Latest news with #EthicsandPublicPolicyCenter
Boston Globe
09-07-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Washington state targets the confessional seal
Unlike the medieval Bavarian king, the state of Washington has not threatened to execute any priests. But under Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up In nearly every US jurisdiction, Advertisement Washington state has long protected the confidentiality of such privileged communications. Thus, one spouse would not be forced to testify that the other spouse confessed to a serious crime; an attorney cannot be compelled to share information communicated by a client; and a therapist or mental health counselor may not disclose even voluntarily anything said by a patient during treatment. For more than a century and a half, the clergy-penitent privilege has likewise been upheld in Washington state. In the words of the statute, a priest or other clergy member 'shall not, without the consent of a person making the confession or sacred confidence, be examined as to any confession or sacred confidence made … in the course of discipline enjoined by the church to which he or she belongs.' The Evergreen State's new law doesn't infringe on the other privileged relationships. But it explicitly strips away the protection for clergy-penitent communications. Priests, ministers, and other clerics will now be legally bound to report possible abuse, even if that knowledge arises during a confession made in strict religious confidence. Pastors will be forced to choose between fulfilling their sacred obligations and risking a prison sentence — or obeying the new law and thereby violating a fundamental religious command. That flies in the face of the First Amendment, which forbids the state to impede the 'free exercise' of religion. Advertisement And by leaving the attorney-client and other nonreligious privileges intact, the new law also flies in the face of common sense. As Eric Kniffin of the Ethics and Public Policy Center The Catholic bishops of Washington state are Washington's lawmakers and the governor may be motivated by good intentions. But not even the best of intentions can justify exempting every privileged communication from mandated reporting rules — except the communication that happens to be religious. That the Constitution will not allow. The sooner the courts say so, the better. Advertisement Jeff Jacoby can be reached at
Yahoo
04-06-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Trump-appointed FDA chief to launch unnecessary review of abortion pill
It was almost exactly a year ago when then-candidate Donald Trump raised a few eyebrows by confirming — out loud and on camera — that he was 'looking at' possible restrictions on contraception. The Republican eventually walked that back, though they were not his only election-season comments on the issue. In fact, in early August 2024, Trump said at a press conference that he wouldn't rule out revoking access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medication abortions, saying that as far as he was concerned, there were 'absolutely' ways to effectively ban the pill in a 'humane' way. It was against this backdrop that HuffPost reported this week: Republican Sen. Josh Hawley's quest to legitimize a junk science report undermining the safety of a widely used abortion pill was fully realized this week. Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Martin Makary confirmed in a Monday letter to the Missouri senator that the agency will conduct a safety review of the abortion pill mifepristone. Makary's letter is in response to an April request from Hawley for the department to review mifepristone following a new report published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center, an anti-abortion conservative think tank and advisory board member of Project 2025. For those unfamiliar with the medication, the FDA approved mifepristone about a quarter of a century ago, to be used as part of a two-step process to terminate unwanted pregnancies up to 10 weeks. The drug has proven to be safe, effective and commonly used. It's nevertheless become a popular target for opponents of reproductive rights, including a notorious Trump-appointed judge in Texas who curtailed access to the drug (though he was later overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court). Hawley, in particular, has demanded that the administration explore new ways to crack down on the safe and effective medication, and those efforts appear to have resonated with the Trump-appointed FDA chief. The move comes a few weeks after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also endorsed a safety review of mifepristone, pointing to the 'alarming' report on the medication's safety from the Ethics and Public Policy Center. What the conspiracy theorist failed to mention is that the 'alarming' report is based on evidence that NBC News described as 'flawed' and 'shoddy science.' The NBC News report added that the evidence Kennedy referenced 'was neither peer-reviewed nor published in a medical journal.' As for what the FDA's unnecessary re-review will conclude, watch this space. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
30-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Abortion opponents are coming for mifepristone using what medical experts call 'junk science'
Using flawed studies and scientific journal publications, abortion opponents are building a body of research meant to question the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, a key target for the movement. The effort comes as federal officials have expressed a willingness to revisit the drug's approval — and potentially impose new restrictions on a medication used in the vast majority of abortions. Mainstream medical researchers have criticized the studies, highlighting flaws in their methodology and — in the case of one paper published by the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) — lack of transparency about the data used to suggest mifepristone is unsafe. The vast body of research shows that the drugs used in medication abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol, are safe and effective in terminating a pregnancy. 'There's a proliferation of anti-abortion propaganda right now. I think it is a coordinated attack on mifepristone,' said Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco who studies medication abortion. Released in April, the EPPC paper suggests that mifepristone results in serious adverse events for 1 in 10 patients — substantially higher than the widely accepted figure of .3 percent complication rate most research has attributed to the pill. The paper appears to count what other researchers say are non-threatening events, such as requiring follow-up care to complete the abortion, or visiting an emergency room within 45 days of an abortion — even if the patient did not end up requiring emergency care — as serious adverse effects. That paper also did not go through peer review, a standard process for scientific research in which other scholars review a study's findings and methodology before it can be published. Another paper, a commentary piece published this week in the journal BioTech, challenges the commonly cited statistic that mifepristone has a lower complication rate than acetaminophen, or Tylenol, tracing the history of the comparison and arguing that it is mathematically flawed. The paper's author, Cameron Loutitt, is a biomedical engineer by training and director of life sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research arm of the anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America. 'My hope is that this paper sparks action in my peers in the research and medical community to more critically evaluate these unfounded claims regarding abortion drug safety,' Loutitt said in a statement. Days later, a group of researchers from the institute published another study, this one arguing that emergency rooms are likely to identify medication abortions as miscarriages, which they say increases the risk of needing hospital care. A miscarriage and a medication abortion are medically indistinguishable, and patients will sometimes visit an emergency room to ensure the drugs worked, or if they suspect possible complications. In places where abortion is illegal, patients may also tell health care providers they experienced a miscarriage to minimize their legal risk. Studies like the Lozier Institute paper suggest complications from medication abortions are being undercounted. That study was rejected by another journal on April 12 before being published this week, noted Upadhyay, who had served as a peer reviewer in that rejection process. A similar paper written by many of the same researchers behind the Lozier Institute's was retracted a year ago by the journal that published it, along with two others suggesting mifepristone was unsafe. 'They keep trying to publish the same junk science,' Upadhyay said. James Studnicki, the Charlotte Lozier Institute's director of data analytics, who led the second of its new anti-abortion papers and the study retracted last year, did not respond to a request for comment. But a spokesperson for the institute said the organization is challenging last year's retraction through an arbitration process. This March, Studnicki said in a statement that the retraction placed 'politics over publication ethics.' These studies and papers all fall outside the scientific consensus. More than 100 studies over decades of research have found that mifepristone — and the medication abortion regimen as a whole — has a low complication rate and is very safe to use for abortions. Papers like these aren't new, and their scientific accuracy has long been questioned. But the bevy of new reports and analyses comes at a moment when abortion opponents may have more influence in shaping public policy. Mifepristone restrictions are a top priority for the anti-abortion movement. About two-thirds of all abortions in the United States are now done using medication. Even in states with abortion bans, pregnant people have increasingly turned to abortion medication, which they receive from health providers in states with laws protecting abortion. Nationwide, about 1 in 5 abortions are now performed using telehealth; almost half of those are for people in states with bans or restrictions. Mifepristone is currently approved for use through 10 weeks of pregnancy. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before a Senate committee that he has directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the approval of mifepristone, citing the EPPC paper specifically. Jim O'Neill, who is nominated for a deputy secretary role, has also said he is in favor of a 'safety review' of the drug — a move that could result in new restrictions on how it is prescribed. Meanwhile, physicians and researchers are highlighting the rigor of the FDA approval process. 'FDA approval of mifepristone must reflect the rigorous clinical evidence that has proven unequivocally that it is safe and effective for use in medication,' 13 reproductive medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, said in a statement after Kennedy indicated the drug may undergo a new FDA review. 'Mifepristone has been used for decades for abortion and miscarriage management by millions of patients, and complications are exceedingly rare, minor, and most often easily treatable.' The International Institute for Reproductive Loss, an anti-abortion nonprofit, has explicitly prioritized the publication of research that supports restrictions on medication abortion. Presenting at an anti-abortion conference last September, that organization's science director, Priscilla Coleman, highlighted strategies that she said could help result in the retraction of studies showing mifepristone's safety, such as finding 'agenda-driven, poorly developed and conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals' and writing to journal editors. Coleman did not respond to a request for comment. Though no scientific consensus has changed, anti-abortion lawmakers have rallied around the suggestion that complications are common. In a private Zoom meeting reported on by Politico, abortion opponents cited the EPPC paper as a potential tool to justify further restrictions on mifepristone — even while acknowledging that the report is 'not a study in the traditional sense' and 'not conclusive proof of anything.' Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, cited the EPPC paper in a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who had only a day before the report's publication indicated openness to reviewing mifepristone's approval if new evidence emerged. 'The time to act is now. It is time to revisit and restore the FDA's longstanding safety measures governing mifepristone,' Hawley wrote. His office did not reply to a request for further comment. 'They're producing this terrible 'science' because they don't have any real science that backs them up. And all they've gotten from the administration is, 'Yeah, we'll study it,'' said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who has advised state legislatures on crafting abortion-protetctive laws. Through the courts and Trump administration, abortion opponents have pushed to reverse a 2021 FDA decision allowing mifepristone to be distributed via telehealth. In addition to calling for the in-person requirement to be reinstated, abortion opponents are asking for restrictions such as the dispensation of the drug to require three in-person visits, and for mifepristone to only be approved for use only in the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Many have also argued the drug should be taken off the market entirely. The Trump administration said on the campaign trail that it would leave abortion policy up to the states. So far, there has been little indication from the federal government that such changes are imminent. 'Pills are kind of just spreading, as we predicted, without almost any restriction and so far the anti-abortion movement hasn't figured out what to do,' Cohen said. The post Abortion opponents are coming for mifepristone using what medical experts call 'junk science' appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
The Hill
18-05-2025
- Business
- The Hill
More moms wish they could stay home — our tax policies should help them
The ongoing fights over tax policy present another opportunity for Republicans to put their best pro-family foot forward. While many important details remain to be hashed out, the initial proposal released by the House Ways and Means Committee indicates that influential Republicans are serious about making sure working families will see a real benefit from the tax talks. A high-profile element in the bill is an expansion of the child tax credit. For those who care about families' well-being, an expansion would be worth celebrating. It recognizes the costs that parents bear in raising the next generation, and helps families with the cost of everything from diapers to groceries. The text proposes a bump in the top-line value of the credit, from its current value of $2,000 to $2,500, before a scheduled drop back down in 2029, at which point it would be indexed for inflation. This would mean that the average middle-class couple with two school-age kids would see an additional $1,000 in tax relief for the remainder of President Trump's term in office. But equally importantly, the credit is a much more egalitarian form of support for families than more targeted tax breaks, such as child care subsidies. The child tax credit respects the fact that different families structure their work and home life in different ways, and that policymakers should appreciate that diversity rather than work against it. In a 2023 poll commissioned by the Institute of Family Studies and the Ethics and Public Policy Center, where I work, we asked parents of all walks of life what their 'ideal' work-life balance would look like. On average, fathers tended to say that full-time work was their 'ideal' situation. But mothers expressed a much more wide-ranging set of preferences. Their diversity of views is ill-suited by policy discussions that simply assume most moms share the preferences of the college-educated, high-powered couples that shape much of the policy discussions in D.C. Among moms with kids at home, only 42 percent said their 'ideal' arrangement was to be working full-time. One-third said they would ideally be working part-time and 22 percent said they'd prefer to not be working for pay at all. This was largely consistent among both married and unmarried mothers, but there was a major difference between mothers by educational background. Just under half of all moms with bachelor's degrees or more said they wanted to be working full time, with another 38 percent ideally working part-time. Ten percent of moms with college degrees said they preferred not to work at all for pay. Among moms with just some college education or only a high school diploma, their preferences were dramatically different: 38 percent wanted to be working full-time. Another 30 percent wanted to be working part-time and nearly as many, 28 percent, wanted to be at home with their kids. Too often, in D.C. circles, 'family policy' ends up being written by just one highly educated group with its own narrow set of preferences. This was typified by the Biden administration's proposal to standardize and subsidize child care for families. Child care costs can indeed be eye-bleedingly expensive for parents looking for full-time care in New York City or Washington, D.C. But while the average cost across the U.S. varies, it is often far less than the $40,000-a-year tuition charges that garner headlines. Many parents affirmatively choose part-time day care, or mornings-only preschool, because they want to be able build a work schedule that allows for afternoons at the zoo or story time at the library. (I speak here of what I know.) The only downside in focusing on increasing the top-line value of the child tax credit is that families with moderate to low incomes — particularly those with one parent making the median income and the other staying home raising children — will largely be unable to benefit. For them, tweaks to how the Additional Child Tax Credit is calculated — the rebate families receive if their allowable child tax credit is greater than their federal income tax liability — would be necessary, something Republicans should keep in mind. But in principle, the Ways and Means focus on the child tax credit is a welcome sign that will hopefully remain in the final bill no matter what shape it takes. After all, the tax code's main provision that supports working families however they choose to arrange their work-life balance should be a priority for the coalition that wants to be widely seen as the pro-parent party. Patrick T. Brown is a fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
RFK Jr Orders Review of Abortion Pill After Alarming New Analysis
Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on May 14 that he's ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to complete a review of the abortion pill mifepristone. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), during a hearing in Washington, highlighted an analysis of insurance claims that 'I think the new data ... is alarming, and clearly it indicates that at the very least, the label should be changed,' Kennedy said. The health secretary said he told Dr. Marty Makary, the FDA's commissioner, to do a complete review of the data and report back. Hawley The FDA Related Stories 5/6/2025 3/6/2025 Makary said during his confirmation hearing in March that once he entered office, he would review the data on mifepristone. 'I have no preconceived plans to make changes to the mifepristone policy,' he also said, in response to Democrat senators who urged him to acknowledge studies that they said show the pill to be safe and effective. One paper from 2013, for example, During a summit in April, Makary said that he had no plans to take action to limit the availability of mifepristone. 'There is an ongoing set of data that is coming into FDA on mifepristone,' he said. 'So if the data suggests something or tells us that there's a real signal, we can't promise we're not going to act on that data.' Four days later, the Ethics and Public Policy Center published the analysis of insurance claims, which the authors In trials for mifepristone, less than 0.5 percent of women who took the drug experienced a serious adverse reaction, such as sepsis, according to Kennedy had told senators during one of his confirmation hearings that President Donald Trump asked him to study the safety of mifepristone. 'He has not yet taken a stand on how to regulate it. Whatever he does, I will implement those policies,' he said at the time. Some groups and senators, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.), have also asked the FDA to reinstate limitations on mifepristone that were removed during the Biden administration, including the requirement that the drug be dispensed in person. After Hawley asked Kennedy on Wednesday about that aspect, Kennedy said that Makary would make a recommendation. 'I feel that the policy changes will ultimately go through the White House, through President Trump,' Kennedy said. The Center for Reproductive Rights, a nonprofit that advocates for abortion access, was among the organizations critical of Kennedy's remarks. 'President Trump ... should not be making decisions about our healthcare,' it
