In late April, the Wyoming Freedom Caucus and at least six of its members and endorsees shared a new study, titled “The Abortion Pill Harms Women: Insurance Data Reveals One in Ten Patients Experiences a Serious Adverse Event,” on social media sites like Facebook.

Those who shared it were Rep. Nina Webber (R-Cody), Rep. Darin McCann (R-Rock Springs), Rep. Ken Pendergraft (R-Sheridan), Rep. Tomi Strock (R-Douglas), Rep. Pepper Ottman (R-Riverton) and Rep. Rachel Rodriguez-Williams (R-Cody), the chair of the caucus.

Some in the faction have sponsored or cosponsored bills restricting abortion access in recent legislative sessions.

Using insurance data from what the study says were “865,727 prescribed mifepristone abortions from 2017 to 2023,” it concluded that 10.93% of women who took mifepristone experienced things like sepsis or hemorrhaging within 45 days.

That’s a significantly larger complication rate than 0.5%, which is the likelihood of complications currently listed on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) label for mifepristone. The FDA approved the drug for use in the U.S. in late 2000.

Some anti-abortion figures like former state lawmaker and Wyoming Right to Life President Marti Halverson see the study as vindicating.

“The headline is, ‘Data suggests abortion pill complications are 22 times higher than previously reported,’” Halverson told Wyoming Public Radio reporter Hanna Merzbach during an interview at the community center in Etna. “ It made national news. I'm not surprised that NPR and Wyoming Public Radio didn't pick it up.”

Halverson claimed the study, authored by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an advocacy group centered on Christianity and Judaism, is one example of dangerous outcomes from taking abortion pills like mifepristone.

The center is based in Washington, D.C. Both of its authors have ties to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank that has lobbied for abortion bans in states like Florida.

The day that study was published, social media pages for the state Freedom Caucus shared the study along with a caption that reads, “Contrary to the claims of the radical pro abortion Left, the abortion pill is not ‘as safe as Tylenol.’”

The findings led to headlines in news outlets like The Washington Post, which fact checked it in an article, and the National Review, which called it a “bombshell study.”

It also came up at a meeting of the U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on May 14.

U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. testified before the committee that he wanted to take another look at regulations around mifepristone, in part because of the new data.

“It's alarming, and clearly it indicates that at the very least the label should be changed,” said Kennedy.

He said he had asked the FDA to conduct a “top-to-bottom” review of the drug.

But some in the scientific community are skeptical about the study’s bottom lines.

“The authors don't provide enough information for us to evaluate their methodology, how they did the analysis or their data source,” said Rachel Jones, the principal research scientist for the Guttmacher Institute. They’re a policy group that supports abortion access. “In turn, we can't determine whether the findings that they claim came out of this study are legitimate or not.”

After a colleague sent her the study, she says she began to notice some “red flags.”

“Something like this needs a third party reviewer, a  peer reviewer, to evaluate their data and their methodology and, in turn, their conclusions before we can consider it legitimate,” she said.

Peer review happens when other experts in the same field analyze a study to make sure it’s valid.

In the frequently asked questions portion of the study, its authors write, “The peer-review process is broken. It is terribly biased against conservatives, especially social conservatives, particularly pro-lifers. The paper would have been leaked, so as to prepare hostile responses, if it were ever published to begin with.”

Jones found what she said was another problem.

“They say, ‘Oh, we measured prescriptions for mifepristone.’ Well, if it was provided for a spontaneous abortion, a miscarriage? Was it included in this analysis?”

That distinction is important, Jones said, since mifepristone is not just used for medical abortions. It can be used to manage miscarriages and has proved effective at treating a whole host of other issues, like Cushing’s syndrome and uterine leiomyomas.

Even so, state lawmakers and anti-abortion figures like Halverson have said publicly that the study’s findings should be cause for concern.

So how can everyday Wyomingites tell if a scientific study is trustworthy?

First and foremost, Bethann Garramon Merkle, a professor of practice and the director of the University of Wyoming’s (UW) Science Communication Initiative, told WPR there’s a basic question people should be asking themselves when they see an eye-catching headline about a study.

“‘How much do I want to believe this?’” she said in an interview about scientific studies in general. “If what you really want to do is believe it because it supports what you understand about the world or your values or your politics, then those are actually the things that you should probably be the most skeptical about.”

Then, Merkle explained it’s important to find out where the study came from. Was it published in a peer-reviewed journal, like the journal Nature or Science?

“Is this a brand new journal that's been invented by a group that has an agenda?”

She said it’s smart to find out who funded the study, and why.

If you still have doubts and are lucky enough to know a scientist, Merkle suggested turning to them to ask questions.

“A lot of people in Wyoming know scientists because – there's that quote about Wyoming that we're a small town with a long street, like people know each other in this state,” she said.

Of course, it’s possible some Wyomingites might worry that establishment scientists or journals harbor bias against conservatives. If that’s you, you’re in good company, according to Merkle.

“If somebody feels skeptical about science, they're part of the process, really,” she said. “We are all skeptical about the results of our science, because we are trying to figure out answers to incredibly hard questions, almost impossible questions, in the sort of existential sense of science.”

Science is about chipping away tiny answers to gigantic questions over decades and even centuries, Merkle said.

“ It's really, really important that we don't get hijacked by one conclusion ever, even if it's published in the fanciest journals,” she added. “One single conclusion is rarely enough information to make a massive sweeping policy or medical treatment decision on.”

If you have questions about a study or the scientific process, Merkle said many professors at UW are happy to talk.

Their contact information is available here.

This reporting was made possible by a grant from the Corporation For Public Broadcasting, supporting state government coverage in the state. Wyoming Public Media and Jackson Hole Community Radio are partnering to cover state issues both on air and online.