Over 90,000 legal claims for complications related to transvaginal mesh have been filed to date. Safety issues specifically related to the use of transvaginal mesh for pelvic organ prolapse have not been appropriately differentiated from the use of mesh for stress urinary incontinence by either attorneys or the media. This litigious environment and nebulous communication on the safety issues have led to patient and physician concern regarding mesh slings for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence. The ultimate result is likely to be a decrease in use of the gold standard of care for stress urinary incontinence—the mid-urethral synthetic sling.