions using pills supplied by online clinics in 20 states between April 2021 and January 2022.
There were no "serious adverse events" in 99.8 percent of these medical abortions and no follow-up care was needed in 98 percent of cases.
Both figures are similar to those for abortion pills dispensed to patients in person at clinics and doctors' offices.
The study showed the FDA was right to allow abortion pills to be posted, said lead author Ushma Upadhyay, a public health and reproductive social scientist at the University of California, San Francisco.
"Our findings make it abundantly clear that the case at the Supreme Court is simply an attempt to restrict access to abortion care, even in those states where it's legal," she said in a statement.
- 'Essential health service' -
The researchers also compared abortion consultations conducted by video call with those conducted by secure text message, finding that both were equally safe and effective.
These methods allow patients to protect their privacy while making abortion more accessible, they said.
"A ruling against this method and the FDA's rigorous science review process would be a huge blow to the American public and make this essential health service harder to get," Upadhyay said.
The study has already been cited in a brief submitted to the Supreme Court, which has said it will hear oral arguments in the mifepristone case on March 26.
The court is expected to rule by the end of June -- four months before the US presidential election in which abortion is expected to be a major issue.
Medical abortions account for more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the US.
Mifepristone has been found to be safe and effective in hundreds of studies covering dozens of countries.
Last week, a study casting doubt on the drug's safety was retracted by its publisher.
The study, which was repeatedly cited by a federal judge who ruled against mifepristone last year, demonstrated "a lack of scientific rigour that invalidates or renders unreliable the authors' conclusions," publisher Sage said.
J.Gomez--AT