April 12, 2024 • 33 mins
In this episode, Tudor discusses the case at the Supreme Court regarding the abortion pill and the need for safeguards. The guests, Dr. Christina Francis and Kellie Fiedorek, provide insights into the risks and complications associated with the abortion pill and the importance of medical oversight. They highlight the removal of safety precautions by the FDA and the impact on women's health. The conversation also touches on the mental health component, the need for ultrasounds, and the role of healthcare providers in ensuring safe access to abortion. Francis & Fiedorek emphasize the importance of reinstating safeguards and prioritizing women's health. The Tudor Dixon Podcast is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast - new episodes debut every Monday, Wednesday, & Friday. For more visit TudorDixonPodcast.com
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Today, we are going
to talk about that case at the Supreme Court where
they are talking about whether or not to put safeguards
back into place for the what we know as the
abortion pill. And I think that people have gotten confused
by what this case actually is because you've heard a
lot of the media saying, Oh, this is going to
(00:22):
take away freedoms for women, this is going to take
away the pill, It's going to reduce access.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
That's not what it's going to do.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
But there are real reasons to have these safeguards in place,
and that's something that I feel like we're not actually
hearing from the mainstream media. So I wanted to have
a few folks on today that could talk to us
about this and kind of educate us on this, because honestly,
even when I was running I'm going to be totally
open here, I had some folks come to me and
talk to me about the abortion pill, and I didn't
(00:53):
fully understand how the abortion pill works. I thought, well,
maybe we're talking about plan B and this is something
that happens very early on in pregnancy, and we'll get
all of the details. But from what I understand, this
is up to eleven weeks, you're actually going through labor,
you are having to give birth at home. I think
people think, well, this is early on, it's like a miscarriage,
(01:14):
but it is pretty significant. And that's why we have
doctor Christina Francis here with us, and we also have
Kelly Fedrik.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
She is here with us.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
She doctor Francis is the CEO of the American Association
of Pro Life Obstetricians and Guynecologists, and Kelly is a
senior counsel and the government affairs director for the Alliance
Defriending Freedom, a nonprofit legal organization.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Welcome to you both.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Thank you so much for having us.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Absolutely So, I saw your interview with Caitlin Collins and
that was I was watching it and I'm like, this
is someone who can actually speak about this, that has
this experience. So I want to just kind of break
down what I was just talking about, because I I
think there's a lot of misinformation about what exactly this
lawsuit is and people are saying this would take away
(02:07):
the pill completely. But doctor Francis, can you explain why
you decided to go to the Supreme Court with this
and what it actually is that you're asking for Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
Absolutely, well, again, thank you so much for having us.
And I do think it's important to explain to your
listeners exactly what it is we're talking about when we
talk about the abortion drug, but also then what exactly
this case was about. And so as you brought up,
I think a lot of people think that the abortion
drug is the same thing as something like Plan B,
(02:40):
you're an emergency contraceptive, but it's important for people to
understand it's actually a very different drug. So it's a
specific drug called mifipristone that the FDA approved in the
year two thousand that is meant to cause an abortion
of an established pregnancy. So that's very different than say
Plan B. And the drug works by interfering with a
(03:02):
key hormone in pregnancy called progesterone, and it essentially leads
to the starvation of the embryo or the fetus, and
that's what typically then leads to the death of that
preborn child. And then a woman takes a second drug
called mesaprostal that puts her into labor. As you said,
it causes the uterus to contract, and it puts her
(03:22):
into labor and causes her to deliver her preborn child
then typically at home alone, and now with what the
FDA has done without any sort of medical oversight or
medical supervision. And so that's actually what led the changes,
these reckless changes that the FDA made to the safety
precautions that it had put in place surrounding this drug
(03:44):
when it approved it is what led us to file
this lawsuit. And you know, just very briefly, not to
go into all of the details, but very briefly, what
the FDA did, it's reckless actions that endangered women and girls,
was initially to expand the range and pregnancy that these
drugs could be used from seven weeks of pregnancy up
(04:05):
through ten weeks of pregnancy, knowing that that was going
to increase complications, and then also saying initially a woman
had to have three in person visits with a physician,
so one before she took the drugs, and then two
follow up visits to ensure that her abortion was complete
and to ensure that she wasn't having significant complications related
(04:26):
to the drugs. They took those two follow up visits
away initially, and then at the same time that they
did all of that, they said, now you don't need
to report complications to us anymore. And now all you
need to do is report deaths to us. Apparently that's
all that matters to the FDA, is whether or not
a woman dies. And then in twenty twenty one, the FDA,
(04:47):
we think most egregiously took away that final really important safeguard,
which was that initial in person visit.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
And that visit is so important for many many reasons.
Speaker 4 (04:59):
One, the only way a woman can actually receive fully
informed consent and understand the potential risks of taking these
drugs that are specific to her in her particular situation.
It's also the only way that a life threatening condition
called an e topic pregnancy can be ruled out with
either an ultrasound or an exam. And it's also the
(05:22):
only way we can screen for other sort of complications
that might arise, like whether or not she's our H
negative or whether or not she's being coerced or forced
into this abortion.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So what happens if you are what happens if you
are our age negative or have an topic pregnancy or
a topic I'm saying that wrong pregnancy Because in those cases,
is this something that could be dangerous if you take
this pill?
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (05:49):
So, First if a woman has a negative blood type,
we know that she needs to receive a medication called
rogam in order to prevent complications in future pregnancies. So
many women who have been pregnant who maybe have a
negative blood type might know, might remember that typically at
about twenty eight weeks of pregnancy, there you go, there
you go, and then again oftentimes after delivery, you have
(06:14):
to receive this medication rogain to prevent problems in future pregnancies.
But we also know for women that have procedures in
the first trimester of pregnancy, whether that be treatment for
a miscarriage or whether it be an abortion, they need
to have rogim then also to prevent them from having complications. Really,
the very dangerous thing, as you said, Tutor, is ec
(06:37):
topic pregnancy. So that's a condition where the embryo implants
somewhere outside of the cavity of the uterus, the inside
of the uterus where it's supposed to implant, and that
is still the leading cause of maternal mortality in the
first trimester. Even in the US it occurs in one
in fifty pregnancy, so this is not uncommon.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
And the reason it's particularly.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Dangerous for women take these drugs when they don't know
that they have an ectopic pregnancy is twofold. One is
that these drugs don't treat an ectopic pregnancy, so that
pregnancy will continue to grow and then can lead to
the two bursting and causing life threatening bleeding inside of
a woman's abdomen.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
The other reason why it's so.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Dangerous is because the symptoms that a woman experiences with
an ectopic pregnancy are the same symptoms she's going to
experience from her chemical abortion, and that is vaginal bleeding
and abdominal pain. And so she's going to be told
she don't even know that are going along with your abortion.
She won't even know that she's having life threatening bleeding,
(07:39):
and that delay and care. I've seen it myself that
delay and care can mean the difference between life and
death for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. And so
this is so dangerous, and it's why we have said
so many times that it really shouldn't matter where someone
stands on the issue of abortion. Everyone should be in
support of this case. Everyone should be in support of
(08:02):
these essential safeguards being put back into place for these drugs.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
That's the part I don't understand because it's like taking
healthcare out of the equation here. I mean, for me,
for example, now I know that this is up to
did you say up to ten weeks? Yeah, So my
question is what happens if you take it when you're
twelve weeks?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
How do you know that you're ten weeks?
Speaker 1 (08:28):
What are the complications of you started taking this later
in pregnancy?
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
So we know from even the earliest studies that were
done when this drug was approved that the farther along
a woman is in her pregnancy when she takes these drugs,
the higher the risk of complication, up to the point
that at about thirteen weeks of pregnancy, somewhere between thirty
and forty percent of women will need.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
A surgical completion of their abortion, and.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
That could mean life threatening hemorrhage or bleeding infection because.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Of routine tissue.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
So it's very significant how far along a woman is
in her pregnancy when she takes these drugs.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
And what the abortion industry and what.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
The FDA will say is that, well, you can just
ask women how far along they are, and you can
just base it off of that.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Well, of course, there's many problems with that.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
I mean, one, who's to say that the woman isn't lying.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
The other thing is she really may not know how
far along she is.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
So even the American College of obidu Ayan's APAD says
that up to fifty percent of women will be wrong
about how far a long they are based on their
last minstrual period, and that any pregnancy that is not
dated by an ultrasound should be considered suboptimally dated. And
so what that means is that when a woman isn't
even seeing a physician in person, she's not having an
(09:42):
exam to judge how big is her uterus, how far
along do we think she is based on that or
getting an ultrasound that would give very important information. There
is a significant risk that she could have many more
complications than she could even imagine because she's farther along
in her pregnancy. And that's why that in person visit
is so important for informed consent, Because how I would
(10:04):
counsel a woman about the risk of these drugs if
she's six weeks pregnant, It's very different than how I
would counsel her if she's twelve weeks pregnant.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Well, and I kind of think that people don't understand
when you talk about the risk, they don't understand how
significant this is. I actually lost a baby at eighteen
weeks and we knew the baby was gone. We went
into the hospital. They induced labor. It took three days
of me sitting in the hospital, but I was monitored
the entire time, and we had the baby. We held
(10:36):
the baby, we waited for the placenta never came, never came,
And then suddenly the nurse looked at me and said, honey.
I remember looking at my husband and saying, I think
I'm dying and he was like, You're fine, and I said,
something's wrong. It's like I could feel life slipping away
and the nurse. I said that to the nurse and
(10:57):
she did an exam and she was like, honey, you
have to go into surgery right now. We're calling the doctor.
We're taking down to ther and they had to. They
had to do a DNC. I would not have survived.
I would not have survived. It was truly me feeling
life slip away. What would I have done had I
been at home? And that to your point, I was
further along, obviously, But how do you know women in
(11:21):
a desperate situation aren't going to what's the difference between
this and a.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Back alley abortion.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
If that's what we're protecting, If we want abortions to
be safe, then what's the difference if a woman can
die in her own home. And it's that moment that
you realize that that you're nearly too late to do anything.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Absolutely well to First of all, I'm so very sorry
for your loss, and I know from having sat with
patients how how.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Difficult that must have been.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
But you know, you've hit the nail on the head
with exactly what can happen and does happen when women
take these drugs farther along in pregnancy. Even when women
take them earlier in pregnancy, that very same thing can happen,
but certainly the risk of that happening.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Is significantly worse the farther along they are.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
And this is what we are seeing in our emergency rooms. Myself,
my colleagues are over seven thousand members that belong to
the organization that I represent. This is what we're seeing
in increasing numbers in our emergency rooms. Is women hemorrhaging,
you know, And it's interesting that you bring up how
you felt that's actually something I've had patients tell me too.
(12:28):
There is something women understand. They know when something is
wrong with them. And so imagine that happening, like you said,
and you are in rural America, where your closest hospital
with adequate blood products or the ability to perform an
emergency dancy is two hours away, you will bleed to
terrify or are you all right? Exactly exactly, And this
(12:52):
is something that happened to you, you know, very very unfortunately,
because of something that spontaneously happened with your pregnancy.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
What we are trying to hold to account is the
FDA who is.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
Inflicting this on women, because they have removed the safeguards
that they said we're necessary around these drugs to ensure
that at the very least, if women make the choice
to take these drugs to have an abortion, that at
the very least the appropriate safeguards are in place. And
it's completely reckulous with women's health and with women's lives
(13:25):
what they've done.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. Why remove these safeguards? And I
asked that because it seems like something that I'm even
hearing politicians say Gretchen Whitmer the other day came out
and said, we want to remove the healthcare appointment for
(13:47):
birth control.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
We want birth control to be over the.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Counter, and that to remove barriers to getting mifipristone. And
I'm like, wait, whoa, whoa, this is weird because now
suddenly you're saying you don't want a doctor involved in
birth control, which I think also, I was a young
person who suffered from CISS and I had I was
on different birth controls and constantly monitored by my physician
(14:11):
to see how that was affecting my body.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
And it does.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
It does have major effects on your body. But then
to say to remove barriers to the abortion drug sounds
like we've got a governor of a major state in
the United States pushing to make this abortion drug over
the counter as well. I mean, do you see this
potentially happening in the future and why take healthcare out
of it.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Well, you know, you're exactly right, and that and even
birth control pills, you know, certainly have their risk.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
But we are talking about with the drug myth of pristone.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
We are talking about a very high risk drug that
the FDA recognized was high risk when they approved it.
That's why they put these safeguards in place in the
first place, and left them in place for sixteen years.
And so the fact now that we're talking about removing
even one in person visit, I mean, of course we
were asking for those three in person visits to be reinstated.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
But you know, the fact that a.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Woman is not even seeing a physician even one time
surrounding taking these drugs is so dangerous and I think
that it shows the abortion industry cares about profits. We
heard that from Dan COO's the manufacturer's lawyer in the
oral argument. They care about profits more than they care
about women and women's health and women's safety.
Speaker 5 (15:29):
Well, it's not only reckless, it's also unlawful, and that's
why we've sued the FDA to hold them accountable for
what they did. They're all the FDA's own label states
that roughly one in twenty five women will end up
in the emergency room from taking these drugs.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Wow, one in twenty five, one.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
In twenty five. That's there.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
That's the FDA's own label that says that and more.
And in addition to that, there are data states that
without an in person visit, up to three hundred percent
more women and will have complications seven percent will need
surgical intervention. The risks to these drugs are incredible, and
yet the FDA not only remove these very common sense,
(16:12):
common sense safeguards, which you're right, everyone regardless of your
views on abortion, should agree. Women deserve quality healthcare. They
deserve to have a doctor when they're pregnant and facing
difficult circumstances. But the FDA said, no, you don't deserve this.
And not only that, but was so shocking during our
argument is that the FDA argue that no one can
(16:32):
even have challenge their actions. We know that no federal
agencies above the law and that women absolutely deserve better.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Isn't this also, I mean, doesn't this go beyond just
healthcare and it goes to safety because we have a
serious problem in this country. I think we're the number
two in the world for sex trafficking. You are putting
people in a situation where you don't have a doctor
saying are you safe? I mean, when I go into
the doctor, even if I go into my cancer doctor,
(17:01):
I get a form to fill out do you feel safe?
At home? My kids get a formed to fill out.
Do you feel safe at home. This is a very
a very aggressive and like you said, dangerous procedure, and
what caused the pregnancy is a big part of why
you're getting rid of it could potentially be a big
part of why you are getting rid of the pregnancy.
(17:21):
And yet you have no discussion with a doctor to
find out if this woman is safe well.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
And that's why the majority of Americans agree that the
FDA acted recklessly, that they believe that women deserve the ongoing,
in person care of a doctor when taking high risk drugs.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
You know, you think about the.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
Safety component of this.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
What the FDA has done.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
It's left women and young girls to take these abortion
drugs at home, alone in their dorm rooms, without ever
having seen a doctor in person. And that that's heartbreaking
to think about women anywhere, but especially young girls in
their dorm rooms who don't know who to turn to,
who don't have a doctor required to see them by
the FDA. It's reckless, it's unlawful, and we're very hopeful
(18:04):
the Supreme Court will hold this agency accountable and reinstate
these very very common sense safeguards.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
There's so much involved in this.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
There's not only your physical health, but I think there's
a huge mental health component to this too, And you
have never had the opportunity to sit down with a
physician who can say, do you need anything else? But
I've also heard stories, and you can correct me if
I'm wrong, and this is just you know, an old
wives tale, But we've heard the stories that there are
women who did not understand that this would be giving birth,
(18:35):
that when they see the actual fetus, when they see
the embryo, they are shocked that this is in their
home and they go into a complete panic mode.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Have you heard these stories?
Speaker 5 (18:46):
We have so many women's stories who come forward and
shared that that they were not are told what would happen.
They were never told that this would cause them to
deliver their baby at home by themselves, that they would
just bleed for weeks and weeks. But women are told
is that this is easy, this is safe. It's just
like having a heavy period and that you know, maybe
you'll bleed for a couple of days. And yet the
(19:08):
reality of what women suffer, both physically, emotionally psychologically.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Is so different than that. What really concerns me.
Speaker 5 (19:16):
Is the FDA has argued that these drugs are just
as safe as advil, and that's really laughable because one
in twenty five women don't go to the emurgency room
from taking an advil. And I think the women that
who have shared their experiences with these chemical abortion drugs
share the reality and the pain that these drugs have
(19:36):
caused them, and that they've never been told what could
happen by those who are prescribing them.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
I think that was the shocking part about your interview
with Caitlyn Collins. She kept going back to this drug
has proven safe. They are telling you this is safe.
And I think that a lot of us have said, well,
we're a little bit concerned about some of these organizations.
I mean, we've seen some of the other organizations in
the US be contradicted by European organizations that are like
(20:03):
the counterpart over in Europe when they've said this is safe,
this is safe, and the other side is saying, actually,
we don't think you should do that until you're this
age or whatnot. But now, why do we have to
just say we trust the FDA on this. Why can't
we say, well, wait a minute, there can be people
outside of that that are seeing these effects after the fact.
(20:26):
This is now I mean it's not the approval process anymore.
It's out there. We don't have questions. It's not testing.
We know this is happening. Why is it so hard
to say, just put the safeguards back in place.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
Great well, and as Kelly said, you know, we don't
even have to go outside of the FDA. Actually, the
FDA admits that one in twenty five women will end
up in the emergency room. And you know, I think
for me it's helpful to put a number on that. So,
you know, Bootlecker just came out with their twenty twenty
three abortion numbers recently and said that for the first
(21:02):
time ever, we're now above sixty percent of abortions in
this country.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
We're done via these drugs.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
And so that equaled roughly six hundred and fifty thousand
chemical abortions last year. Well, if you use the FDA's
own numbers, which are likely conservative, but if you use
the FDA's own numbers of one in twenty five women,
that means over twenty five thousand women likely went to
the emergency room last year because of complications related to
these drugs. These are not safe. And I can tell
(21:30):
you that my colleagues and I as we're running to
the emergency room when we're being called for a woman
who's hemorrhaging.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Can attest to.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
The fact that this is not rare and that it
is impacting women in a very real way, not just
from a physical standpoint, but as you said, Tutor, also
from a mental health standpoint, as they are faced with
delivering their baby when they weren't prepared to do that.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
And so, you know, for people who say that this
is rare, they are not.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
People who are on the front lines like myself and
my colleague Pep, who are seeing women come into our
emergency room and droves across this country suffering very significant
complications related not only to these drugs, but to the
reckless way that they are.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Being dispensed thanks to the thanks to the FDA.
Speaker 5 (22:14):
Well, and keep in mind too, this is the same
FDA that approved opioids not too long ago and said
that they wouldn't cause addiction. So the FDA is not
a trusted resource on this, and they they are failing women.
They're betraying women women and women deserve better, and they
really need to reinstate these safeguards if they care at
all about women's health.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
You know, you brought up the comparison to advil, that
this is as safe as taking an advil. So the
numbers six hundred twenty five thousand women in six hundred
thousand are ending up in the hospital potentially potentially even more.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
How do those numbers compare to other drugs?
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Is that something that if you are a researcher, you
look at this and you say, Okay, the sirens are
going off.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
This is alarming.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
So if you.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Compare it to the number of people who take advil
across the country, I mean, it's millions of people who
take advil every year. And yes, some people end up
in the emergency mostly because of overdoses related to advil
or other medical conditions. But the numbers are you know,
I think we calculate it's a thousandth of a percent
(23:19):
that related to taking advil that go into the emergency
room versus one in twenty five who take these drugs
and an FDA approved dose, I should add.
Speaker 5 (23:29):
So Yeah, in addition to that, there is no label
on advil that says roughly one in twenty five women
who take these drugs will end up in the emergency room,
so the risks are known. That's why the FDA. Originally,
when the FDA approved these drugs back in two thousand,
they said, look, certain safeguards are vital. They're necessary to
ensure women's health, and those include three, at least three
(23:52):
in person doctor visits both before and after. Those are
those are essential for women and girls. So the fact
that they decided to remove those that they themselves deemed
necessary early on is shocking that they would take those
away and remove that important in person visit with a
woman who is pregnant and who is considering abortion.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. You are not saying you want
to restrict access. You're saying you want safe access. You
want to make sure that the patient is cared for,
which is just completely crazy that we're even arguing about this.
(24:33):
But I want to talk a little bit about what
you're protecting them from, because we've talked about hemorrhaging and
the problems that people can have. I don't know that
folks really fully understand. You know, if you're not medical,
what does that mean. I mean, we're hearing about infertility,
we're hearing about sepsist we're hearing about kidney injuries, hemorrhaging,
all of these things.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
How common are those issues?
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Because I think if a woman is choosing not to
have a baby at this time, that doesn't necessarily mean
she's signing up for no baby in the future at all,
but that could be the case here.
Speaker 4 (25:08):
Yeah, absolutely, Well, you know, just even to use an
example of a patient that I cared for in my
emergency room who had obtained these drugs online without an
in person visit prior to getting them, and she presented
to our emergency room because she was about eleven weeks
or so long when she took these drugs by the
(25:29):
time they got to her, and she presented to the
emergency room with profound anemia or a low blood count
because of all of the blood that she had lost.
She required a blood transfusion. She also had retained tissue
that was causing an infection. She required an emergency surgery
to finish getting that tissue out of her uterus. And
(25:50):
she also had the early stages of what we call
a cute kidney injury or injury to her kidney, so
it had impacted the blood loss and the infection had
impacted her kidneys. She was not told because she didn't
interact with a medical professional first of all, but she
was not told that these were possibilities if she took
these drugs.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
And as you said, you know, she.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Had a young baby and wasn't ready for another baby,
and so took these drugs thinking that this would help her,
and in fact it caused her significant harm. And so
you're right, you know, women are not being told about this,
and you know, we know what baseline, these drugs are
inherently risky. That's why the FDA put these safeguards in
(26:33):
place to try to minimize those risks. But now they
have removed all of those safeguards, and you know, I
think another important point to make is that many people
envision that, oh, well, you know, women are going online
and they're having like a telemedicine visit with a with
a physician or with a medical professional before they're being
given these drugs. In large part, that is not what's happening.
(26:55):
They're going onto a website, they're filling out a form,
and these drugs are being mailed to them. There is
no significant interaction with anyone in the medical field, much
less a physician, and so you know, they're not being.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Told about this possibility.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
And as you said, to the risk of bleeding, I
used to tell my medical students that you have to
respect the pregnant uterus because there is so much blood
flow going to a uterus with a baby inside of it,
you know, by design, because that developing baby needs that
blood flow. But the flip side of that is when
(27:30):
a uterus starts bleeding in pregnancy, it can cause really
profound bleeding really really fast. And you know this this
way of dispensing these drugs. One of the arguments that
was made of why this should be available like this
is because, oh what about women who don't have access
to healthcare. They need to be able to access these
drugs without seeing a healthcare professional. But those are exactly
(27:52):
the women that are at the highest risk of suffering
these complications and having you know, lasting as you said,
they could lose their uterus as a result of this,
meaning they'll never be able to have children.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
And this is something that at the very least they
deserve to know going.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
Into it, and we know that they're not being given
this kind of informed consent.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Well, and just how do you have an ultrasound on
a telehealth visit? You know, when I hear about a
tele medicine visit, I'm like, this is not what you
use this visit for. I mean, this was, you know,
after we lost the baby. Our visits were obviously much
different than my last pregnancy was twins, and so that's
a different pregnancy as well, and that I also think,
(28:36):
how do you know it's not twins? How do you
know you don't have multiples? And then what happens when
you're at home and you're giving birth on your own?
I mean, I just you know, like you said, and
I think that it is important to clarify no matter
where you stand on abortion, you should be for protecting
women no matter what right. So what do you think
(28:58):
that will come out Before I let you go, What
do you think will come out of this Supreme Court hearing?
Speaker 5 (29:03):
The Supreme Court will recognize how reckless and unlawful that
the FDA violated the law when they remove these basic
common sense safety standards, and will require them to reinstate
it so that women are protected. And I think at
the bottom line really is that regardless of your views
on abortion, women deserve better healthcare. They deserve to have
safety standards when taking these high risk drugs. And the
(29:26):
f day should always put women's health over the pharmaceuticalceutical
company's bottom line.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
It's fascinating to think that it is it comes down
to money, but oftentimes it does come down to money.
I think that we would say that as we watch
the political world, even though this should not be a
political issue, we see folks that are pushing for reduced healthcare,
even though they're claiming that this is healthcare, and I
(29:54):
don't know that this is I'm not saying that that
is a malicious thing, but I think it is import
that we have people out there who understand healthcare in
a way that politicians never will to say, well, wait, wait, wait,
we actually have to have healthcare visits. We have to
have a healthcare provider, which I think is so funny. Literally,
it's called a healthcare provider. They're providing the healthcare, and
(30:17):
you want to take the provider out of it.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
It just seems bananas.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
It's so backwards.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
Well, even Planned Parenthood says that if you have you know,
the best way to check for a topic pregnancy is
through ultrasound. Ultrasounds are so essential to check for a
topic pregnancy, to check for the gestational age of the baby.
And to your point, ultrasounds cannot happen over zoom.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
They have to happen in person.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
And that's just that's just basic common sense for any
for any woman. And so it just is it is
staggering that the FDA would just care so little about
women's health that they would take away the requirement that
the doctors provide this to women.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
Is there a fear that if you have the ultrasound
that you'll be closer to the child and then you
might not want to buy the drug. I mean, I
just it seems very weird because there have been groups
that have said, well, we want to push for an
ultrasound beforehand, but most of the time, regardless, you are
getting that first ultrasound to check to make sure this
is not there's not some sort of anomaly or danger
(31:16):
in the pregnancy.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Isn't that right?
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Absolutely well, And ultrasound is a key part of providing
medical care to a pregnant woman. And you know, I
think we definitely know that ultrasounds show the reality of
what's going on inside of a woman. And but again,
I think that's part of fully informed consent. If she's
going to end her pregnancy, she should understand, you know,
(31:39):
everything about her pregnancy, including where it's at, as you said,
whether or not it's multiples or not. But also, you know,
I think this is another example of how the abortion
industry tries to cut corners to save themselves money and
to escape regulations and at the expense of women's health.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
And we see this time and time and again.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
And we heard that in oral arguments in this case
again from the manufacture of the drug, that they oppose
these regulations because it means that they sell fewer drugs,
and it means that they have to do more for
the health and safety of women. And you know, so
if I can just say too, one more thing is
I really wonder where are the women's groups. I think
(32:21):
women should be demanding better health care than this. This
is medical malpractice that is being done to women. I
had a conversation with a colleague of mine about this,
who is pro choice, and she said, I would never
treat my patients like that. Why is this being allowed?
She recognized, you though, again she supports women being able
to choose abortion, but she recognized that this is shoddy
(32:42):
medical care. And I think that women should be joining
together and demanding that the FDA be held accountable because
we as women deserve better health care than this.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Well, that's why I wanted to talk to you today
because I really I've watched how this has been presented
on the media, and the media has presented this to
women as they're going to make your healthcare away, and
I just so appreciate what you both have done to
fight to make sure women understand this isn't taking a
choice away. This is protecting your body, protecting your future,
(33:12):
and making sure you're healthy. And it just is so
meaningful to me that you're willing to do this. Thank
you so much for coming on today, Doctor Christina Francis
and Kelly Fedoric.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
You guys are doing God's work.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Thank you for having us.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Thank you so much, Tutor absolutely and thank you all
for joining us on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. As always,
for this episode, go to tutordisonpodcast dot com, or you
can head over to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you get your podcasts and join us next time
on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Have a blessed ding
Welcome to the Tutor Dixon Podcast. Today, we are going
to talk about that case at the Supreme Court where
they are talking about whether or not to put safeguards
back into place for the what we know as the
abortion pill. And I think that people have gotten confused
by what this case actually is because you've heard a
lot of the media saying, Oh, this is going to
(00:22):
take away freedoms for women, this is going to take
away the pill, It's going to reduce access.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
That's not what it's going to do.
Speaker 1 (00:30):
But there are real reasons to have these safeguards in place,
and that's something that I feel like we're not actually
hearing from the mainstream media. So I wanted to have
a few folks on today that could talk to us
about this and kind of educate us on this, because honestly,
even when I was running I'm going to be totally
open here, I had some folks come to me and
talk to me about the abortion pill, and I didn't
(00:53):
fully understand how the abortion pill works. I thought, well,
maybe we're talking about plan B and this is something
that happens very early on in pregnancy, and we'll get
all of the details. But from what I understand, this
is up to eleven weeks, you're actually going through labor,
you are having to give birth at home. I think
people think, well, this is early on, it's like a miscarriage,
(01:14):
but it is pretty significant. And that's why we have
doctor Christina Francis here with us, and we also have
Kelly Fedrik.
Speaker 2 (01:23):
She is here with us.
Speaker 1 (01:24):
She doctor Francis is the CEO of the American Association
of Pro Life Obstetricians and Guynecologists, and Kelly is a
senior counsel and the government affairs director for the Alliance
Defriending Freedom, a nonprofit legal organization.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Welcome to you both.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
Thank you so much for having us.
Speaker 1 (01:44):
Absolutely So, I saw your interview with Caitlin Collins and
that was I was watching it and I'm like, this
is someone who can actually speak about this, that has
this experience. So I want to just kind of break
down what I was just talking about, because I I
think there's a lot of misinformation about what exactly this
lawsuit is and people are saying this would take away
(02:07):
the pill completely. But doctor Francis, can you explain why
you decided to go to the Supreme Court with this
and what it actually is that you're asking for Yeah.
Speaker 4 (02:18):
Absolutely, well, again, thank you so much for having us.
And I do think it's important to explain to your
listeners exactly what it is we're talking about when we
talk about the abortion drug, but also then what exactly
this case was about. And so as you brought up,
I think a lot of people think that the abortion
drug is the same thing as something like Plan B,
(02:40):
you're an emergency contraceptive, but it's important for people to
understand it's actually a very different drug. So it's a
specific drug called mifipristone that the FDA approved in the
year two thousand that is meant to cause an abortion
of an established pregnancy. So that's very different than say
Plan B. And the drug works by interfering with a
(03:02):
key hormone in pregnancy called progesterone, and it essentially leads
to the starvation of the embryo or the fetus, and
that's what typically then leads to the death of that
preborn child. And then a woman takes a second drug
called mesaprostal that puts her into labor. As you said,
it causes the uterus to contract, and it puts her
(03:22):
into labor and causes her to deliver her preborn child
then typically at home alone, and now with what the
FDA has done without any sort of medical oversight or
medical supervision. And so that's actually what led the changes,
these reckless changes that the FDA made to the safety
precautions that it had put in place surrounding this drug
(03:44):
when it approved it is what led us to file
this lawsuit. And you know, just very briefly, not to
go into all of the details, but very briefly, what
the FDA did, it's reckless actions that endangered women and girls,
was initially to expand the range and pregnancy that these
drugs could be used from seven weeks of pregnancy up
(04:05):
through ten weeks of pregnancy, knowing that that was going
to increase complications, and then also saying initially a woman
had to have three in person visits with a physician,
so one before she took the drugs, and then two
follow up visits to ensure that her abortion was complete
and to ensure that she wasn't having significant complications related
(04:26):
to the drugs. They took those two follow up visits
away initially, and then at the same time that they
did all of that, they said, now you don't need
to report complications to us anymore. And now all you
need to do is report deaths to us. Apparently that's
all that matters to the FDA, is whether or not
a woman dies. And then in twenty twenty one, the FDA,
(04:47):
we think most egregiously took away that final really important safeguard,
which was that initial in person visit.
Speaker 3 (04:55):
And that visit is so important for many many reasons.
Speaker 4 (04:59):
One, the only way a woman can actually receive fully
informed consent and understand the potential risks of taking these
drugs that are specific to her in her particular situation.
It's also the only way that a life threatening condition
called an e topic pregnancy can be ruled out with
either an ultrasound or an exam. And it's also the
(05:22):
only way we can screen for other sort of complications
that might arise, like whether or not she's our H
negative or whether or not she's being coerced or forced
into this abortion.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
So what happens if you are what happens if you
are our age negative or have an topic pregnancy or
a topic I'm saying that wrong pregnancy Because in those cases,
is this something that could be dangerous if you take
this pill?
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Absolutely?
Speaker 4 (05:49):
So, First if a woman has a negative blood type,
we know that she needs to receive a medication called
rogam in order to prevent complications in future pregnancies. So
many women who have been pregnant who maybe have a
negative blood type might know, might remember that typically at
about twenty eight weeks of pregnancy, there you go, there
you go, and then again oftentimes after delivery, you have
(06:14):
to receive this medication rogain to prevent problems in future pregnancies.
But we also know for women that have procedures in
the first trimester of pregnancy, whether that be treatment for
a miscarriage or whether it be an abortion, they need
to have rogim then also to prevent them from having complications. Really,
the very dangerous thing, as you said, Tutor, is ec
(06:37):
topic pregnancy. So that's a condition where the embryo implants
somewhere outside of the cavity of the uterus, the inside
of the uterus where it's supposed to implant, and that
is still the leading cause of maternal mortality in the
first trimester. Even in the US it occurs in one
in fifty pregnancy, so this is not uncommon.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
And the reason it's particularly.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
Dangerous for women take these drugs when they don't know
that they have an ectopic pregnancy is twofold. One is
that these drugs don't treat an ectopic pregnancy, so that
pregnancy will continue to grow and then can lead to
the two bursting and causing life threatening bleeding inside of
a woman's abdomen.
Speaker 3 (07:17):
The other reason why it's so.
Speaker 4 (07:18):
Dangerous is because the symptoms that a woman experiences with
an ectopic pregnancy are the same symptoms she's going to
experience from her chemical abortion, and that is vaginal bleeding
and abdominal pain. And so she's going to be told
she don't even know that are going along with your abortion.
She won't even know that she's having life threatening bleeding,
(07:39):
and that delay and care. I've seen it myself that
delay and care can mean the difference between life and
death for a woman with an ectopic pregnancy. And so
this is so dangerous, and it's why we have said
so many times that it really shouldn't matter where someone
stands on the issue of abortion. Everyone should be in
support of this case. Everyone should be in support of
(08:02):
these essential safeguards being put back into place for these drugs.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
That's the part I don't understand because it's like taking
healthcare out of the equation here. I mean, for me,
for example, now I know that this is up to
did you say up to ten weeks? Yeah, So my
question is what happens if you take it when you're
twelve weeks?
Speaker 2 (08:25):
How do you know that you're ten weeks?
Speaker 1 (08:28):
What are the complications of you started taking this later
in pregnancy?
Speaker 3 (08:32):
Yeah, that's a great question.
Speaker 4 (08:34):
So we know from even the earliest studies that were
done when this drug was approved that the farther along
a woman is in her pregnancy when she takes these drugs,
the higher the risk of complication, up to the point
that at about thirteen weeks of pregnancy, somewhere between thirty
and forty percent of women will need.
Speaker 3 (08:51):
A surgical completion of their abortion, and.
Speaker 4 (08:53):
That could mean life threatening hemorrhage or bleeding infection because.
Speaker 3 (08:57):
Of routine tissue.
Speaker 4 (08:58):
So it's very significant how far along a woman is
in her pregnancy when she takes these drugs.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
And what the abortion industry and what.
Speaker 4 (09:06):
The FDA will say is that, well, you can just
ask women how far along they are, and you can
just base it off of that.
Speaker 3 (09:11):
Well, of course, there's many problems with that.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
I mean, one, who's to say that the woman isn't lying.
Speaker 3 (09:17):
The other thing is she really may not know how
far along she is.
Speaker 4 (09:20):
So even the American College of obidu Ayan's APAD says
that up to fifty percent of women will be wrong
about how far a long they are based on their
last minstrual period, and that any pregnancy that is not
dated by an ultrasound should be considered suboptimally dated. And
so what that means is that when a woman isn't
even seeing a physician in person, she's not having an
(09:42):
exam to judge how big is her uterus, how far
along do we think she is based on that or
getting an ultrasound that would give very important information. There
is a significant risk that she could have many more
complications than she could even imagine because she's farther along
in her pregnancy. And that's why that in person visit
is so important for informed consent, Because how I would
(10:04):
counsel a woman about the risk of these drugs if
she's six weeks pregnant, It's very different than how I
would counsel her if she's twelve weeks pregnant.
Speaker 1 (10:12):
Well, and I kind of think that people don't understand
when you talk about the risk, they don't understand how
significant this is. I actually lost a baby at eighteen
weeks and we knew the baby was gone. We went
into the hospital. They induced labor. It took three days
of me sitting in the hospital, but I was monitored
the entire time, and we had the baby. We held
(10:36):
the baby, we waited for the placenta never came, never came,
And then suddenly the nurse looked at me and said, honey.
I remember looking at my husband and saying, I think
I'm dying and he was like, You're fine, and I said,
something's wrong. It's like I could feel life slipping away
and the nurse. I said that to the nurse and
(10:57):
she did an exam and she was like, honey, you
have to go into surgery right now. We're calling the doctor.
We're taking down to ther and they had to. They
had to do a DNC. I would not have survived.
I would not have survived. It was truly me feeling
life slip away. What would I have done had I
been at home? And that to your point, I was
further along, obviously, But how do you know women in
(11:21):
a desperate situation aren't going to what's the difference between
this and a.
Speaker 2 (11:24):
Back alley abortion.
Speaker 1 (11:25):
If that's what we're protecting, If we want abortions to
be safe, then what's the difference if a woman can
die in her own home. And it's that moment that
you realize that that you're nearly too late to do anything.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
Absolutely well to First of all, I'm so very sorry
for your loss, and I know from having sat with
patients how how.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Difficult that must have been.
Speaker 4 (11:47):
But you know, you've hit the nail on the head
with exactly what can happen and does happen when women
take these drugs farther along in pregnancy. Even when women
take them earlier in pregnancy, that very same thing can happen,
but certainly the risk of that happening.
Speaker 3 (12:04):
Is significantly worse the farther along they are.
Speaker 4 (12:06):
And this is what we are seeing in our emergency rooms. Myself,
my colleagues are over seven thousand members that belong to
the organization that I represent. This is what we're seeing
in increasing numbers in our emergency rooms. Is women hemorrhaging,
you know, And it's interesting that you bring up how
you felt that's actually something I've had patients tell me too.
(12:28):
There is something women understand. They know when something is
wrong with them. And so imagine that happening, like you said,
and you are in rural America, where your closest hospital
with adequate blood products or the ability to perform an
emergency dancy is two hours away, you will bleed to
terrify or are you all right? Exactly exactly, And this
(12:52):
is something that happened to you, you know, very very unfortunately,
because of something that spontaneously happened with your pregnancy.
Speaker 3 (13:02):
What we are trying to hold to account is the
FDA who is.
Speaker 4 (13:05):
Inflicting this on women, because they have removed the safeguards
that they said we're necessary around these drugs to ensure
that at the very least, if women make the choice
to take these drugs to have an abortion, that at
the very least the appropriate safeguards are in place. And
it's completely reckulous with women's health and with women's lives
(13:25):
what they've done.
Speaker 1 (13:26):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon podcast. Why remove these safeguards? And I
asked that because it seems like something that I'm even
hearing politicians say Gretchen Whitmer the other day came out
and said, we want to remove the healthcare appointment for
(13:47):
birth control.
Speaker 2 (13:48):
We want birth control to be over the.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Counter, and that to remove barriers to getting mifipristone. And
I'm like, wait, whoa, whoa, this is weird because now
suddenly you're saying you don't want a doctor involved in
birth control, which I think also, I was a young
person who suffered from CISS and I had I was
on different birth controls and constantly monitored by my physician
(14:11):
to see how that was affecting my body.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
And it does.
Speaker 1 (14:14):
It does have major effects on your body. But then
to say to remove barriers to the abortion drug sounds
like we've got a governor of a major state in
the United States pushing to make this abortion drug over
the counter as well. I mean, do you see this
potentially happening in the future and why take healthcare out
of it.
Speaker 4 (14:35):
Well, you know, you're exactly right, and that and even
birth control pills, you know, certainly have their risk.
Speaker 3 (14:42):
But we are talking about with the drug myth of pristone.
Speaker 4 (14:45):
We are talking about a very high risk drug that
the FDA recognized was high risk when they approved it.
That's why they put these safeguards in place in the
first place, and left them in place for sixteen years.
And so the fact now that we're talking about removing
even one in person visit, I mean, of course we
were asking for those three in person visits to be reinstated.
Speaker 3 (15:06):
But you know, the fact that a.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Woman is not even seeing a physician even one time
surrounding taking these drugs is so dangerous and I think
that it shows the abortion industry cares about profits. We
heard that from Dan COO's the manufacturer's lawyer in the
oral argument. They care about profits more than they care
about women and women's health and women's safety.
Speaker 5 (15:29):
Well, it's not only reckless, it's also unlawful, and that's
why we've sued the FDA to hold them accountable for
what they did. They're all the FDA's own label states
that roughly one in twenty five women will end up
in the emergency room from taking these drugs.
Speaker 2 (15:45):
Wow, one in twenty five, one.
Speaker 3 (15:48):
In twenty five. That's there.
Speaker 5 (15:49):
That's the FDA's own label that says that and more.
And in addition to that, there are data states that
without an in person visit, up to three hundred percent
more women and will have complications seven percent will need
surgical intervention. The risks to these drugs are incredible, and
yet the FDA not only remove these very common sense,
(16:12):
common sense safeguards, which you're right, everyone regardless of your
views on abortion, should agree. Women deserve quality healthcare. They
deserve to have a doctor when they're pregnant and facing
difficult circumstances. But the FDA said, no, you don't deserve this.
And not only that, but was so shocking during our
argument is that the FDA argue that no one can
(16:32):
even have challenge their actions. We know that no federal
agencies above the law and that women absolutely deserve better.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Isn't this also, I mean, doesn't this go beyond just
healthcare and it goes to safety because we have a
serious problem in this country. I think we're the number
two in the world for sex trafficking. You are putting
people in a situation where you don't have a doctor
saying are you safe? I mean, when I go into
the doctor, even if I go into my cancer doctor,
(17:01):
I get a form to fill out do you feel safe?
At home? My kids get a formed to fill out.
Do you feel safe at home. This is a very
a very aggressive and like you said, dangerous procedure, and
what caused the pregnancy is a big part of why
you're getting rid of it could potentially be a big
part of why you are getting rid of the pregnancy.
(17:21):
And yet you have no discussion with a doctor to
find out if this woman is safe well.
Speaker 5 (17:28):
And that's why the majority of Americans agree that the
FDA acted recklessly, that they believe that women deserve the ongoing,
in person care of a doctor when taking high risk drugs.
Speaker 3 (17:38):
You know, you think about the.
Speaker 5 (17:39):
Safety component of this.
Speaker 3 (17:41):
What the FDA has done.
Speaker 5 (17:42):
It's left women and young girls to take these abortion
drugs at home, alone in their dorm rooms, without ever
having seen a doctor in person. And that that's heartbreaking
to think about women anywhere, but especially young girls in
their dorm rooms who don't know who to turn to,
who don't have a doctor required to see them by
the FDA. It's reckless, it's unlawful, and we're very hopeful
(18:04):
the Supreme Court will hold this agency accountable and reinstate
these very very common sense safeguards.
Speaker 2 (18:11):
There's so much involved in this.
Speaker 1 (18:12):
There's not only your physical health, but I think there's
a huge mental health component to this too, And you
have never had the opportunity to sit down with a
physician who can say, do you need anything else? But
I've also heard stories, and you can correct me if
I'm wrong, and this is just you know, an old
wives tale, But we've heard the stories that there are
women who did not understand that this would be giving birth,
(18:35):
that when they see the actual fetus, when they see
the embryo, they are shocked that this is in their
home and they go into a complete panic mode.
Speaker 2 (18:44):
Have you heard these stories?
Speaker 5 (18:46):
We have so many women's stories who come forward and
shared that that they were not are told what would happen.
They were never told that this would cause them to
deliver their baby at home by themselves, that they would
just bleed for weeks and weeks. But women are told
is that this is easy, this is safe. It's just
like having a heavy period and that you know, maybe
you'll bleed for a couple of days. And yet the
(19:08):
reality of what women suffer, both physically, emotionally psychologically.
Speaker 3 (19:12):
Is so different than that. What really concerns me.
Speaker 5 (19:16):
Is the FDA has argued that these drugs are just
as safe as advil, and that's really laughable because one
in twenty five women don't go to the emurgency room
from taking an advil. And I think the women that
who have shared their experiences with these chemical abortion drugs
share the reality and the pain that these drugs have
(19:36):
caused them, and that they've never been told what could
happen by those who are prescribing them.
Speaker 1 (19:42):
I think that was the shocking part about your interview
with Caitlyn Collins. She kept going back to this drug
has proven safe. They are telling you this is safe.
And I think that a lot of us have said, well,
we're a little bit concerned about some of these organizations.
I mean, we've seen some of the other organizations in
the US be contradicted by European organizations that are like
(20:03):
the counterpart over in Europe when they've said this is safe,
this is safe, and the other side is saying, actually,
we don't think you should do that until you're this
age or whatnot. But now, why do we have to
just say we trust the FDA on this. Why can't
we say, well, wait a minute, there can be people
outside of that that are seeing these effects after the fact.
(20:26):
This is now I mean it's not the approval process anymore.
It's out there. We don't have questions. It's not testing.
We know this is happening. Why is it so hard
to say, just put the safeguards back in place.
Speaker 4 (20:39):
Great well, and as Kelly said, you know, we don't
even have to go outside of the FDA. Actually, the
FDA admits that one in twenty five women will end
up in the emergency room. And you know, I think
for me it's helpful to put a number on that. So,
you know, Bootlecker just came out with their twenty twenty
three abortion numbers recently and said that for the first
(21:02):
time ever, we're now above sixty percent of abortions in
this country.
Speaker 3 (21:06):
We're done via these drugs.
Speaker 4 (21:07):
And so that equaled roughly six hundred and fifty thousand
chemical abortions last year. Well, if you use the FDA's
own numbers, which are likely conservative, but if you use
the FDA's own numbers of one in twenty five women,
that means over twenty five thousand women likely went to
the emergency room last year because of complications related to
these drugs. These are not safe. And I can tell
(21:30):
you that my colleagues and I as we're running to
the emergency room when we're being called for a woman
who's hemorrhaging.
Speaker 3 (21:37):
Can attest to.
Speaker 4 (21:37):
The fact that this is not rare and that it
is impacting women in a very real way, not just
from a physical standpoint, but as you said, Tutor, also
from a mental health standpoint, as they are faced with
delivering their baby when they weren't prepared to do that.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
And so, you know, for people who say that this
is rare, they are not.
Speaker 4 (21:56):
People who are on the front lines like myself and
my colleague Pep, who are seeing women come into our
emergency room and droves across this country suffering very significant
complications related not only to these drugs, but to the
reckless way that they are.
Speaker 3 (22:11):
Being dispensed thanks to the thanks to the FDA.
Speaker 5 (22:14):
Well, and keep in mind too, this is the same
FDA that approved opioids not too long ago and said
that they wouldn't cause addiction. So the FDA is not
a trusted resource on this, and they they are failing women.
They're betraying women women and women deserve better, and they
really need to reinstate these safeguards if they care at
all about women's health.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
You know, you brought up the comparison to advil, that
this is as safe as taking an advil. So the
numbers six hundred twenty five thousand women in six hundred
thousand are ending up in the hospital potentially potentially even more.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
How do those numbers compare to other drugs?
Speaker 1 (22:51):
Is that something that if you are a researcher, you
look at this and you say, Okay, the sirens are
going off.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
This is alarming.
Speaker 3 (22:58):
So if you.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Compare it to the number of people who take advil
across the country, I mean, it's millions of people who
take advil every year. And yes, some people end up
in the emergency mostly because of overdoses related to advil
or other medical conditions. But the numbers are you know,
I think we calculate it's a thousandth of a percent
(23:19):
that related to taking advil that go into the emergency
room versus one in twenty five who take these drugs
and an FDA approved dose, I should add.
Speaker 5 (23:29):
So Yeah, in addition to that, there is no label
on advil that says roughly one in twenty five women
who take these drugs will end up in the emergency room,
so the risks are known. That's why the FDA. Originally,
when the FDA approved these drugs back in two thousand,
they said, look, certain safeguards are vital. They're necessary to
ensure women's health, and those include three, at least three
(23:52):
in person doctor visits both before and after. Those are
those are essential for women and girls. So the fact
that they decided to remove those that they themselves deemed
necessary early on is shocking that they would take those
away and remove that important in person visit with a
woman who is pregnant and who is considering abortion.
Speaker 1 (24:13):
Let's take a quick commercial break. We'll continue next on
the Tutor Dixon Podcast. You are not saying you want
to restrict access. You're saying you want safe access. You
want to make sure that the patient is cared for,
which is just completely crazy that we're even arguing about this.
(24:33):
But I want to talk a little bit about what
you're protecting them from, because we've talked about hemorrhaging and
the problems that people can have. I don't know that
folks really fully understand. You know, if you're not medical,
what does that mean. I mean, we're hearing about infertility,
we're hearing about sepsist we're hearing about kidney injuries, hemorrhaging,
all of these things.
Speaker 2 (24:55):
How common are those issues?
Speaker 1 (24:57):
Because I think if a woman is choosing not to
have a baby at this time, that doesn't necessarily mean
she's signing up for no baby in the future at all,
but that could be the case here.
Speaker 4 (25:08):
Yeah, absolutely, Well, you know, just even to use an
example of a patient that I cared for in my
emergency room who had obtained these drugs online without an
in person visit prior to getting them, and she presented
to our emergency room because she was about eleven weeks
or so long when she took these drugs by the
(25:29):
time they got to her, and she presented to the
emergency room with profound anemia or a low blood count
because of all of the blood that she had lost.
She required a blood transfusion. She also had retained tissue
that was causing an infection. She required an emergency surgery
to finish getting that tissue out of her uterus. And
(25:50):
she also had the early stages of what we call
a cute kidney injury or injury to her kidney, so
it had impacted the blood loss and the infection had
impacted her kidneys. She was not told because she didn't
interact with a medical professional first of all, but she
was not told that these were possibilities if she took
these drugs.
Speaker 3 (26:10):
And as you said, you know, she.
Speaker 4 (26:11):
Had a young baby and wasn't ready for another baby,
and so took these drugs thinking that this would help her,
and in fact it caused her significant harm. And so
you're right, you know, women are not being told about this,
and you know, we know what baseline, these drugs are
inherently risky. That's why the FDA put these safeguards in
(26:33):
place to try to minimize those risks. But now they
have removed all of those safeguards, and you know, I
think another important point to make is that many people
envision that, oh, well, you know, women are going online
and they're having like a telemedicine visit with a with
a physician or with a medical professional before they're being
given these drugs. In large part, that is not what's happening.
(26:55):
They're going onto a website, they're filling out a form,
and these drugs are being mailed to them. There is
no significant interaction with anyone in the medical field, much
less a physician, and so you know, they're not being.
Speaker 3 (27:07):
Told about this possibility.
Speaker 4 (27:08):
And as you said, to the risk of bleeding, I
used to tell my medical students that you have to
respect the pregnant uterus because there is so much blood
flow going to a uterus with a baby inside of it,
you know, by design, because that developing baby needs that
blood flow. But the flip side of that is when
(27:30):
a uterus starts bleeding in pregnancy, it can cause really
profound bleeding really really fast. And you know this this
way of dispensing these drugs. One of the arguments that
was made of why this should be available like this
is because, oh what about women who don't have access
to healthcare. They need to be able to access these
drugs without seeing a healthcare professional. But those are exactly
(27:52):
the women that are at the highest risk of suffering
these complications and having you know, lasting as you said,
they could lose their uterus as a result of this,
meaning they'll never be able to have children.
Speaker 3 (28:05):
And this is something that at the very least they
deserve to know going.
Speaker 4 (28:09):
Into it, and we know that they're not being given
this kind of informed consent.
Speaker 1 (28:13):
Well, and just how do you have an ultrasound on
a telehealth visit? You know, when I hear about a
tele medicine visit, I'm like, this is not what you
use this visit for. I mean, this was, you know,
after we lost the baby. Our visits were obviously much
different than my last pregnancy was twins, and so that's
a different pregnancy as well, and that I also think,
(28:36):
how do you know it's not twins? How do you
know you don't have multiples? And then what happens when
you're at home and you're giving birth on your own?
I mean, I just you know, like you said, and
I think that it is important to clarify no matter
where you stand on abortion, you should be for protecting
women no matter what right. So what do you think
(28:58):
that will come out Before I let you go, What
do you think will come out of this Supreme Court hearing?
Speaker 5 (29:03):
The Supreme Court will recognize how reckless and unlawful that
the FDA violated the law when they remove these basic
common sense safety standards, and will require them to reinstate
it so that women are protected. And I think at
the bottom line really is that regardless of your views
on abortion, women deserve better healthcare. They deserve to have
safety standards when taking these high risk drugs. And the
(29:26):
f day should always put women's health over the pharmaceuticalceutical
company's bottom line.
Speaker 1 (29:33):
It's fascinating to think that it is it comes down
to money, but oftentimes it does come down to money.
I think that we would say that as we watch
the political world, even though this should not be a
political issue, we see folks that are pushing for reduced healthcare,
even though they're claiming that this is healthcare, and I
(29:54):
don't know that this is I'm not saying that that
is a malicious thing, but I think it is import
that we have people out there who understand healthcare in
a way that politicians never will to say, well, wait, wait, wait,
we actually have to have healthcare visits. We have to
have a healthcare provider, which I think is so funny. Literally,
it's called a healthcare provider. They're providing the healthcare, and
(30:17):
you want to take the provider out of it.
Speaker 2 (30:19):
It just seems bananas.
Speaker 3 (30:21):
It's so backwards.
Speaker 5 (30:22):
Well, even Planned Parenthood says that if you have you know,
the best way to check for a topic pregnancy is
through ultrasound. Ultrasounds are so essential to check for a
topic pregnancy, to check for the gestational age of the baby.
And to your point, ultrasounds cannot happen over zoom.
Speaker 3 (30:37):
They have to happen in person.
Speaker 5 (30:39):
And that's just that's just basic common sense for any
for any woman. And so it just is it is
staggering that the FDA would just care so little about
women's health that they would take away the requirement that
the doctors provide this to women.
Speaker 1 (30:53):
Is there a fear that if you have the ultrasound
that you'll be closer to the child and then you
might not want to buy the drug. I mean, I
just it seems very weird because there have been groups
that have said, well, we want to push for an
ultrasound beforehand, but most of the time, regardless, you are
getting that first ultrasound to check to make sure this
is not there's not some sort of anomaly or danger
(31:16):
in the pregnancy.
Speaker 2 (31:16):
Isn't that right?
Speaker 3 (31:17):
Yeah?
Speaker 4 (31:18):
Absolutely well, And ultrasound is a key part of providing
medical care to a pregnant woman. And you know, I
think we definitely know that ultrasounds show the reality of
what's going on inside of a woman. And but again,
I think that's part of fully informed consent. If she's
going to end her pregnancy, she should understand, you know,
(31:39):
everything about her pregnancy, including where it's at, as you said,
whether or not it's multiples or not. But also, you know,
I think this is another example of how the abortion
industry tries to cut corners to save themselves money and
to escape regulations and at the expense of women's health.
Speaker 3 (31:58):
And we see this time and time and again.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
And we heard that in oral arguments in this case
again from the manufacture of the drug, that they oppose
these regulations because it means that they sell fewer drugs,
and it means that they have to do more for
the health and safety of women. And you know, so
if I can just say too, one more thing is
I really wonder where are the women's groups. I think
(32:21):
women should be demanding better health care than this. This
is medical malpractice that is being done to women. I
had a conversation with a colleague of mine about this,
who is pro choice, and she said, I would never
treat my patients like that. Why is this being allowed?
She recognized, you though, again she supports women being able
to choose abortion, but she recognized that this is shoddy
(32:42):
medical care. And I think that women should be joining
together and demanding that the FDA be held accountable because
we as women deserve better health care than this.
Speaker 1 (32:50):
Well, that's why I wanted to talk to you today
because I really I've watched how this has been presented
on the media, and the media has presented this to
women as they're going to make your healthcare away, and
I just so appreciate what you both have done to
fight to make sure women understand this isn't taking a
choice away. This is protecting your body, protecting your future,
(33:12):
and making sure you're healthy. And it just is so
meaningful to me that you're willing to do this. Thank
you so much for coming on today, Doctor Christina Francis
and Kelly Fedoric.
Speaker 2 (33:21):
You guys are doing God's work.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
Thank you for having us.
Speaker 1 (33:24):
Thank you so much, Tutor absolutely and thank you all
for joining us on the Tutor Dixon Podcast. As always,
for this episode, go to tutordisonpodcast dot com, or you
can head over to the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or
wherever you get your podcasts and join us next time
on the Tutor Dixon Podcast.
Speaker 2 (33:40):
Have a blessed ding
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular 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.