May 2, 2025 • 57 mins
The abortion pill has become the most common form of abortion in America—but most people have no idea about the serious harm it causes women.
This week on The Narrative, CCV President Aaron Baer and Communications Director Mike Andrews sit down with Jamie Hall, Director of Data Analysis at the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC), to discuss their shocking new report on the abortion pill.
In this powerful conversation, Jamie breaks down:
đź’Š The truth behind the growing use of abortion drugs
📉 How the Food and Drug Administration is failing women
⚖️ What policymakers and advocates need to know right now
Before their talk with Jamie, Aaron and Mike unpack significant policy developments that unfolded this week, diving into Aaron's speech on the steps of the United States Supreme Court during oral arguments in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond, the reinstatement of Ohio's SAFE Act (HB68), and CCV's filing of an amicus brief, on behalf of former US Attorney General Ed Meese.
With chemical abortion on the rise and major legal battles underway, this is a must-listen for anyone who cares about saving lives, protecting women, and holding institutions accountable.
âť—TAKE ACTIONâť—
Making your voice heard is easy! Use CCV's action center to email your US Representative and US Senator, as well as Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., and FDA Commissioner Martin Makary, MD, and tell them to immediately revoke FDA approval for the abortion pill.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:00):
And it's terrifying. The thought that 10.93% of women are
experiencing one of these serious adverse events after taking the pill,
or any other drug that had an adverse event rate
like that would be pulled off the market, but not mifepristone,
because the left thinks women need abortion above all else.
S2 (00:24):
Hi again everybody. Welcome to another episode of the narrative,
Mike Andrews. Aaron Bair with you today. And, Aaron, there
are weeks when we need to scour the news trying
to find something to talk about, and there are other
weeks where we can just talk about a day's worth
of press releases from, and that is where we're at today,
because what a day yesterday was.
S3 (00:43):
Yeah. And let me just say to listen, guys, we
hear you. We send out a lot of emails, okay?
We know, uh, we're trying to figure out the best
way to synthesize all of this stuff down. We literally
just had our retreat with Mike and, uh, and all
the leadership team. And we were talking through it on.
All right. We are now sending because we're doing more
(01:03):
than we ever have, right. I mean, it's it's a
good problem to have. Um, but, you know, we we
had this whole conversation on Tuesday at our leadership team
retreat on. Yeah, we got to start figuring out, um,
other ways to communicate these things and all that. And yeah,
we're hearing the feedback that it's it's a lot a
lot of communications. And then literally the next day it's like,
so here's three things we're sending today.
S2 (01:25):
And and what was so funny this is a little
bit how the sausage is made here. But we had
had a conversation on Monday like okay here's our rhythm.
Here's what we know what's coming. We can kind of
spread these out throughout the week and then nope, no.
S3 (01:36):
Here's here's three things that have to go down.
S2 (01:38):
Here's four emails before 11 a.m. on Wednesday. But they
are also but it's good.
S3 (01:43):
Like I promise. Like we're only trying to do like
meaty things. Like, you should know, this just happened. This like, um,
and some of the stuff we're going to talk about today,
like it is like core core mission of, you know, why?
Why do people support us? Why do people come around
us is, you know, sign up for our emails is
(02:05):
there's so much stuff that happens in government, um, that
affects you and matters for how you vote. Uh, you know, like,
we don't we don't want voters that just, you know,
come Election day, try to turn on and see what's
going on. We want to stay engaged and at least
baseline informed. And so that's our job is to help
help Christians especially do that. Um, and yeah, like you said,
(02:28):
there's some days where it's like, there's nothing we can
do about this.
S2 (02:31):
Yeah, it's just got to be what it is.
S3 (02:33):
And but we're trying to figure it out.
S2 (02:34):
I promise you, we are. We are working on it.
As Aaron said, we hear you. Stay tuned. We'll try
and figure it out. And if we don't, we're just
gonna keep sending emails. Because you gotta know. You gotta
know it. Yeah.
S3 (02:45):
We're really trying to be discerning about. This is one
you gotta know.
S2 (02:48):
Yeah, well, one of the things that we wanted to
email folks about yesterday is you had not a first
time experience by any means, but the unique experience of
being at the Supreme Court yesterday and speaking at a
rally around the Drummond case, which we talked a little
bit about a few weeks ago when Troy was on
the podcast. And, um, school choice was a big factor
in that. And the way that a, I think it's
(03:10):
in Oklahoma, where there were a Christian charter school that
wasn't being given the same privileges as other charter schools
in the state. So tell us a little bit about
the experience and some of your remarks and just the
overall feeling in D.C. around that case.
S3 (03:21):
Yeah. You know, this is this is one of these cases, um,
that subtly could fundamentally transform education in a great way
in America today. Um, and it has massive implications both
for religious freedom and massive implications for school choice. And
so let me just sort of level set, um, what
(03:44):
it is, uh, real quickly here. Uh, so, uh, in Oklahoma,
just like in Ohio, they have charter schools, right? Uh,
charter schools are different than private schools because they are
technically public schools, right? Um, but they are operated by
a private entity, right. So they're they're regulated the same
as a public school in terms of their their testing requirements,
(04:07):
safety requirements. Um, you know, they have to accept all kids, um,
all that kind of stuff, right? Uh, but instead of
having a huge sort of, uh, bureaucracy over the top
of it in terms of mandating all of the other
stuff that goes along with it, um, a private entity
(04:28):
can can run the school. Again, they still have to
meet all of the public requirements. But really, what it
allows for a lot where you see a lot of
charter schools really make a name for themselves, are in creating,
creating custom learning environments. So a virtual, you know, sort
of an online school, that's where a lot of folks, um,
interact with charter schools, or maybe it's a Stem school,
(04:51):
or maybe it's an art school or those types of things. Right?
They make Various emphasis. Well, um, in, uh, in Oklahoma, uh,
for the first time ever, we had a school say, hey,
we are going to start this this private entity that's
going to run the school is going to be Saint
Isidore Catholic School, right? Virtual charter school, rather. Um, and, uh,
(05:15):
they were going to be a Catholic charter school. So
the underlying operator was going to be Catholic. They were
going to integrate Catholic, um, theology, Catholic ideas into it,
but they were going to be a public school. So
allow you still accept everyone. But just like a Stem
school is going to emphasize science and technology and math
(05:36):
and things like that, these guys were going to have
an additional emphasis over, uh, Christianity, Catholicism, that kind of thing. Um,
first of its kind, uh, you can, you know, I
can understand folks say, whoa, this is there's some issues here,
this separation of church and state, all that kind of
You know, nonsense that folks say, um, but but it is.
(05:57):
It's kind of a new concept. Um, so the Oklahoma
Charter School Board voted to approve them. Um, and then
the attorney general said, no, you can't approve them. This
is a violation of the separation of church and state
went all the way up to it's at the Supreme
Court now. Um, so why do we believe that, uh,
(06:22):
this Saint Isidore should be allowed to exist, and any
religious entity wants to, um, uh, run a charter school
should be able to do so. Um, it really comes.
And this was my, my, my my first remarks, uh, yesterday, uh,
at the rally, um, which again, is just still a
really an amazing thing that we get to do as
(06:46):
Americans is stand outside of the highest court, the most
powerful court, um, and speak freely about these things and
have open debate with people who disagree with us. That's
just it's something that makes America special. But try not to.
I'm trying not to get too distracted there. Um, the
fundamental question is if this organizing entity, uh, was instead
(07:08):
of being Saint Isidore Virtual Academy, they were the Excellence
Virtual Academy or the Innovation Virtual Academy. Uh, would they
have been denied? Right. If it wasn't for their faith,
would they be able to access this program? Right. Uh,
and the answer, the undisputed, uh, facts of the case are. No,
(07:34):
they would not have been denied if they were anything else. Right.
So fundamentally, what the state of Oklahoma has done in
this situation is they have said there are secular views
which are preeminent, and they are the the views that
get special protections and special access. And there are religious
(07:54):
views that are secondary and they get denied certain access.
That is a religious test that is fundamentally in violation
of the First Amendment. You cannot show preference in that way.
This is this is one of the biggest things that
I see even Christians get wrong today is that there's
there's this sort of super secular worldview that gets the
(08:17):
protection that that is the standard view of America and
the standard view of the Constitution. And then there's all
these other religious views. That's fundamentally not the case. I mean,
that's again, I know this is a little bit trite,
but that cannot be what the First Amendment meant when
(08:38):
you have that we when when the writers of the
Constitution talked about, we have certain rights endowed by our creator. Right.
When you when you saw prayers starting the constitutional conventions
and things like that, like very clearly. They could not
have meant that. Thought that that's what the First Amendment meant,
is that their secular views and that's the preeminent view.
And then everything religious has to say that that can't
(09:00):
function that way. Um, so that's why this is a
very important First Amendment case, but it's also a very important, um,
school choice case because, you know, the number one folks
that are bringing innovation into the education space are Christians.
I think CSV and our Ohio Christian Education Network and
United States Christian Education Network are a big example of that.
And if we can open this door to allowing Christians
(09:24):
to get into the charter school space as well, that
would be phenomenal. Now, again, that's a very different conversation
than private schools and the voucher programs and Essa programs
that are all over the country, because private schools are
able to say, hey, you can only come here if
you ascribe to our faith. If you're a religious charter school,
you've got to accept everybody, right? But they are choosing
(09:46):
to come to you and choosing to get that type
of education. So you'd be choosing to come to get
a Christian education here. Um, now, before somebody else says,
oh my gosh, but what if somebody goes and starts
an LGBT charter school? Well, you know, maybe that could happen,
but I would say it's most likely not going to
happen because we already have those. Those are called public schools.
S2 (10:05):
Boom. Roasted roasted. There's is well a couple of thoughts
come to mind. Number one, um, Christians were largely behind
the early public school movement in America. So yeah, y'all
messed that up. We're trying to make the.
S3 (10:18):
Case.
S2 (10:19):
Here. And it seems also that the Supreme Court has
ruled on not exactly the same thing. They wouldn't pick
up a case if it was in line with something
that they've already ruled on. But we've seen what was it,
the Trinity case, the Trinity.
S3 (10:30):
Lutheran case.
S2 (10:31):
Where you're treating a, uh, religiously based organization differently than
you would treat a secular case. And so there's there's
some overlap in ways that they've ruled before with this case.
S3 (10:40):
Know that Trinity Lutheran is a great example for for
those who remember that case, it was this was a
a Christian preschool that the state of Missouri had a
program where you could apply for rubberized tires for your playground. Right. Um, for, for, uh,
and Trinity Lutheran submitted an application. They were a top,
(11:02):
you know, it was like the top 15 applicants were
going to get it. They were a top five applicant
in terms of meeting the the generally applied requirements, in
terms of does your space meet the facilities? Is it
a large enough space? Is it too large of a space.
Did you you know honestly do you have your stuff together?
You know, all the things of like, are you actually
going to use this for for playground? And they were rated,
(11:22):
I think, a top five applicant. And then the state
of Missouri said, nope, because you're Christian, because you're religious. Uh,
you can't get it right. And that is, um, you know,
one of my favorite, uh, odious to the Constitution that
that is not not as not allowed under the First Amendment. Um,
and so, uh, yeah, you know, we should get a
(11:45):
decision in this case by the end of June. Um, and, uh,
and again, it's a, it's a big, big deal.
S2 (11:53):
Well, the one bit of news that I think caught
us off guard most of all because we were, you know,
off site, right. Barely had cell phone service and got
a note that there was a ruling on HB 68.
The Safe act, which we had mentioned a few weeks ago,
had been stayed due to a lower court ruling and
a challenge brought by the ACLU. And we got our
(12:13):
our ABC lesson this morning. That's this is my branding
for you, Aaron. That's the Aaron Burr civics lesson for
the team as you kind of walked us through what
was going on with this, uh, the broad scope is
that great news. But still 4 to 3 was confusing. Yeah.
S3 (12:29):
Yeah, confusing. That's a good word for it. Um, so
the baseline on this, um, House Bill 68, the Safe act, um,
we passed it, you know, went into effect after we
overrode the governor's veto. And it was around January of 2024. Um,
the ACLU brought a lawsuit against it in state court,
not federal court, but in state court. They brought it
(12:51):
in Franklin County court. Uh, shocker of shockers, actually. We
our side won, right? Uh, and that in that case, uh,
then the ACLU appealed to the 10th District Court of Appeals, uh,
and our side lost in that, right. Um, and by
our side, I mean, uh, you know, Dave Yost is
the one arguing on behalf of the arguing on behalf
(13:14):
of the state. Um, and Eliot Geiser, our solicitor general,
they've been doing a phenomenal job. The technically, what the
10th district did was they only blocked the ban on
puberty blockers and hormone therapy from going into effect. Um,
and so, uh, Dave Yost appealed immediately up to the
Supreme Court to say, uh, hey, uh, you need to stay.
(13:38):
You need to overturn this block, um, while the trial
goes on. Right. So this is just a question of, hey,
is this is the law going to be allowed to
be in effect while a full trial on the merits proceeds? Um,
and uh, and thankfully, uh, the Ohio Supreme Court said, uh,
(14:00):
yet we're going to overturn uh, the or stay the,
the 10th district court's decision. So the full Safe act
is back in effect while the full trial goes on. Um,
this could take 18 months to two years, right? So
that's that's good for at least the next 18 months
to two years, these procedures will be blocked. We still
feel confident we're going to win. Um, really want to
(14:23):
say how grateful we are that, uh, justice Pat DeWine,
Justice Joe Deters, Justice Megan Shanahan and Justice Dan Hawkins, uh,
voted to overturn the 10th District Court and allow this
law to go into effect. Um, but to your point, Mike,
we were quite frankly shocked that it was 4 to 3,
(14:45):
because I think most folks would look at the Ohio
Supreme Court and say, there's A61 conservative majority on the
on the Supreme Court. Um, and what you had was
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, um, justice Pat Fisher, um, and
then Democrat Justice Jennifer Brunner, who we figured would vote
against this, um, vote to allow the stay, um, to
(15:10):
allow the law to be blocked, uh, ongoing. Um, and
that's really surprising, uh, that those justices would do that now, um,
what also frustrated me about this, and this is just
generally one of my frustrations with the Ohio Supreme Court. Um,
you know, a lot of times, you know, we're used
to seeing opinions and dissents and things like that. And
(15:32):
but that's when a case is finally decided. Right? That's
the last thing you get. The judges explain their decisions. Well,
in this case, we didn't get an explanation. We just
got a ruling that came out with four For the
four justices that said, yep, we're going to block this.
And the three justices that says the four justices, yes,
we're going to allow this law to go into effect.
And the three justices says, no, we think the law
(15:52):
should remain, um, uh, blocked, uh, while the trial goes forward. Um,
and so I put out a statement yesterday, um, obviously
put out a statement just because these are justices that
the Ohio people elected. Right. So to our earlier conversation, Mike,
this is our obligation to let people know, hey, here's
(16:13):
how the people you elected voted, right? Uh, we do
this regularly at CCP.
S2 (16:17):
And the Supreme Court races were a big part of
our voter guide last year. Huge part. Like, don't forget
about this because it's really important.
S3 (16:23):
It matters a lot. Right. And these same justices soon
are going to be deciding some abortion cases and school
choice cases. Uh, and so people need to understand what
they're doing so that when these folks are going to
be out on the campaign trail again, you can talk
to them about why did you do this? And it's
really hard to know why they do this when they
don't tell you their names. Just show up on one
side of the vote or another. Um, and so I
(16:46):
frankly was very frustrated. That was my, my my post
on on X yesterday. Um, that, uh, you know, hey,
this is great. The law is back in effect, super
grateful for justice DeWine, Justice Deters, Justice Shanahan and Justice
Justice Hawkins. Um, but for the life of me, I
can't understand. Especially why Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice, um, uh, uh,
(17:11):
Justice Fisher would vote in a way that would allow
kids to continue to be sterilized. And I think that's
a legitimate question they should be asked when they're out
across the state. Um, justices aren't above the voters, right?
The voters are still, uh, the the sort of the
supreme authorities, uh, in our, our state. Um, my understanding
(17:31):
is Justice Kennedy at least has has some explanation for it.
I don't think it's a very good one. Um, I'll
let her, you know, if she decides she wants to
explain to voters why she did what she did. I
think she should. Um, because we deserve to know that. Why?
Why a justice would think it's okay for kids to
be sterilized or act in, or at least rule in
such a way that would allow that to go on. Um,
(17:55):
and it's, you know, this is, um, there are a
few things as, as important as, as this issue right
now when you understand how rampant these procedures were all
over the state and how important it is, uh, for, uh,
for us to protect our children today.
S2 (18:11):
And the process that you outlined there is part of
that is important for the next story that we want
to talk about, which is the friend of the court brief,
the amicus brief that CSV filed in the HB 68 case.
So tell our listeners a little bit about that, Aaron.
S3 (18:27):
Yeah, this was a a big one and a pretty
cool one too. Yeah. Um, you.
S2 (18:31):
Know, yeah, it was actually hard to capture what it
actually meant in a, in a quick news release, but
that's why I'm grateful we have a little longer format
here that we can talk about it.
S3 (18:42):
For sure. So. So the 10th District Court was very
strategic in how they struck down or how they blocked
a part of the Safe act. Right? One, they didn't
touch surgeries. They didn't touch boys and girls sports. So
they were very politically minded that those things are not popular. Um,
and they tried to parse out the puberty blockers and
(19:03):
hormone therapies from especially the surgeries, which, again, is logically nonsensical, but, um, okay. Uh,
and what they did in particular, um, voters in Ohio
might remember in 2012, following the passage of Obamacare, there
was a what was called a health care freedom amendment
that was passed. Um, and it really was in response,
(19:27):
like I mentioned to Obamacare, to say, hey, people should
be free to get access to insurance that they want
and not be forced to get insurance they don't want.
Things like that. Um, and, It was backed by a
lot of very conservative groups. Um, former Reagan Attorney General
Ed Meese, um, was one of the main advocates for this,
(19:47):
not just in Ohio, but nationwide and other states to pass. Um,
and they actually the court relied upon the Health Care
Freedom Amendment. So this, this conservative backed amendment and used
what they would call, uh, they said, hey, we want
to be textualists. We want to be originalists, constitutionalists. Right.
(20:09):
All buzzwords. I'm sure everybody who hears those words, if
you're a conservative, you perk up. Yeah, that's right, that's us.
You know, they used all this language to try to,
you know, pressure the court, the Supreme Court, because they're
very much aware that there's A61 majority on the Supreme Court.
So they used all of these arguments to try to
box the Supreme Court saying, well, hey, you're you believe
in health care freedom, right? You believe in, um, uh,
(20:33):
in textualism and originalism, right? Then you have to rule
with us. This is what the voters voter said. Um,
you know, there's very clear problems with that. Uh, one
of which is if you're going to read the Health
Care Freedom Amendment to say that people should be allowed
to get any medical procedure, whatever they want at any time. Um,
I mean, we couldn't ban drugs at that point, right? Like,
(20:55):
if somebody says I need to take fentanyl to deal
with my mental health, um, like, well, who is the
government to say no to that? Right? It's really an
absurd argument. Um, but, uh, if you're also, uh, going
to say this is a, you know, what they were
really trying to do is, hey, this is what they
(21:17):
even went so far as to quote Ed Meese. They
cited Ed Meese in their brief to say, see, even
Ed Meese would say that, uh, this this is unconstitutional
or at least suggest that is what they were kind
of getting at. Um, so the good news is Ed
Meese is still around, right? He's still with us. Um,
and by the grace of God, we got in contact
(21:39):
with Mr. Meese. Um, and, uh, you know, he's retired
now and all these types of things. And we wrote
a brief and asked him, hey, could we submit this
on your behalf, saying, this is not what I meant?
Write this one. This is bad textualism and originalism. And
Ed Meese is kind of one of the founders fathers
of textualism and originalism, along with Antonin Scalia and others. Um,
(22:01):
but also, this is not what I meant in this
Politico article that you're quoting me from, from 2012. Um, which,
as an aside, one of my all time great. Uh,
I've got to get off this call was I was
talking to a friend, uh, and Ed Meese called me
on my cell, and I'd be like, hey, I'm sorry,
I have to call you back. Ed Meese is calling me. Uh,
that's that was pretty fun.
S2 (22:22):
Um, not to name drop or.
S3 (22:24):
Not to name drop.
S2 (22:24):
Not kind of a big deal.
S3 (22:26):
Kind of a.
S2 (22:26):
Big.
S3 (22:27):
Deal. Uh, but we submitted a brief, uh, on, uh, Mr.
Meese's behalf, basically debunking all of that, which was really
great Alice and her team worked on it with us. And, um, yeah,
just that I think is going to help really provide
clarity to the Supreme Court. And this is what this
is where groups like CCP really matter in these cases
(22:47):
because you have you have Dave Yost, who's bringing in
all the arguments, the arguments from the court to the court.
But what the left has done for years is they
bring in all these, like you mentioned, friend of the
court briefs these outside groups to file briefs in these
cases to try to bully and pressure the court in.
And the right typically doesn't. We don't get involved in that. Right.
And I said this to our board and to the team.
(23:09):
Like if we weren't here, this wouldn't happen because these
briefs also aren't cheap to write and file. Um, and so,
you know, thank you to everyone who supports CCP supports us. Uh,
by the grace of God, we're in position then to
to to fight these fights and, and see these fights
through the to the end. Right. It's not just enough
(23:31):
to vote to get the people elected or even just
to get the law passed. Then you got to stay
in the game to make sure it gets upheld and
gets enforced. That's why we have this building on Cap Square,
and that's why we do what we do here.
S2 (23:43):
Yeah. And quick plug. Yeah. If you want to keep.
S3 (23:48):
Oh yeah I mean we spent over ten grand on
briefs and other legal research in this case. Um, and again, that's,
that's all private donor support that the state has, their
taxpayer dollars they use. We got to do this all
with with the $12 widow's mite checks we get and
larger as well. Yeah.
S2 (24:06):
And if you want to donate to keep David Mehan
off the podcast, by all means just make a note
in your donation. We'll make sure that that happens. Yeah,
we'll send him on some remote corner of the state
with your donation.
S3 (24:17):
Back out to Nebraska.
S2 (24:18):
Again.
S3 (24:18):
Like we did before.
S4 (24:19):
So yeah.
S2 (24:20):
Well, that's been a full docket of news. And the
crazy thing is, we haven't even touched on the biggest
story of the week. But we we did that intentionally.
We saved it for the interview portion so we could
have a full, close to 30 minutes to talk about
this new bombshell abortion pill report with Jamie Hall from
the Ethics and Public Policy Center. This was this was staggering.
(24:42):
It's the biggest.
S3 (24:43):
Pro-life news since Dobbs. I mean, and it's just getting started.
S2 (24:47):
Yeah. And there's no other. We don't need to say
anything else except that to tee up the interview. Jamie
Hall from the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Coming up
next on the narrative. Hey, narrative listeners, you know, Christians
in the marketplace today face more unique and challenging threats
than ever before. Businesses are following woke capitalism. Chambers of
commerce are beholden to social justice, and secular activists are
(25:09):
chipping away Christians First Amendment rights. As Ohio's only Christian
Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Business Partnership stands in the
gap to advocate for, to educate and to celebrate Christian
business owners. Joining the partnership also allows businesses to provide
their employees with healthcare, insurance, worker's compensation, and exclusive banking
(25:30):
and educational Discounts. To find out more and to join,
go to kbpi. That's kbpi.org. We are back on the narrative.
Mike Andrews, Aaron Bear, and we're joined now by Jamie
Hall from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he
(25:51):
is the director of data analysis and a fellow in
the Life and Family Initiative. He began his career in
the George W Bush administration, where he served with the
CIA and other agencies. He was born and raised in
Kentucky and currently resides in Virginia with his wife and
their four children. And we're excited to talk to you today, Jamie,
about a new report that you've authored around the abortion
pill and some of the misleading claims, to say the least,
(26:14):
that are out there about it. So thanks for the
time and helping us break this down today.
S1 (26:19):
Thank you for inviting me onto your show. I really
appreciate the opportunity to share this information. It's just incredible
what's happening to these women.
S2 (26:28):
Yeah. And and I think the place that we just
need to start is some of the claims made around
the abortion pill are that it's allegedly safe and effective,
and we know that that is completely and totally not true,
because when it is effective, it's not safe for the baby.
But certainly they're making that claim from the standpoint of
the mother. But your report that Ethics and Public Policy
(26:48):
Center just put out shows that it's not even safe
for the mother, because there are a lot of severe
adverse health effects that are documented when women take this.
So kind of walk us through some of that high
level detail and what you found as you looked into
this issue.
S1 (27:03):
Sure. So, um, we found that 1 in 10 women
who take the abortion pill will experience a serious adverse event. Well,
what does that mean? Um, it's something like infection, which
could lead to sepsis, hemorrhaging, which could eventually require a
blood transfusion. Uh, about half of the women who experience
(27:23):
one of these serious adverse events will find themselves in
the ER, or even hospitalized as a result of that.
So we're not talking about just like. Nausea and vomiting,
some cramps, things like that. We're talking about really serious
medical events that require attention.
S3 (27:41):
So, Jamie, I think, um, the thing about this report
right now that can't be missed, right? There's a lot of,
you know, in the pro-life world, we literally have endless
websites that are coming out with stories like, you know,
I love m life news, life site news, all that
kind of stuff. This report is different. Um, I like
the way David B, right, said the other day, um,
(28:02):
that this is the most significant, um, news and, uh,
sort of, uh, victory, I'd say by exposing this for
the pro-life movement since Dobbs. Right, that, uh, you know,
for a lot of us, uh, as my wife who
volunteers at a pregnancy center, David Mehan, our policy director,
she runs a pregnancy center. Um, anybody who's worked in
(28:24):
the pregnancy center space has seen, uh, for for years
that women who take the abortion pill very often have
serious adverse events, right? They end up in the hospital for,
for various, uh, issues. Um, now we have the data
to show it. Right now we have the, the real
life evidence to show it. Um, and the data we
(28:46):
have on this, I think, is what really sets this
report apart. It's not just like you said, not just that.
You know, the FDA label says, uh, you know, less
than half a percent of women who take the pill
have serious adverse events. Um, it's no, actually, it's 1
in 10. Our data, the data that's in this report,
your data is, uh, actually better than anything the FDA
(29:08):
had when they came up with that claim. Can you
just explain what where this data came from and why
this data is actually a more reliable picture of, uh,
of the actual adverse events from the abortion pill, the
actual risk of the abortion pill compared to what the
FDA came up with that number with before.
S1 (29:29):
Sure, we have data on all abortions that were paid
for through insurance in the United States from 2017 to 2023.
This is 865,727 abortions. By contrast, the FDA, when they're
(29:49):
discussing the safety of mifepristone, the abortion pill, they're using
data for less than 31,000 women. So we have 28
times as much data as the FDA has on the
safety of mifepristone. We're looking at real women who are
taking the pill under the conditions, receiving the care that
women receive when they when they take this pill here
(30:13):
in the US today. Whereas the FDA was looking at
clinical trials where the doctors were monitoring the women closely
throughout and they were going to receive much higher quality care,
Air quicker interventions if anything started to go wrong. Um,
that's that's not what women get today when they actually
(30:33):
take the pill in real life. So we have much,
much more reliable data on what any woman who's actually
considering taking the abortion pill today could expect along the way.
And it's terrifying. The thought that 10.93% of women are
experiencing one of these serious adverse events after taking the pill. Um,
(30:55):
any other drug that had an adverse event rate like that, uh,
would be pulled off the market, but not not mifepristone,
because the left thinks women need abortion above all else.
S3 (31:06):
And just for context, so people understand, there's a few
things I want to help clarify here. One, uh, this
is the abortion pill different than what most folks would
think of as contraceptive, uh, contraception, which is, uh, you know,
the pill that women take sort of, uh, daily, um, to,
to prevent pregnancy. Also different from what's called the morning
(31:28):
after pill, which is women can take immediately following sex
to try to stop pregnancy. Oftentimes actually oftentimes in both
of those situations, abortions can be caused by those pills,
but not always. Um, this is, uh, the the two
drug regimen that Planned Parenthood uses. You know, according to
(31:48):
the Ohio 2023 abortion report, uh, this pill was used
in 44%. So over 9000 abortions in Ohio, um, uh,
in 2023, that number has increased dramatically, um, over the
last few years, even since over the last two years,
since 2023. Um, and the way this pill works is
(32:09):
it's a two pill regimen. You have mifepristone, um, which
allegedly how it's supposed to work. Is it? It basically
starves the child. So it blocks, uh, the child from
getting progesterone, which is nutrition in the womb. Um, and then, uh,
the second pill they take is called misoprostol, which induces labor. Um,
(32:30):
and so this is specifically over mifepristone. Now, now, Jamie,
I want to go back to the data you were
talking about. Um, so this was you mentioned it was
about 860,000 women. Uh, that was in the study. This
database covered 330 million Americans, um, over this seven year span. Um,
I'm sure for a lot of our good conservative listeners here, uh,
(32:54):
that's pretty creepy that this data is out there. What
is this data? Is this was this like, uh, data
that was leaked somewhere? Was it? Where did this data
come from? And how is this data typically used?
S5 (33:05):
This is this is called de-identified data.
S1 (33:08):
So we don't know exactly who any of these people were. Uh,
we just have an identifier so that we can track
the same person over time as in this case, the
woman um, receives care, um, after the abortion, for whatever
complications she might she might experience. Uh, but in general,
(33:32):
this data is used for all sorts of health, uh, research,
both from academics as well as, uh, from industry. Um,
insurance companies will use this to help them decide what
they should be covering, what their pricing should be. Um,
it's this is a multi-billion dollar industry trading on people's
(33:54):
healthcare data, but it has to be done in a
way that's compliant with HIPAA. So there are 18 specific
items that are considered, uh, restricted under HIPAA. That information
has to be removed from the data before it's shared.
But after that shared, um, we're we're able to we're
(34:15):
able to look at every diagnosis, every procedure, any treatment
that anyone's receiving any health care provider covered by their
insurance in the United States. It's just that in this case,
we're focused on abortion and the care that women receive
in the 45 days after the abortion.
S2 (34:38):
So this might be getting into the weeds a little
bit too much. But but is that just based on
like medical coding and things like that that are available
in medical records. And you can kind of cross identify
what's an abortion and what are these adverse reactions.
S5 (34:49):
Yes.
S1 (34:50):
So we're able to identify the abortions within the data
set because they have the appropriate medical codes for an abortion.
Usually there's one particular code that's used most of the
time that covers the entire visit associated with the abortion
at the at the doctor's office. Um, but then in
(35:10):
other cases, um, actually, some of the insurance companies don't
really want it to be so easy for people to
identify that they're paying for abortion. So they on, um,
on the website of the manufacturer of the abortion pill,
Danco Laboratories. Uh, if you look hard enough, you can
find a document that says, hey, providers, if you want
(35:33):
to get this covered by insurance, here's how you need
to fill it out and report it for our purposes. Um,
we we took that information for what codes they were
using in these specific situations, for these specific insurers in
certain states and said, okay, we're going to include those
as well. So they were they were in some sense
(35:54):
trying to hide it. Uh, but we were able to
find those too.
S3 (35:59):
I mean, I just want to ask because you you were,
you know, uh, you were the lead researcher on this. Um,
what was that moment like, just personally, when you're going
through this and you see and you're, I mean, sorting
through 330 million, you know, patient data points and all
of that. Um, when you came across the 11% number. Um,
(36:22):
what was that moment like for just for you personally
looking at all of this? And have you ever seen
anything like that in all your data analysis?
S1 (36:28):
Oh, man. I've, I've, I've looked at so many different
large data sets over the course of my career. I mean,
you mentioned I worked at CIA, right? I can't really
talk a whole lot about that, but.
S2 (36:38):
But why not?
S4 (36:40):
We want to have you back just to talk about
all that. Like, what's the code, man? Anyway.
S1 (36:45):
But, yeah, we had access to data to, uh. This
is one of the most astonishing things that I've ever seen. Uh,
to to go into looking at a data set where the,
where the FDA saying that you're going to have less
than half a percent serious adverse events and then to
actually start looking, you know, code by code, category by category,
(37:07):
and seeing what's really happening to these women. Uh, it's
it's terrifying. It's tragic. It's hard to believe that It
that anybody approved this, but but they did. Uh, and
it didn't get there like right away. Right. When, when
this drug was first approved in 2000 under the Clinton administration,
(37:32):
there were much, much stronger safeguards, in effect, uh, to
try to protect women from these sorts of adverse events. Right.
They had to they had to have at least three
doctor visits. They had to receive the pill in person
from the doctor, take it there in the office, make
sure there weren't any immediate complications. Then when they took
the second pill, you know, 2 or 3 days later,
(37:53):
there were at the doctor again to make sure everything
was okay. Then two weeks later, they're checking again to
make sure that there aren't any, uh, fetal parts remaining
inside the woman's body, that there aren't any other issues. Right?
They were. They they. Well, Clinton wanted abortion to be safe,
legal and rare. And, uh, we can definitely disagree on
(38:16):
whether it should be illegal or not. Um, but, um,
as far as safety, that administration, they, they seem to
be making a legitimate effort to keep the woman safe
with the, um, with the protocols that they had in
place in 2000. But then since then, under the Obama
(38:37):
administration and then under the Biden administration, all these safety
protocols have been just chipped away at to the point
where now it's possible for a woman to go online,
fill out a form basically claiming that she's healthy. Um,
get the pill in the mail, take the drug at home. Um,
(38:58):
hopefully everything turns out okay because, um, if if not.
And who's taking care of her? Who's she going to call? Well,
she's going to end up at the emergency room in
the hospital. Uh, because 10% of the time, things aren't
turning out okay. Right? This this is just terrible for
these women. Um, but we didn't get there right away
(39:20):
in 2000 when this was approved. This has been a
long process, gradually chipping away at the safety protocols to
where we end up in this terrible situation that we
have here today.
S3 (39:30):
And my understanding, you know, we.
S4 (39:33):
We've.
S3 (39:34):
Watched I've watched the sort of chipping away at these
protocols over the years by the Obama and Biden administration.
And I think one of the aspects of it, too,
was that that actual process wasn't done by the normal. Again,
we've seen this with with all things abortion for decades
(39:55):
now is that there's there's sort of standard, sort of
legal precedent and things, the way things work, their standard
medical precedents for the way things work. Um, and then
there's abortion. And, you know, it tends to get its
own rules and processes. You know, honestly, the only other
example that comes close to it is the transgender stuff.
(40:15):
and by the grace of God, that's getting rectified fairly
relatively quickly, even though there's still been a lot of
devastation that's come from that. Um, can you just talk
a little bit, speak into a little bit of, of,
you know, typically what it takes for the FDA to change, uh,
a REM to change a regulation, change a process and
(40:36):
how Obama and Biden just sort of, you know, waved
their hands. I believe Biden even used some Covid powers to, uh, to,
you know, allow this drug to be proliferated even more. But, uh,
what was that like?
S1 (40:50):
Sure. Um, so you mentioned Covid, right? That that was
what allowed them to remove the requirement for any in-person
doctor visit, uh, because during Covid, uh, folks weren't going
to the doctor for much of anything. And they got
a court initially to say that that abortion was was
(41:11):
so important and access to abortion was so important that
they couldn't even require the one doctor visit that Obama
had required in order to receive the pill. So they
got that thrown out in court initially, even when the
Covid emergency ended. Um, and it was restored very, very briefly. Uh,
(41:33):
that that there would be the in-person requirement the, the
Biden administration quickly, uh, moved to move to change that
and to get it in place, um, since 2023, officially, uh,
there has been no requirement for any in-person doctor visit
in order to receive the abortion pill.
S2 (41:55):
I'm curious, Jamie, the methodology methodology here seems really solid
when you're you're looking at medical code specifically, it's easy
to to see cause and effect or, or where there's, um,
that initial abortion in the follow up visit. So what
What's the reaction been like from opponents? Like where are
they trying to pick holes in this report that you've
(42:17):
seen here in the early going?
S1 (42:19):
Well, some of them just didn't bother to read it.
So they're.
S4 (42:22):
Of course.
S2 (42:23):
Reading is hard. We give him a break.
S1 (42:26):
So so they're they're claiming things like we counted somehow
we counted every time that a woman showed up at
the ER, even if she got hit by a bus
or something like that. I mean, like, no, no, we
say right there in the report that we're only counting er,
visits that were related to the abortion. We're looking for
medical diagnosis and procedure codes in the insurance data showing
(42:47):
that she's actually there for complications related to the abortion.
But but, you know, if you don't bother to read,
it's it's really easy to just say, oh, well, of
course they're over counting. Well no, no we're not. Um,
there's uh, there's a bit of a, an issue here
where the FDA definition of serious adverse event that's on
their website, uh, which is what they should be following,
(43:11):
is broader than the definition of serious adverse event that
they used on the drug label, where they only looked
at six specific categories of adverse events rather than everything.
So that allowed, um, underreporting of serious adverse events on
the drug label itself. So then when we say, oh, well,
(43:31):
actually it's higher because you left out all these other things. Um,
some people are saying, well, you're not making an apples
to apples comparison. Well, well, yeah, we're not making an
apples to apples comparison because the FDA didn't do what
they should have done, or didn't require the manufacturer to
do what they should have done in the first place
in terms of counting all of these different types of
(43:54):
adverse events.
S3 (43:57):
Again, they just play by different rules. Uh, with this when,
when it comes. So, you know, I think earlier this week, uh,
center for Christian virtue. We we joined the chorus of
other organizations calling for mifepristone to just be completely pulled
(44:17):
from shelves right now because, uh, there's one other side
of this, Jamie, that I think is important. You know,
this is the largest data set that's ever been used.
But my understanding is the vast majority of abortions, uh,
that use mifepristone aren't actually done through insurance. So, uh,
the these numbers, there's probably far greater numbers, uh, than
(44:41):
what we even have here. Is that right?
S1 (44:43):
That's right. Uh, our data set includes roughly a quarter
of all of the mifepristone abortions in the US over
this period. So any of the numbers that we say
for numbers, for the number of women who are affected
by this ought to be, uh, probably in reality, about
four times the numbers that we're showing. Uh, so, so,
(45:05):
for example, when we say that there were just over
3000 cases where a woman took the pill. The abortion pill.
And then was later diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. Well,
if that if that rate prevails throughout the throughout the country,
even in the abortions that are not covered under the insurance, then,
(45:25):
then that means there were probably about 12,000 cases in
the US over those seven years where a woman took
the abortion pill and then later found out she had
an ectopic pregnancy.
S3 (45:35):
And that's a big, big deal. I mean, this is
one of the many reasons why, uh, why the in-person
visits matter so much. Can you explain why it's so dangerous?
I know you're not a doctor. You're a data analyst.
But why is it so dangerous for women to take
the abortion pill when they have an ectopic pregnancy? Why
is it so important to figure out? Is this an
ectopic pregnancy before you give an abortion pill to to
(45:57):
a woman?
S1 (45:58):
So an ectopic pregnancy sometimes called a tubal pregnancy, it's
when when the tragically the the the fetus is not
in the uterus somewhere else, generally in a fallopian tube
in the woman's body. There's no way that the baby
can survive. Um, and at that, at that point, it's
(46:19):
it's necessary for the woman to be diagnosed and to
receive treatment to, to remove, to remove the ectopic pregnancy. Um,
in the case of mifepristone, right there on the label,
from the very beginning, it has said that it's essential
to rule out the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy prior
(46:42):
to giving this pill to a woman, because the the drug,
the way that it acts within her body can, can
in some cases cause the ectopic pregnancy to rupture, uh,
wherever it is, wherever it's located within her body, which
can lead to all sorts of infection and other problems down,
(47:03):
down the road, potentially, uh, potentially she can end up,
you know, being sterilized as a result of all this.
So it's it's just a terrible situation. It needs to
be screened for. It says right there on the label
that it needs to be screened for from the beginning,
to make sure that you're not giving something to this
(47:25):
woman that can cause even greater problems than the problem
that she's already experiencing by having having the ectopic pregnancy. Um,
back when the abortion pill was first approved, one of
the reasons for requiring the in person visits was that
(47:46):
there's not really a reliable way to check for ectopic pregnancy,
other than to give her an ultrasound and check to
see where the baby is. Uh, the the label never
went so far from the beginning in saying, like, you
absolutely have to do an ultrasound, which it probably should have,
(48:11):
but at least she had to be there in the
doctor's office. Uh, it was very likely that they were
going to do the give her the ultrasound to check
to see whether there's an ectopic pregnancy beforehand. Uh, it
would be great if we could mandate that they use
the ultrasound. Of course, um, for the woman's health to
(48:32):
ensure that the that there is no ectopic pregnancy, to
ensure that the baby's not so far along because, uh,
the farther along that she is, the greater the likelihood
of complications from the pill. And, of course, the best
thing as, as we know, from requiring an ultrasound is
that some women are going to see their baby on
(48:53):
the screen and they're going to say, I'm not going
to do this. Like, that's my kid right there. So absolutely,
if we could ideally, ideally we should we should go
back to a situation where where the woman is required
to be there in a doctor's office and hopefully required
to have an ultrasound before before there's any prescription for mifepristone.
S4 (49:16):
Yeah.
S2 (49:16):
And, Aaron, this is probably a spot where it's worth
having at least a quick conversation again about when you're
talking ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. This is where the abortion
industry loves to muddy the waters and say, like, these
are all the same things. And if you can't treat one,
then you can't treat the other. And we heard it
all around issue one, that we were limiting a woman's
(49:37):
ability to have care for an ectopic pregnancy. Not the
same thing by any stretch.
S3 (49:42):
Oh yeah. I mean, we were talking about this before
we we started recording of, uh, you know, the the
way the left attacks reports like this is especially when
they don't have any, like, reasonable arguments to make. They
just make stuff up. Right. Like, and and honestly, they,
they catch you off guard with it because it's so, uh,
(50:03):
over the.
S4 (50:03):
Top.
S3 (50:04):
Again. The best example of this was during the abortion
amendment fight here in Ohio, when all of a sudden
they said the heartbeat bill wouldn't protect miscarriage care. And
it honestly was the first time I'd ever even heard
the term miscarriage care. Not because, you know, people who
have women who have miscarriages, uh, don't need medical care,
things like that. But that's never been debated. Disputed, and
(50:28):
it's always been understood. And abortion, uh, the intentional taking
of an unborn life, uh, is very different than a
miscarriage where the child, uh, because of biological or other circumstances, uh,
does not unintentionally loses their life. Right? Um, and it's
all the more egregious that they use things like ectopic pregnancies, uh, to, uh,
(50:53):
to try to justify their, their sort of radical life
taking agenda. Um, because literally, they're the ones that are
trying to, uh.
S4 (51:03):
Stop.
S3 (51:04):
You trying to give abortion pills to women who might
have ectopic pregnancies, right? And there is no way, like
you said, certainly not over telehealth. Telemedicine, uh, and not
over the phone or not over a website. Is there
any way for that doctor prescribing, uh, the abortion pill, uh,
to to know if that woman has an ectopic pregnancy? Um,
and I'll just say, you know, especially if you've got
(51:26):
kids in the car or kids listening, why don't you
just press pause just for a minute? Um, because the
reality when you talk to women in pregnancy centers, uh,
the horror stories of women getting these pills sent to
them at home, um, and, uh, bleeding in their bathrooms, um, uh, delivering, uh,
(51:48):
children into toilets, um, and not knowing what to do, uh,
being completely alone, being lied to, um, about what the
pill actually does and what their situation actually is, is
some of the worst things you can imagine. Um, and the,
the it certainly is not caring for those women, for
people who say they're all about women. Um, it really
(52:10):
is awful. Um, so, you know, Jamie, for from our perspective,
we want to see the FDA completely pull this pill.
That's what our action alert is calling for. We're calling
on our senators and congressmen and and FDA director McCarthy
and HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy to to pull the
pill while more research is done. Um, but baseline what.
S4 (52:33):
What what.
S3 (52:34):
Does the FDA need to do in response to this? Uh,
from from your perspective?
S1 (52:39):
So I think obviously we'd like to see the pill
off the market as well. The abortion pill is not
safe for women. It's not clearly not safe for the babies.
And we we support, um, protecting the lives of both
the mothers and the babies. Um, but in reality, in
the short term, particularly given promises that President Trump made
(53:03):
during the campaign. It's not likely that we're going to
be able to achieve that. But he has promised to
keep women safe. And it's clear that what's being done
with the abortion pill right now is not keeping women safe.
So we'd at least like to see the FDA, uh,
reinstate the original safety protocols from 2000, which are much
(53:28):
closer to the level of care that a woman would
have received in one of those clinical trials that they
were using to justify the pill being safe and effective. Uh,
so if we could get back to that, we can
at least protect women from the harm of the abortion pill.
If we're requiring that the women actually have to go
(53:50):
to a doctor in person in order to receive the pill,
that's going to solve the problem of the telemedicine Medicine, abortions,
the out of state mailing of the pill into into women.
So the pro-life states basically right now, even if they're
outlawing all abortions except those that are necessary to protect
(54:12):
the life of the mother. Right. Um, in, you know,
those states are still being inundated with pills sent from
other places like California, where they're effectively no restrictions on abortion.
So we need to be able to require the woman
(54:34):
to see the doctor in person in order to get
the pill, both for her safety and to allow the, um,
the much better pro-life laws that are on the books
in more conservative states to have the effect that they
should have in terms of saving babies lives.
S2 (54:54):
Yeah. And I think it's also worth pointing out here, too,
that as you as you look at the graphs that
are in the report, as far as chemical abortions, it's
just straight up and to the right, like this problem
is only going to get worse as chemical abortions continue
to increase. And I think you mentioned here that the
Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, more than 5 million women,
(55:17):
according to their data, have used the pill since its
approval in 2000. So this has just become a it
magnifies the problem, magnifies every year with this information.
S1 (55:28):
Right? Right. They're bragging on their website that more than
5 million women have used this. Well, have they looked
at the safety data for these 5 million women? Because
if they've actually looked at it, then they're going to
see something much, much closer to what we see than
what the FDA is allowing them to claim on the label.
So it would be great if we could find out
what they've what they've actually done, uh, with any of
(55:50):
the information that they have. Uh, I can't believe that
they don't know about this.
S3 (55:56):
Well, and, Jamie, uh, you know, obviously this data set, uh,
that you guys, uh, pulled this report from. There's probably
a lot more stories to tell from this, um, you know, uh,
what's to come, uh, next, uh, from from EPC and, and, uh, uh,
and this data, uh, on the pill and and and abortions.
S1 (56:19):
Well, we have a whole series of reports lined up,
not just from EPC, but from other members of the coalition. Um,
if your listeners want to check out the website, it's
Stop Harming Women. That's where EPC, as well as these
other organizations will be posting all of our reports where
we look in more depth at, uh, exactly what what
(56:42):
kinds of harms women are, are experiencing under abortion. Look
more at the problem of the out of state shipment
of the abortion pill. Look at, you know, on a
state by state basis at the at the problems that
we're seeing, uh, we're going to be able to look
at just so many different aspects of this, uh, and
help to show the, uh, the harm to women from
(57:06):
the the abortion pill.
S2 (57:08):
Yeah. Well, that's that's great stuff to to know where
to keep tabs on it. Stop harming women. I just
wanted to repeat that for our listeners out there if
they missed it the first time. So, uh, Jamie, this
has been an eye opening conversation. Thank you so much
for your work on this report. Keep up the great work.
We're excited to see more stuff from you and how
we can expose some of the harms that are happening
(57:28):
to women because of these chemical abortions. And we thank
you so much for your time in joining us today
on the narrative. Thank you for tuning in to this
episode of the narrative presented by CCV and produced by
Wessler Media. If you found today's episode insightful, leave us
a review or rating and subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts.
We're your hosts, Mike Andrews, Aaron Burr, and David Mahan,
(57:49):
and we'll see you next time on the narrative.
And it's terrifying. The thought that 10.93% of women are
experiencing one of these serious adverse events after taking the pill,
or any other drug that had an adverse event rate
like that would be pulled off the market, but not mifepristone,
because the left thinks women need abortion above all else.
S2 (00:24):
Hi again everybody. Welcome to another episode of the narrative,
Mike Andrews. Aaron Bair with you today. And, Aaron, there
are weeks when we need to scour the news trying
to find something to talk about, and there are other
weeks where we can just talk about a day's worth
of press releases from, and that is where we're at today,
because what a day yesterday was.
S3 (00:43):
Yeah. And let me just say to listen, guys, we
hear you. We send out a lot of emails, okay?
We know, uh, we're trying to figure out the best
way to synthesize all of this stuff down. We literally
just had our retreat with Mike and, uh, and all
the leadership team. And we were talking through it on.
All right. We are now sending because we're doing more
(01:03):
than we ever have, right. I mean, it's it's a
good problem to have. Um, but, you know, we we
had this whole conversation on Tuesday at our leadership team
retreat on. Yeah, we got to start figuring out, um,
other ways to communicate these things and all that. And yeah,
we're hearing the feedback that it's it's a lot a
lot of communications. And then literally the next day it's like,
so here's three things we're sending today.
S2 (01:25):
And and what was so funny this is a little
bit how the sausage is made here. But we had
had a conversation on Monday like okay here's our rhythm.
Here's what we know what's coming. We can kind of
spread these out throughout the week and then nope, no.
S3 (01:36):
Here's here's three things that have to go down.
S2 (01:38):
Here's four emails before 11 a.m. on Wednesday. But they
are also but it's good.
S3 (01:43):
Like I promise. Like we're only trying to do like
meaty things. Like, you should know, this just happened. This like, um,
and some of the stuff we're going to talk about today,
like it is like core core mission of, you know, why?
Why do people support us? Why do people come around
us is, you know, sign up for our emails is
(02:05):
there's so much stuff that happens in government, um, that
affects you and matters for how you vote. Uh, you know, like,
we don't we don't want voters that just, you know,
come Election day, try to turn on and see what's
going on. We want to stay engaged and at least
baseline informed. And so that's our job is to help
help Christians especially do that. Um, and yeah, like you said,
(02:28):
there's some days where it's like, there's nothing we can
do about this.
S2 (02:31):
Yeah, it's just got to be what it is.
S3 (02:33):
And but we're trying to figure it out.
S2 (02:34):
I promise you, we are. We are working on it.
As Aaron said, we hear you. Stay tuned. We'll try
and figure it out. And if we don't, we're just
gonna keep sending emails. Because you gotta know. You gotta
know it. Yeah.
S3 (02:45):
We're really trying to be discerning about. This is one
you gotta know.
S2 (02:48):
Yeah, well, one of the things that we wanted to
email folks about yesterday is you had not a first
time experience by any means, but the unique experience of
being at the Supreme Court yesterday and speaking at a
rally around the Drummond case, which we talked a little
bit about a few weeks ago when Troy was on
the podcast. And, um, school choice was a big factor
in that. And the way that a, I think it's
(03:10):
in Oklahoma, where there were a Christian charter school that
wasn't being given the same privileges as other charter schools
in the state. So tell us a little bit about
the experience and some of your remarks and just the
overall feeling in D.C. around that case.
S3 (03:21):
Yeah. You know, this is this is one of these cases, um,
that subtly could fundamentally transform education in a great way
in America today. Um, and it has massive implications both
for religious freedom and massive implications for school choice. And
so let me just sort of level set, um, what
(03:44):
it is, uh, real quickly here. Uh, so, uh, in Oklahoma,
just like in Ohio, they have charter schools, right? Uh,
charter schools are different than private schools because they are
technically public schools, right? Um, but they are operated by
a private entity, right. So they're they're regulated the same
as a public school in terms of their their testing requirements,
(04:07):
safety requirements. Um, you know, they have to accept all kids, um,
all that kind of stuff, right? Uh, but instead of
having a huge sort of, uh, bureaucracy over the top
of it in terms of mandating all of the other
stuff that goes along with it, um, a private entity
(04:28):
can can run the school. Again, they still have to
meet all of the public requirements. But really, what it
allows for a lot where you see a lot of
charter schools really make a name for themselves, are in creating,
creating custom learning environments. So a virtual, you know, sort
of an online school, that's where a lot of folks, um,
interact with charter schools, or maybe it's a Stem school,
(04:51):
or maybe it's an art school or those types of things. Right?
They make Various emphasis. Well, um, in, uh, in Oklahoma, uh,
for the first time ever, we had a school say, hey,
we are going to start this this private entity that's
going to run the school is going to be Saint
Isidore Catholic School, right? Virtual charter school, rather. Um, and, uh,
(05:15):
they were going to be a Catholic charter school. So
the underlying operator was going to be Catholic. They were
going to integrate Catholic, um, theology, Catholic ideas into it,
but they were going to be a public school. So
allow you still accept everyone. But just like a Stem
school is going to emphasize science and technology and math
(05:36):
and things like that, these guys were going to have
an additional emphasis over, uh, Christianity, Catholicism, that kind of thing. Um,
first of its kind, uh, you can, you know, I
can understand folks say, whoa, this is there's some issues here,
this separation of church and state, all that kind of
You know, nonsense that folks say, um, but but it is.
(05:57):
It's kind of a new concept. Um, so the Oklahoma
Charter School Board voted to approve them. Um, and then
the attorney general said, no, you can't approve them. This
is a violation of the separation of church and state
went all the way up to it's at the Supreme
Court now. Um, so why do we believe that, uh,
(06:22):
this Saint Isidore should be allowed to exist, and any
religious entity wants to, um, uh, run a charter school
should be able to do so. Um, it really comes.
And this was my, my, my my first remarks, uh, yesterday, uh,
at the rally, um, which again, is just still a
really an amazing thing that we get to do as
(06:46):
Americans is stand outside of the highest court, the most
powerful court, um, and speak freely about these things and
have open debate with people who disagree with us. That's
just it's something that makes America special. But try not to.
I'm trying not to get too distracted there. Um, the
fundamental question is if this organizing entity, uh, was instead
(07:08):
of being Saint Isidore Virtual Academy, they were the Excellence
Virtual Academy or the Innovation Virtual Academy. Uh, would they
have been denied? Right. If it wasn't for their faith,
would they be able to access this program? Right. Uh,
and the answer, the undisputed, uh, facts of the case are. No,
(07:34):
they would not have been denied if they were anything else. Right.
So fundamentally, what the state of Oklahoma has done in
this situation is they have said there are secular views
which are preeminent, and they are the the views that
get special protections and special access. And there are religious
(07:54):
views that are secondary and they get denied certain access.
That is a religious test that is fundamentally in violation
of the First Amendment. You cannot show preference in that way.
This is this is one of the biggest things that
I see even Christians get wrong today is that there's
there's this sort of super secular worldview that gets the
(08:17):
protection that that is the standard view of America and
the standard view of the Constitution. And then there's all
these other religious views. That's fundamentally not the case. I mean,
that's again, I know this is a little bit trite,
but that cannot be what the First Amendment meant when
(08:38):
you have that we when when the writers of the
Constitution talked about, we have certain rights endowed by our creator. Right.
When you when you saw prayers starting the constitutional conventions
and things like that, like very clearly. They could not
have meant that. Thought that that's what the First Amendment meant,
is that their secular views and that's the preeminent view.
And then everything religious has to say that that can't
(09:00):
function that way. Um, so that's why this is a
very important First Amendment case, but it's also a very important, um,
school choice case because, you know, the number one folks
that are bringing innovation into the education space are Christians.
I think CSV and our Ohio Christian Education Network and
United States Christian Education Network are a big example of that.
And if we can open this door to allowing Christians
(09:24):
to get into the charter school space as well, that
would be phenomenal. Now, again, that's a very different conversation
than private schools and the voucher programs and Essa programs
that are all over the country, because private schools are
able to say, hey, you can only come here if
you ascribe to our faith. If you're a religious charter school,
you've got to accept everybody, right? But they are choosing
(09:46):
to come to you and choosing to get that type
of education. So you'd be choosing to come to get
a Christian education here. Um, now, before somebody else says,
oh my gosh, but what if somebody goes and starts
an LGBT charter school? Well, you know, maybe that could happen,
but I would say it's most likely not going to
happen because we already have those. Those are called public schools.
S2 (10:05):
Boom. Roasted roasted. There's is well a couple of thoughts
come to mind. Number one, um, Christians were largely behind
the early public school movement in America. So yeah, y'all
messed that up. We're trying to make the.
S3 (10:18):
Case.
S2 (10:19):
Here. And it seems also that the Supreme Court has
ruled on not exactly the same thing. They wouldn't pick
up a case if it was in line with something
that they've already ruled on. But we've seen what was it,
the Trinity case, the Trinity.
S3 (10:30):
Lutheran case.
S2 (10:31):
Where you're treating a, uh, religiously based organization differently than
you would treat a secular case. And so there's there's
some overlap in ways that they've ruled before with this case.
S3 (10:40):
Know that Trinity Lutheran is a great example for for
those who remember that case, it was this was a
a Christian preschool that the state of Missouri had a
program where you could apply for rubberized tires for your playground. Right. Um, for, for, uh,
and Trinity Lutheran submitted an application. They were a top,
(11:02):
you know, it was like the top 15 applicants were
going to get it. They were a top five applicant
in terms of meeting the the generally applied requirements, in
terms of does your space meet the facilities? Is it
a large enough space? Is it too large of a space.
Did you you know honestly do you have your stuff together?
You know, all the things of like, are you actually
going to use this for for playground? And they were rated,
(11:22):
I think, a top five applicant. And then the state
of Missouri said, nope, because you're Christian, because you're religious. Uh,
you can't get it right. And that is, um, you know,
one of my favorite, uh, odious to the Constitution that
that is not not as not allowed under the First Amendment. Um,
and so, uh, yeah, you know, we should get a
(11:45):
decision in this case by the end of June. Um, and, uh,
and again, it's a, it's a big, big deal.
S2 (11:53):
Well, the one bit of news that I think caught
us off guard most of all because we were, you know,
off site, right. Barely had cell phone service and got
a note that there was a ruling on HB 68.
The Safe act, which we had mentioned a few weeks ago,
had been stayed due to a lower court ruling and
a challenge brought by the ACLU. And we got our
(12:13):
our ABC lesson this morning. That's this is my branding
for you, Aaron. That's the Aaron Burr civics lesson for
the team as you kind of walked us through what
was going on with this, uh, the broad scope is
that great news. But still 4 to 3 was confusing. Yeah.
S3 (12:29):
Yeah, confusing. That's a good word for it. Um, so
the baseline on this, um, House Bill 68, the Safe act, um,
we passed it, you know, went into effect after we
overrode the governor's veto. And it was around January of 2024. Um,
the ACLU brought a lawsuit against it in state court,
not federal court, but in state court. They brought it
(12:51):
in Franklin County court. Uh, shocker of shockers, actually. We
our side won, right? Uh, and that in that case, uh,
then the ACLU appealed to the 10th District Court of Appeals, uh,
and our side lost in that, right. Um, and by
our side, I mean, uh, you know, Dave Yost is
the one arguing on behalf of the arguing on behalf
(13:14):
of the state. Um, and Eliot Geiser, our solicitor general,
they've been doing a phenomenal job. The technically, what the
10th district did was they only blocked the ban on
puberty blockers and hormone therapy from going into effect. Um,
and so, uh, Dave Yost appealed immediately up to the
Supreme Court to say, uh, hey, uh, you need to stay.
(13:38):
You need to overturn this block, um, while the trial
goes on. Right. So this is just a question of, hey,
is this is the law going to be allowed to
be in effect while a full trial on the merits proceeds? Um,
and uh, and thankfully, uh, the Ohio Supreme Court said, uh,
(14:00):
yet we're going to overturn uh, the or stay the,
the 10th district court's decision. So the full Safe act
is back in effect while the full trial goes on. Um,
this could take 18 months to two years, right? So
that's that's good for at least the next 18 months
to two years, these procedures will be blocked. We still
feel confident we're going to win. Um, really want to
(14:23):
say how grateful we are that, uh, justice Pat DeWine,
Justice Joe Deters, Justice Megan Shanahan and Justice Dan Hawkins, uh,
voted to overturn the 10th District Court and allow this
law to go into effect. Um, but to your point, Mike,
we were quite frankly shocked that it was 4 to 3,
(14:45):
because I think most folks would look at the Ohio
Supreme Court and say, there's A61 conservative majority on the
on the Supreme Court. Um, and what you had was
Chief Justice Sharon Kennedy, um, justice Pat Fisher, um, and
then Democrat Justice Jennifer Brunner, who we figured would vote
against this, um, vote to allow the stay, um, to
(15:10):
allow the law to be blocked, uh, ongoing. Um, and
that's really surprising, uh, that those justices would do that now, um,
what also frustrated me about this, and this is just
generally one of my frustrations with the Ohio Supreme Court. Um,
you know, a lot of times, you know, we're used
to seeing opinions and dissents and things like that. And
(15:32):
but that's when a case is finally decided. Right? That's
the last thing you get. The judges explain their decisions. Well,
in this case, we didn't get an explanation. We just
got a ruling that came out with four For the
four justices that said, yep, we're going to block this.
And the three justices that says the four justices, yes,
we're going to allow this law to go into effect.
And the three justices says, no, we think the law
(15:52):
should remain, um, uh, blocked, uh, while the trial goes forward. Um,
and so I put out a statement yesterday, um, obviously
put out a statement just because these are justices that
the Ohio people elected. Right. So to our earlier conversation, Mike,
this is our obligation to let people know, hey, here's
(16:13):
how the people you elected voted, right? Uh, we do
this regularly at CCP.
S2 (16:17):
And the Supreme Court races were a big part of
our voter guide last year. Huge part. Like, don't forget
about this because it's really important.
S3 (16:23):
It matters a lot. Right. And these same justices soon
are going to be deciding some abortion cases and school
choice cases. Uh, and so people need to understand what
they're doing so that when these folks are going to
be out on the campaign trail again, you can talk
to them about why did you do this? And it's
really hard to know why they do this when they
don't tell you their names. Just show up on one
side of the vote or another. Um, and so I
(16:46):
frankly was very frustrated. That was my, my my post
on on X yesterday. Um, that, uh, you know, hey,
this is great. The law is back in effect, super
grateful for justice DeWine, Justice Deters, Justice Shanahan and Justice
Justice Hawkins. Um, but for the life of me, I
can't understand. Especially why Chief Justice Kennedy and Justice, um, uh, uh,
(17:11):
Justice Fisher would vote in a way that would allow
kids to continue to be sterilized. And I think that's
a legitimate question they should be asked when they're out
across the state. Um, justices aren't above the voters, right?
The voters are still, uh, the the sort of the
supreme authorities, uh, in our, our state. Um, my understanding
(17:31):
is Justice Kennedy at least has has some explanation for it.
I don't think it's a very good one. Um, I'll
let her, you know, if she decides she wants to
explain to voters why she did what she did. I
think she should. Um, because we deserve to know that. Why?
Why a justice would think it's okay for kids to
be sterilized or act in, or at least rule in
such a way that would allow that to go on. Um,
(17:55):
and it's, you know, this is, um, there are a
few things as, as important as, as this issue right
now when you understand how rampant these procedures were all
over the state and how important it is, uh, for, uh,
for us to protect our children today.
S2 (18:11):
And the process that you outlined there is part of
that is important for the next story that we want
to talk about, which is the friend of the court brief,
the amicus brief that CSV filed in the HB 68 case.
So tell our listeners a little bit about that, Aaron.
S3 (18:27):
Yeah, this was a a big one and a pretty
cool one too. Yeah. Um, you.
S2 (18:31):
Know, yeah, it was actually hard to capture what it
actually meant in a, in a quick news release, but
that's why I'm grateful we have a little longer format
here that we can talk about it.
S3 (18:42):
For sure. So. So the 10th District Court was very
strategic in how they struck down or how they blocked
a part of the Safe act. Right? One, they didn't
touch surgeries. They didn't touch boys and girls sports. So
they were very politically minded that those things are not popular. Um,
and they tried to parse out the puberty blockers and
(19:03):
hormone therapies from especially the surgeries, which, again, is logically nonsensical, but, um, okay. Uh,
and what they did in particular, um, voters in Ohio
might remember in 2012, following the passage of Obamacare, there
was a what was called a health care freedom amendment
that was passed. Um, and it really was in response,
(19:27):
like I mentioned to Obamacare, to say, hey, people should
be free to get access to insurance that they want
and not be forced to get insurance they don't want.
Things like that. Um, and, It was backed by a
lot of very conservative groups. Um, former Reagan Attorney General
Ed Meese, um, was one of the main advocates for this,
(19:47):
not just in Ohio, but nationwide and other states to pass. Um,
and they actually the court relied upon the Health Care
Freedom Amendment. So this, this conservative backed amendment and used
what they would call, uh, they said, hey, we want
to be textualists. We want to be originalists, constitutionalists. Right.
(20:09):
All buzzwords. I'm sure everybody who hears those words, if
you're a conservative, you perk up. Yeah, that's right, that's us.
You know, they used all this language to try to,
you know, pressure the court, the Supreme Court, because they're
very much aware that there's A61 majority on the Supreme Court.
So they used all of these arguments to try to
box the Supreme Court saying, well, hey, you're you believe
in health care freedom, right? You believe in, um, uh,
(20:33):
in textualism and originalism, right? Then you have to rule
with us. This is what the voters voter said. Um,
you know, there's very clear problems with that. Uh, one
of which is if you're going to read the Health
Care Freedom Amendment to say that people should be allowed
to get any medical procedure, whatever they want at any time. Um,
I mean, we couldn't ban drugs at that point, right? Like,
(20:55):
if somebody says I need to take fentanyl to deal
with my mental health, um, like, well, who is the
government to say no to that? Right? It's really an
absurd argument. Um, but, uh, if you're also, uh, going
to say this is a, you know, what they were
really trying to do is, hey, this is what they
(21:17):
even went so far as to quote Ed Meese. They
cited Ed Meese in their brief to say, see, even
Ed Meese would say that, uh, this this is unconstitutional
or at least suggest that is what they were kind
of getting at. Um, so the good news is Ed
Meese is still around, right? He's still with us. Um,
and by the grace of God, we got in contact
(21:39):
with Mr. Meese. Um, and, uh, you know, he's retired
now and all these types of things. And we wrote
a brief and asked him, hey, could we submit this
on your behalf, saying, this is not what I meant?
Write this one. This is bad textualism and originalism. And
Ed Meese is kind of one of the founders fathers
of textualism and originalism, along with Antonin Scalia and others. Um,
(22:01):
but also, this is not what I meant in this
Politico article that you're quoting me from, from 2012. Um, which,
as an aside, one of my all time great. Uh,
I've got to get off this call was I was
talking to a friend, uh, and Ed Meese called me
on my cell, and I'd be like, hey, I'm sorry,
I have to call you back. Ed Meese is calling me. Uh,
that's that was pretty fun.
S2 (22:22):
Um, not to name drop or.
S3 (22:24):
Not to name drop.
S2 (22:24):
Not kind of a big deal.
S3 (22:26):
Kind of a.
S2 (22:26):
Big.
S3 (22:27):
Deal. Uh, but we submitted a brief, uh, on, uh, Mr.
Meese's behalf, basically debunking all of that, which was really
great Alice and her team worked on it with us. And, um, yeah,
just that I think is going to help really provide
clarity to the Supreme Court. And this is what this
is where groups like CCP really matter in these cases
(22:47):
because you have you have Dave Yost, who's bringing in
all the arguments, the arguments from the court to the court.
But what the left has done for years is they
bring in all these, like you mentioned, friend of the
court briefs these outside groups to file briefs in these
cases to try to bully and pressure the court in.
And the right typically doesn't. We don't get involved in that. Right.
And I said this to our board and to the team.
(23:09):
Like if we weren't here, this wouldn't happen because these
briefs also aren't cheap to write and file. Um, and so,
you know, thank you to everyone who supports CCP supports us. Uh,
by the grace of God, we're in position then to
to to fight these fights and, and see these fights
through the to the end. Right. It's not just enough
(23:31):
to vote to get the people elected or even just
to get the law passed. Then you got to stay
in the game to make sure it gets upheld and
gets enforced. That's why we have this building on Cap Square,
and that's why we do what we do here.
S2 (23:43):
Yeah. And quick plug. Yeah. If you want to keep.
S3 (23:48):
Oh yeah I mean we spent over ten grand on
briefs and other legal research in this case. Um, and again, that's,
that's all private donor support that the state has, their
taxpayer dollars they use. We got to do this all
with with the $12 widow's mite checks we get and
larger as well. Yeah.
S2 (24:06):
And if you want to donate to keep David Mehan
off the podcast, by all means just make a note
in your donation. We'll make sure that that happens. Yeah,
we'll send him on some remote corner of the state
with your donation.
S3 (24:17):
Back out to Nebraska.
S2 (24:18):
Again.
S3 (24:18):
Like we did before.
S4 (24:19):
So yeah.
S2 (24:20):
Well, that's been a full docket of news. And the
crazy thing is, we haven't even touched on the biggest
story of the week. But we we did that intentionally.
We saved it for the interview portion so we could
have a full, close to 30 minutes to talk about
this new bombshell abortion pill report with Jamie Hall from
the Ethics and Public Policy Center. This was this was staggering.
(24:42):
It's the biggest.
S3 (24:43):
Pro-life news since Dobbs. I mean, and it's just getting started.
S2 (24:47):
Yeah. And there's no other. We don't need to say
anything else except that to tee up the interview. Jamie
Hall from the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Coming up
next on the narrative. Hey, narrative listeners, you know, Christians
in the marketplace today face more unique and challenging threats
than ever before. Businesses are following woke capitalism. Chambers of
commerce are beholden to social justice, and secular activists are
(25:09):
chipping away Christians First Amendment rights. As Ohio's only Christian
Chamber of Commerce, the Christian Business Partnership stands in the
gap to advocate for, to educate and to celebrate Christian
business owners. Joining the partnership also allows businesses to provide
their employees with healthcare, insurance, worker's compensation, and exclusive banking
(25:30):
and educational Discounts. To find out more and to join,
go to kbpi. That's kbpi.org. We are back on the narrative.
Mike Andrews, Aaron Bear, and we're joined now by Jamie
Hall from the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where he
(25:51):
is the director of data analysis and a fellow in
the Life and Family Initiative. He began his career in
the George W Bush administration, where he served with the
CIA and other agencies. He was born and raised in
Kentucky and currently resides in Virginia with his wife and
their four children. And we're excited to talk to you today, Jamie,
about a new report that you've authored around the abortion
pill and some of the misleading claims, to say the least,
(26:14):
that are out there about it. So thanks for the
time and helping us break this down today.
S1 (26:19):
Thank you for inviting me onto your show. I really
appreciate the opportunity to share this information. It's just incredible
what's happening to these women.
S2 (26:28):
Yeah. And and I think the place that we just
need to start is some of the claims made around
the abortion pill are that it's allegedly safe and effective,
and we know that that is completely and totally not true,
because when it is effective, it's not safe for the baby.
But certainly they're making that claim from the standpoint of
the mother. But your report that Ethics and Public Policy
(26:48):
Center just put out shows that it's not even safe
for the mother, because there are a lot of severe
adverse health effects that are documented when women take this.
So kind of walk us through some of that high
level detail and what you found as you looked into
this issue.
S1 (27:03):
Sure. So, um, we found that 1 in 10 women
who take the abortion pill will experience a serious adverse event. Well,
what does that mean? Um, it's something like infection, which
could lead to sepsis, hemorrhaging, which could eventually require a
blood transfusion. Uh, about half of the women who experience
(27:23):
one of these serious adverse events will find themselves in
the ER, or even hospitalized as a result of that.
So we're not talking about just like. Nausea and vomiting,
some cramps, things like that. We're talking about really serious
medical events that require attention.
S3 (27:41):
So, Jamie, I think, um, the thing about this report
right now that can't be missed, right? There's a lot of,
you know, in the pro-life world, we literally have endless
websites that are coming out with stories like, you know,
I love m life news, life site news, all that
kind of stuff. This report is different. Um, I like
the way David B, right, said the other day, um,
(28:02):
that this is the most significant, um, news and, uh,
sort of, uh, victory, I'd say by exposing this for
the pro-life movement since Dobbs. Right, that, uh, you know,
for a lot of us, uh, as my wife who
volunteers at a pregnancy center, David Mehan, our policy director,
she runs a pregnancy center. Um, anybody who's worked in
(28:24):
the pregnancy center space has seen, uh, for for years
that women who take the abortion pill very often have
serious adverse events, right? They end up in the hospital for,
for various, uh, issues. Um, now we have the data
to show it. Right now we have the, the real
life evidence to show it. Um, and the data we
(28:46):
have on this, I think, is what really sets this
report apart. It's not just like you said, not just that.
You know, the FDA label says, uh, you know, less
than half a percent of women who take the pill
have serious adverse events. Um, it's no, actually, it's 1
in 10. Our data, the data that's in this report,
your data is, uh, actually better than anything the FDA
(29:08):
had when they came up with that claim. Can you
just explain what where this data came from and why
this data is actually a more reliable picture of, uh,
of the actual adverse events from the abortion pill, the
actual risk of the abortion pill compared to what the
FDA came up with that number with before.
S1 (29:29):
Sure, we have data on all abortions that were paid
for through insurance in the United States from 2017 to 2023.
This is 865,727 abortions. By contrast, the FDA, when they're
(29:49):
discussing the safety of mifepristone, the abortion pill, they're using
data for less than 31,000 women. So we have 28
times as much data as the FDA has on the
safety of mifepristone. We're looking at real women who are
taking the pill under the conditions, receiving the care that
women receive when they when they take this pill here
(30:13):
in the US today. Whereas the FDA was looking at
clinical trials where the doctors were monitoring the women closely
throughout and they were going to receive much higher quality care,
Air quicker interventions if anything started to go wrong. Um,
that's that's not what women get today when they actually
(30:33):
take the pill in real life. So we have much,
much more reliable data on what any woman who's actually
considering taking the abortion pill today could expect along the way.
And it's terrifying. The thought that 10.93% of women are
experiencing one of these serious adverse events after taking the pill. Um,
(30:55):
any other drug that had an adverse event rate like that, uh,
would be pulled off the market, but not not mifepristone,
because the left thinks women need abortion above all else.
S3 (31:06):
And just for context, so people understand, there's a few
things I want to help clarify here. One, uh, this
is the abortion pill different than what most folks would
think of as contraceptive, uh, contraception, which is, uh, you know,
the pill that women take sort of, uh, daily, um, to,
to prevent pregnancy. Also different from what's called the morning
(31:28):
after pill, which is women can take immediately following sex
to try to stop pregnancy. Oftentimes actually oftentimes in both
of those situations, abortions can be caused by those pills,
but not always. Um, this is, uh, the the two
drug regimen that Planned Parenthood uses. You know, according to
(31:48):
the Ohio 2023 abortion report, uh, this pill was used
in 44%. So over 9000 abortions in Ohio, um, uh,
in 2023, that number has increased dramatically, um, over the
last few years, even since over the last two years,
since 2023. Um, and the way this pill works is
(32:09):
it's a two pill regimen. You have mifepristone, um, which
allegedly how it's supposed to work. Is it? It basically
starves the child. So it blocks, uh, the child from
getting progesterone, which is nutrition in the womb. Um, and then, uh,
the second pill they take is called misoprostol, which induces labor. Um,
(32:30):
and so this is specifically over mifepristone. Now, now, Jamie,
I want to go back to the data you were
talking about. Um, so this was you mentioned it was
about 860,000 women. Uh, that was in the study. This
database covered 330 million Americans, um, over this seven year span. Um,
I'm sure for a lot of our good conservative listeners here, uh,
(32:54):
that's pretty creepy that this data is out there. What
is this data? Is this was this like, uh, data
that was leaked somewhere? Was it? Where did this data
come from? And how is this data typically used?
S5 (33:05):
This is this is called de-identified data.
S1 (33:08):
So we don't know exactly who any of these people were. Uh,
we just have an identifier so that we can track
the same person over time as in this case, the
woman um, receives care, um, after the abortion, for whatever
complications she might she might experience. Uh, but in general,
(33:32):
this data is used for all sorts of health, uh, research,
both from academics as well as, uh, from industry. Um,
insurance companies will use this to help them decide what
they should be covering, what their pricing should be. Um,
it's this is a multi-billion dollar industry trading on people's
(33:54):
healthcare data, but it has to be done in a
way that's compliant with HIPAA. So there are 18 specific
items that are considered, uh, restricted under HIPAA. That information
has to be removed from the data before it's shared.
But after that shared, um, we're we're able to we're
(34:15):
able to look at every diagnosis, every procedure, any treatment
that anyone's receiving any health care provider covered by their
insurance in the United States. It's just that in this case,
we're focused on abortion and the care that women receive
in the 45 days after the abortion.
S2 (34:38):
So this might be getting into the weeds a little
bit too much. But but is that just based on
like medical coding and things like that that are available
in medical records. And you can kind of cross identify
what's an abortion and what are these adverse reactions.
S5 (34:49):
Yes.
S1 (34:50):
So we're able to identify the abortions within the data
set because they have the appropriate medical codes for an abortion.
Usually there's one particular code that's used most of the
time that covers the entire visit associated with the abortion
at the at the doctor's office. Um, but then in
(35:10):
other cases, um, actually, some of the insurance companies don't
really want it to be so easy for people to
identify that they're paying for abortion. So they on, um,
on the website of the manufacturer of the abortion pill,
Danco Laboratories. Uh, if you look hard enough, you can
find a document that says, hey, providers, if you want
(35:33):
to get this covered by insurance, here's how you need
to fill it out and report it for our purposes. Um,
we we took that information for what codes they were
using in these specific situations, for these specific insurers in
certain states and said, okay, we're going to include those
as well. So they were they were in some sense
(35:54):
trying to hide it. Uh, but we were able to
find those too.
S3 (35:59):
I mean, I just want to ask because you you were,
you know, uh, you were the lead researcher on this. Um,
what was that moment like, just personally, when you're going
through this and you see and you're, I mean, sorting
through 330 million, you know, patient data points and all
of that. Um, when you came across the 11% number. Um,
(36:22):
what was that moment like for just for you personally
looking at all of this? And have you ever seen
anything like that in all your data analysis?
S1 (36:28):
Oh, man. I've, I've, I've looked at so many different
large data sets over the course of my career. I mean,
you mentioned I worked at CIA, right? I can't really
talk a whole lot about that, but.
S2 (36:38):
But why not?
S4 (36:40):
We want to have you back just to talk about
all that. Like, what's the code, man? Anyway.
S1 (36:45):
But, yeah, we had access to data to, uh. This
is one of the most astonishing things that I've ever seen. Uh,
to to go into looking at a data set where the,
where the FDA saying that you're going to have less
than half a percent serious adverse events and then to
actually start looking, you know, code by code, category by category,
(37:07):
and seeing what's really happening to these women. Uh, it's
it's terrifying. It's tragic. It's hard to believe that It
that anybody approved this, but but they did. Uh, and
it didn't get there like right away. Right. When, when
this drug was first approved in 2000 under the Clinton administration,
(37:32):
there were much, much stronger safeguards, in effect, uh, to
try to protect women from these sorts of adverse events. Right.
They had to they had to have at least three
doctor visits. They had to receive the pill in person
from the doctor, take it there in the office, make
sure there weren't any immediate complications. Then when they took
the second pill, you know, 2 or 3 days later,
(37:53):
there were at the doctor again to make sure everything
was okay. Then two weeks later, they're checking again to
make sure that there aren't any, uh, fetal parts remaining
inside the woman's body, that there aren't any other issues. Right?
They were. They they. Well, Clinton wanted abortion to be safe,
legal and rare. And, uh, we can definitely disagree on
(38:16):
whether it should be illegal or not. Um, but, um,
as far as safety, that administration, they, they seem to
be making a legitimate effort to keep the woman safe
with the, um, with the protocols that they had in
place in 2000. But then since then, under the Obama
(38:37):
administration and then under the Biden administration, all these safety
protocols have been just chipped away at to the point
where now it's possible for a woman to go online,
fill out a form basically claiming that she's healthy. Um,
get the pill in the mail, take the drug at home. Um,
(38:58):
hopefully everything turns out okay because, um, if if not.
And who's taking care of her? Who's she going to call? Well,
she's going to end up at the emergency room in
the hospital. Uh, because 10% of the time, things aren't
turning out okay. Right? This this is just terrible for
these women. Um, but we didn't get there right away
(39:20):
in 2000 when this was approved. This has been a
long process, gradually chipping away at the safety protocols to
where we end up in this terrible situation that we
have here today.
S3 (39:30):
And my understanding, you know, we.
S4 (39:33):
We've.
S3 (39:34):
Watched I've watched the sort of chipping away at these
protocols over the years by the Obama and Biden administration.
And I think one of the aspects of it, too,
was that that actual process wasn't done by the normal. Again,
we've seen this with with all things abortion for decades
(39:55):
now is that there's there's sort of standard, sort of
legal precedent and things, the way things work, their standard
medical precedents for the way things work. Um, and then
there's abortion. And, you know, it tends to get its
own rules and processes. You know, honestly, the only other
example that comes close to it is the transgender stuff.
(40:15):
and by the grace of God, that's getting rectified fairly
relatively quickly, even though there's still been a lot of
devastation that's come from that. Um, can you just talk
a little bit, speak into a little bit of, of,
you know, typically what it takes for the FDA to change, uh,
a REM to change a regulation, change a process and
(40:36):
how Obama and Biden just sort of, you know, waved
their hands. I believe Biden even used some Covid powers to, uh, to,
you know, allow this drug to be proliferated even more. But, uh,
what was that like?
S1 (40:50):
Sure. Um, so you mentioned Covid, right? That that was
what allowed them to remove the requirement for any in-person
doctor visit, uh, because during Covid, uh, folks weren't going
to the doctor for much of anything. And they got
a court initially to say that that abortion was was
(41:11):
so important and access to abortion was so important that
they couldn't even require the one doctor visit that Obama
had required in order to receive the pill. So they
got that thrown out in court initially, even when the
Covid emergency ended. Um, and it was restored very, very briefly. Uh,
(41:33):
that that there would be the in-person requirement the, the
Biden administration quickly, uh, moved to move to change that
and to get it in place, um, since 2023, officially, uh,
there has been no requirement for any in-person doctor visit
in order to receive the abortion pill.
S2 (41:55):
I'm curious, Jamie, the methodology methodology here seems really solid
when you're you're looking at medical code specifically, it's easy
to to see cause and effect or, or where there's, um,
that initial abortion in the follow up visit. So what
What's the reaction been like from opponents? Like where are
they trying to pick holes in this report that you've
(42:17):
seen here in the early going?
S1 (42:19):
Well, some of them just didn't bother to read it.
So they're.
S4 (42:22):
Of course.
S2 (42:23):
Reading is hard. We give him a break.
S1 (42:26):
So so they're they're claiming things like we counted somehow
we counted every time that a woman showed up at
the ER, even if she got hit by a bus
or something like that. I mean, like, no, no, we
say right there in the report that we're only counting er,
visits that were related to the abortion. We're looking for
medical diagnosis and procedure codes in the insurance data showing
(42:47):
that she's actually there for complications related to the abortion.
But but, you know, if you don't bother to read,
it's it's really easy to just say, oh, well, of
course they're over counting. Well no, no we're not. Um,
there's uh, there's a bit of a, an issue here
where the FDA definition of serious adverse event that's on
their website, uh, which is what they should be following,
(43:11):
is broader than the definition of serious adverse event that
they used on the drug label, where they only looked
at six specific categories of adverse events rather than everything.
So that allowed, um, underreporting of serious adverse events on
the drug label itself. So then when we say, oh, well,
(43:31):
actually it's higher because you left out all these other things. Um,
some people are saying, well, you're not making an apples
to apples comparison. Well, well, yeah, we're not making an
apples to apples comparison because the FDA didn't do what
they should have done, or didn't require the manufacturer to
do what they should have done in the first place
in terms of counting all of these different types of
(43:54):
adverse events.
S3 (43:57):
Again, they just play by different rules. Uh, with this when,
when it comes. So, you know, I think earlier this week, uh,
center for Christian virtue. We we joined the chorus of
other organizations calling for mifepristone to just be completely pulled
(44:17):
from shelves right now because, uh, there's one other side
of this, Jamie, that I think is important. You know,
this is the largest data set that's ever been used.
But my understanding is the vast majority of abortions, uh,
that use mifepristone aren't actually done through insurance. So, uh,
the these numbers, there's probably far greater numbers, uh, than
(44:41):
what we even have here. Is that right?
S1 (44:43):
That's right. Uh, our data set includes roughly a quarter
of all of the mifepristone abortions in the US over
this period. So any of the numbers that we say
for numbers, for the number of women who are affected
by this ought to be, uh, probably in reality, about
four times the numbers that we're showing. Uh, so, so,
(45:05):
for example, when we say that there were just over
3000 cases where a woman took the pill. The abortion pill.
And then was later diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy. Well,
if that if that rate prevails throughout the throughout the country,
even in the abortions that are not covered under the insurance, then,
(45:25):
then that means there were probably about 12,000 cases in
the US over those seven years where a woman took
the abortion pill and then later found out she had
an ectopic pregnancy.
S3 (45:35):
And that's a big, big deal. I mean, this is
one of the many reasons why, uh, why the in-person
visits matter so much. Can you explain why it's so dangerous?
I know you're not a doctor. You're a data analyst.
But why is it so dangerous for women to take
the abortion pill when they have an ectopic pregnancy? Why
is it so important to figure out? Is this an
ectopic pregnancy before you give an abortion pill to to
(45:57):
a woman?
S1 (45:58):
So an ectopic pregnancy sometimes called a tubal pregnancy, it's
when when the tragically the the the fetus is not
in the uterus somewhere else, generally in a fallopian tube
in the woman's body. There's no way that the baby
can survive. Um, and at that, at that point, it's
(46:19):
it's necessary for the woman to be diagnosed and to
receive treatment to, to remove, to remove the ectopic pregnancy. Um,
in the case of mifepristone, right there on the label,
from the very beginning, it has said that it's essential
to rule out the possibility of an ectopic pregnancy prior
(46:42):
to giving this pill to a woman, because the the drug,
the way that it acts within her body can, can
in some cases cause the ectopic pregnancy to rupture, uh,
wherever it is, wherever it's located within her body, which
can lead to all sorts of infection and other problems down,
(47:03):
down the road, potentially, uh, potentially she can end up,
you know, being sterilized as a result of all this.
So it's it's just a terrible situation. It needs to
be screened for. It says right there on the label
that it needs to be screened for from the beginning,
to make sure that you're not giving something to this
(47:25):
woman that can cause even greater problems than the problem
that she's already experiencing by having having the ectopic pregnancy. Um,
back when the abortion pill was first approved, one of
the reasons for requiring the in person visits was that
(47:46):
there's not really a reliable way to check for ectopic pregnancy,
other than to give her an ultrasound and check to
see where the baby is. Uh, the the label never
went so far from the beginning in saying, like, you
absolutely have to do an ultrasound, which it probably should have,
(48:11):
but at least she had to be there in the
doctor's office. Uh, it was very likely that they were
going to do the give her the ultrasound to check
to see whether there's an ectopic pregnancy beforehand. Uh, it
would be great if we could mandate that they use
the ultrasound. Of course, um, for the woman's health to
(48:32):
ensure that the that there is no ectopic pregnancy, to
ensure that the baby's not so far along because, uh,
the farther along that she is, the greater the likelihood
of complications from the pill. And, of course, the best
thing as, as we know, from requiring an ultrasound is
that some women are going to see their baby on
(48:53):
the screen and they're going to say, I'm not going
to do this. Like, that's my kid right there. So absolutely,
if we could ideally, ideally we should we should go
back to a situation where where the woman is required
to be there in a doctor's office and hopefully required
to have an ultrasound before before there's any prescription for mifepristone.
S4 (49:16):
Yeah.
S2 (49:16):
And, Aaron, this is probably a spot where it's worth
having at least a quick conversation again about when you're
talking ectopic pregnancies and miscarriages. This is where the abortion
industry loves to muddy the waters and say, like, these
are all the same things. And if you can't treat one,
then you can't treat the other. And we heard it
all around issue one, that we were limiting a woman's
(49:37):
ability to have care for an ectopic pregnancy. Not the
same thing by any stretch.
S3 (49:42):
Oh yeah. I mean, we were talking about this before
we we started recording of, uh, you know, the the
way the left attacks reports like this is especially when
they don't have any, like, reasonable arguments to make. They
just make stuff up. Right. Like, and and honestly, they,
they catch you off guard with it because it's so, uh,
(50:03):
over the.
S4 (50:03):
Top.
S3 (50:04):
Again. The best example of this was during the abortion
amendment fight here in Ohio, when all of a sudden
they said the heartbeat bill wouldn't protect miscarriage care. And
it honestly was the first time I'd ever even heard
the term miscarriage care. Not because, you know, people who
have women who have miscarriages, uh, don't need medical care,
things like that. But that's never been debated. Disputed, and
(50:28):
it's always been understood. And abortion, uh, the intentional taking
of an unborn life, uh, is very different than a
miscarriage where the child, uh, because of biological or other circumstances, uh,
does not unintentionally loses their life. Right? Um, and it's
all the more egregious that they use things like ectopic pregnancies, uh, to, uh,
(50:53):
to try to justify their, their sort of radical life
taking agenda. Um, because literally, they're the ones that are
trying to, uh.
S4 (51:03):
Stop.
S3 (51:04):
You trying to give abortion pills to women who might
have ectopic pregnancies, right? And there is no way, like
you said, certainly not over telehealth. Telemedicine, uh, and not
over the phone or not over a website. Is there
any way for that doctor prescribing, uh, the abortion pill, uh,
to to know if that woman has an ectopic pregnancy? Um,
and I'll just say, you know, especially if you've got
(51:26):
kids in the car or kids listening, why don't you
just press pause just for a minute? Um, because the
reality when you talk to women in pregnancy centers, uh,
the horror stories of women getting these pills sent to
them at home, um, and, uh, bleeding in their bathrooms, um, uh, delivering, uh,
(51:48):
children into toilets, um, and not knowing what to do, uh,
being completely alone, being lied to, um, about what the
pill actually does and what their situation actually is, is
some of the worst things you can imagine. Um, and the,
the it certainly is not caring for those women, for
people who say they're all about women. Um, it really
(52:10):
is awful. Um, so, you know, Jamie, for from our perspective,
we want to see the FDA completely pull this pill.
That's what our action alert is calling for. We're calling
on our senators and congressmen and and FDA director McCarthy
and HHS Secretary Robert F Kennedy to to pull the
pill while more research is done. Um, but baseline what.
S4 (52:33):
What what.
S3 (52:34):
Does the FDA need to do in response to this? Uh,
from from your perspective?
S1 (52:39):
So I think obviously we'd like to see the pill
off the market as well. The abortion pill is not
safe for women. It's not clearly not safe for the babies.
And we we support, um, protecting the lives of both
the mothers and the babies. Um, but in reality, in
the short term, particularly given promises that President Trump made
(53:03):
during the campaign. It's not likely that we're going to
be able to achieve that. But he has promised to
keep women safe. And it's clear that what's being done
with the abortion pill right now is not keeping women safe.
So we'd at least like to see the FDA, uh,
reinstate the original safety protocols from 2000, which are much
(53:28):
closer to the level of care that a woman would
have received in one of those clinical trials that they
were using to justify the pill being safe and effective. Uh,
so if we could get back to that, we can
at least protect women from the harm of the abortion pill.
If we're requiring that the women actually have to go
(53:50):
to a doctor in person in order to receive the pill,
that's going to solve the problem of the telemedicine Medicine, abortions,
the out of state mailing of the pill into into women.
So the pro-life states basically right now, even if they're
outlawing all abortions except those that are necessary to protect
(54:12):
the life of the mother. Right. Um, in, you know,
those states are still being inundated with pills sent from
other places like California, where they're effectively no restrictions on abortion.
So we need to be able to require the woman
(54:34):
to see the doctor in person in order to get
the pill, both for her safety and to allow the, um,
the much better pro-life laws that are on the books
in more conservative states to have the effect that they
should have in terms of saving babies lives.
S2 (54:54):
Yeah. And I think it's also worth pointing out here, too,
that as you as you look at the graphs that
are in the report, as far as chemical abortions, it's
just straight up and to the right, like this problem
is only going to get worse as chemical abortions continue
to increase. And I think you mentioned here that the
Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone, more than 5 million women,
(55:17):
according to their data, have used the pill since its
approval in 2000. So this has just become a it
magnifies the problem, magnifies every year with this information.
S1 (55:28):
Right? Right. They're bragging on their website that more than
5 million women have used this. Well, have they looked
at the safety data for these 5 million women? Because
if they've actually looked at it, then they're going to
see something much, much closer to what we see than
what the FDA is allowing them to claim on the label.
So it would be great if we could find out
what they've what they've actually done, uh, with any of
(55:50):
the information that they have. Uh, I can't believe that
they don't know about this.
S3 (55:56):
Well, and, Jamie, uh, you know, obviously this data set, uh,
that you guys, uh, pulled this report from. There's probably
a lot more stories to tell from this, um, you know, uh,
what's to come, uh, next, uh, from from EPC and, and, uh, uh,
and this data, uh, on the pill and and and abortions.
S1 (56:19):
Well, we have a whole series of reports lined up,
not just from EPC, but from other members of the coalition. Um,
if your listeners want to check out the website, it's
Stop Harming Women. That's where EPC, as well as these
other organizations will be posting all of our reports where
we look in more depth at, uh, exactly what what
(56:42):
kinds of harms women are, are experiencing under abortion. Look
more at the problem of the out of state shipment
of the abortion pill. Look at, you know, on a
state by state basis at the at the problems that
we're seeing, uh, we're going to be able to look
at just so many different aspects of this, uh, and
help to show the, uh, the harm to women from
(57:06):
the the abortion pill.
S2 (57:08):
Yeah. Well, that's that's great stuff to to know where
to keep tabs on it. Stop harming women. I just
wanted to repeat that for our listeners out there if
they missed it the first time. So, uh, Jamie, this
has been an eye opening conversation. Thank you so much
for your work on this report. Keep up the great work.
We're excited to see more stuff from you and how
we can expose some of the harms that are happening
(57:28):
to women because of these chemical abortions. And we thank
you so much for your time in joining us today
on the narrative. Thank you for tuning in to this
episode of the narrative presented by CCV and produced by
Wessler Media. If you found today's episode insightful, leave us
a review or rating and subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts.
We're your hosts, Mike Andrews, Aaron Burr, and David Mahan,
(57:49):
and we'll see you next time on the narrative.
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides.  Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer  Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.