Latest news with #EthicsandPublicPolicyCenter
Yahoo
4 days ago
- 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
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
The anti-abortion movement readies its gameplan for Trump 2.0
The nation's most influential anti-abortion groups have a new plan to roll back access to the procedure for millions of Americans in what they're calling the 'biggest opportunity for the pro-life movement' since toppling Roe v. Wade. The effort, which the groups have privately named 'Rolling Thunder,' is the movement's first concerted attempt under the second Trump administration to target abortion pills, and aims to convince the FDA, Congress and courts to crack down on their use. While the Trump administration paid little attention to the medication in its first months in office, and even filed a court brief to preserve access , the activists are counting on a report from the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center to light a fire under those in power. The paper, published last week, purports to show significantly more patients have experienced serious side effects after taking mifepristone than previously known. Medical experts and abortion-right supporters say it exaggerates the danger of a medication that more than 100 scientific studies have found are safe and effective. The report's release comes on the heels of top Trump officials — including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA chief Marty Makary — expressing openness to new data on the pills' safety and efficacy. 'One of the things that we have the ability to do now with this data is to pressure the FDA and lawmakers to reconsider, if not suspend, their approval of this medication until they can do more research into it,' Maria Baer, a podcast host for the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, said on a private Zoom call last week where anti-abortion leaders discussed the strategy. The groups on the call included Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Students for Life and Live Action. Mifepristone, one of two drugs used in roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S., is a longtime target of conservative activists who consider it the primary driver of the increase in abortions since Roe's fall in 2022 and the method millions of women are using to circumvent state bans. The groups also hope to wield the report to pressure Congress to strip the remaining federal funding from Planned Parenthood — which they consider the country's best-known purveyor of the drugs — and give conservative legal groups fodder to prosecute doctors who prescribe the pills to patients who live in states with abortion bans. Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told POLITICO he plans to introduce legislation — inspired by the groups' report — that would restrict access to the pills and make it easier for patients who have taken them to sue the manufacturers, Danco and GenBioPro. He is also joining the groups' pressure campaign on the FDA. 'Dr. Makary is in no doubt about my position on this,' Hawley said, adding that he's frustrated the agency has not yet acted to prohibit mail delivery of the pills. 'This was much the topic of conversation during his [confirmation] hearings, and I have to say, his position now doesn't sound a lot to me like the ones he took during hearings. During the hearings, he said, 'I'm going to review all the data. I have an open mind.' And then he promptly turned around and said, 'Oh no, I'm definitely not going to do anything.'' An FDA spokesperson said in a statement that the agency "rigorously evaluates the latest scientific data, leveraging gold standard science to make informed decisions," and balances a "science-based approach" with "practical, common-sense considerations." Responding to Hawley's accusation, the spokesperson also pointed to recent remarks by Makary saying he wouldn't rule out changes to mifepristone regulations "if the data suggests something or tells us that there's a real signal." The anti-abortion coalition is lobbying senior officials at FDA and HHS and on Capitol Hill, circulating petitions calling on the administration to put restrictions on the pills, and drafting a letter for lawmakers to sign demanding the agency take action. Ryan Anderson, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, demurred when asked whether he has secured meetings with agency officials, telling POLITICO he 'obviously can't share information about our confidential conversations' and noting that 'it's only been a week' since the report's publication. But his allies on the Zoom call suggested they have conveyed the information to those in power. 'Right away it is very clear that the release of this data … has gotten attention at the highest levels in the administration and on Capitol Hill,' said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights supporters are slamming the report as 'junk science' as they mount their own pressure campaign to save their funding — highlighting that the paper was released directly by the conservative think tank and not published in a medical journal where it would have been vetted by outside experts in the peer review process. Activists on the Zoom call pushed back on those criticisms, arguing that academia is 'broken' and they couldn't trust the peer reviewers not to leak or 'sabotage' their effort. Dr. Christina Francis, the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs and member of the coalition of conservative doctors that challenged the 25-year-old FDA approval of the pills , also warned the groups not to misrepresent the paper, noting that is is 'not a study in the traditional sense' and 'not conclusive proof of anything.' Still, she and others argued it's valid evidence that merits further research and immediate government action. 'Providing women with the truth about the harms of chemical abortion, and encouraging the Trump FDA to bring doctors back into the equation and reinstate the original [President Bill] Clinton FDA safety provisions, will save lives and it will help protect women,' Anderson said in a statement. The anti-abortion activists stressed on their Zoom call that while they are publicly calling for the restoration of previous federal restrictions on the drugs — including bans on online prescriptions and mail delivery of the pills and cutting off their use after seven weeks of pregnancy instead of the current 10 — they view that as only a 'first step.' If they achieve that, they plan to keep fighting for the drug to be removed from the market entirely. Anderson presented three core talking points the groups will use to push Congress and the Trump administration in that direction. First, that it's not possible to fulfill Kennedy's pledge to 'Make America Healthy Again' without cutting off access to the pills. Second, that Trump pledged to ' reverse damaging policies ' enacted by the Biden administration, and that should include FDA rules easing access to the drugs. And third, while President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to leave regulation of abortion to states, 'You're not leaving it to states if California can mail pills to Texas.' The groups believe the administration will be receptive to their push based on recent remarks by Kennedy and Makary leaving the door open to changing how mifepristone is regulated. Makary said in a speech last week that while he has 'no plans' at the moment to roll back access to the drug, that could change. 'I believe as a scientist, that you've got to evolve as the data comes in,' he said. 'So if the data suggests something or tells us that there's a real signal, then I — we can't promise we're not going to act on that.' And Kennedy said in his January confirmation hearing and again in a February interview that Trump has asked him to study the drug's safety. 'Kennedy has said he wants to dig into this question of harms to women, and you provided him this data,' Dannenfelser said on the Zoom call. She then previewed how she plans to address the health secretary directly. 'Now you've got great data, HHS director. You've got data, administration, that you can dig into, and you can go ahead and also do your own studies.' Baer, who advises the coalition on messaging, said they will also work to change public perception of the pills with a series of online and in-person events around the country, kicking off with a May 14 webinar. 'We need to help to create a better, more accurate sense of this medication culturally, which is that it is not something to be taken lightly,' she said. 'It shouldn't be prescribed lightly, and it shouldn't be thought of as an easy or uncomplicated fix to a crisis.' Americans United for Life CEO John Mize added that another piece of the 'Rolling Thunder' plan is to use the report on mifepristone to sue doctors in states with shield laws who prescribe the pills across state lines. They're partnering with the group Center for Client Safety, which describes its mission as, 'Shutting down abortion facilities to protect women and save preborn lives.' Their theory is that they can bring False Claims Act cases against the doctors for telling patients that the drugs are safe. Brittni Frederiksen, the associate director for Women's Health Policy at the nonpartisan health care think tank KFF, is among those skeptical of the groups' findings. She highlighted, for instance, that the report lists ectopic pregnancies — when an embryo implants outside the uterus — as an 'adverse event' from the pills when the pills do not cause ectopic pregnancies. Rather, according to the FDA , ectopic pregnancies are a contraindication, meaning patients are told not to take the pills in that instance because they will not work. Also, a large percentage of the harms listed in the EPPC report are patients who needed a follow-up surgical abortion because the pills did not end their pregnancies — which she and other experts argue is a known potential outcome disclosed on the medication's label and not an 'adverse event.' 'There's just so many things wrong with it and so many red flags,' said Frederiksen. 'I can't imagine any medical journal that would accept this.' Groups that support abortion rights are working to counter the 'Rolling Thunder' campaign, defend mifepristone as safe and effective and lobby Congress to maintain federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health providers. Progressive advocates, granted anonymity to share deliberations that have not been made public, are pleased the groups' report has gotten little coverage outside of conservative media and that few GOP lawmakers besides Hawley have promoted it. Still, they are considering writing to the FDA urging the agency to maintain access to the pills. That way, they reason, they can have firmer ground to sue the agency if the Trump administration does impose restrictions on the drugs. Planned Parenthood's advocacy arm is also mobilizing to save the hundreds of millions of federal funding it receives each year. The group held more than 100 events in key congressional districts around the country — focusing on the Carolinas, Iowa and Pennsylvania — during Congress' recesses in March and April. They have also bought ads in Colorado, Iowa and New Jersey arguing that defunding the group would negatively impact patients, and are flying some of those patients to Washington, D.C., in the coming weeks to lobby Congress. 'It's awfully convenient that a few days after Marty Makary says that he had no plans to restrict mifepristone, but that he'd be open to considering new science, some new trash science just happens to land in his lab,' said Angela Vasquez-Giroux, vice president of communications of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. 'We will continue to do what we've always done, which is make sure that as many people as we can reach understand the difference between what they put out and real science.' Sophie Gardner contributed to this report.
Politico
07-05-2025
- Health
- Politico
The anti-abortion movement readies its gameplan for Trump 2.0
The nation's most influential anti-abortion groups have a new plan to roll back access to the procedure for millions of Americans in what they're calling the 'biggest opportunity for the pro-life movement' since toppling Roe v. Wade . The effort, which the groups have privately named 'Rolling Thunder,' is the movement's first concerted attempt under the second Trump administration to target abortion pills, and aims to convince the FDA, Congress and courts to crack down on their use. While the Trump administration paid little attention to the medication in its first months in office, and even filed a court brief to preserve access , the activists are counting on a report from the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center to light a fire under those in power. The paper, published last week, purports to show significantly more patients have experienced serious side effects after taking mifepristone than previously known. Medical experts and abortion-right supporters say it exaggerates the danger of a medication that more than 100 scientific studies have found are safe and effective. The report's release comes on the heels of top Trump officials — including Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA chief Marty Makary — expressing openness to new data on the pills' safety and efficacy. 'One of the things that we have the ability to do now with this data is to pressure the FDA and lawmakers to reconsider, if not suspend, their approval of this medication until they can do more research into it,' Maria Baer, a podcast host for the Colson Center for Christian Worldview, said on a private Zoom call last week where anti-abortion leaders discussed the strategy. The groups on the call included Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, Americans United for Life, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, Students for Life and Live Action. Mifepristone, one of two drugs used in roughly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S., is a longtime target of conservative activists who consider it the primary driver of the increase in abortions since Roe 's fall in 2022 and the method millions of women are using to circumvent state bans. The groups also hope to wield the report to pressure Congress to strip the remaining federal funding from Planned Parenthood — which they consider the country's best-known purveyor of the drugs — and give conservative legal groups fodder to prosecute doctors who prescribe the pills to patients who live in states with abortion bans. Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley told POLITICO he plans to introduce legislation — inspired by the groups' report — that would restrict access to the pills and make it easier for patients who have taken them to sue the manufacturers, Danco and GenBioPro. He is also joining the groups' pressure campaign on the FDA. 'Dr. Makary is in no doubt about my position on this,' Hawley said, adding that he's frustrated the agency has not yet acted to prohibit mail delivery of the pills. 'This was much the topic of conversation during his [confirmation] hearings, and I have to say, his position now doesn't sound a lot to me like the ones he took during hearings. During the hearings, he said, 'I'm going to review all the data. I have an open mind.' And then he promptly turned around and said, 'Oh no, I'm definitely not going to do anything.'' An FDA spokesperson said in a statement that the agency 'rigorously evaluates the latest scientific data, leveraging gold standard science to make informed decisions,' and balances a 'science-based approach' with 'practical, common-sense considerations.' Responding to Hawley's accusation, the spokesperson also pointed to recent remarks by Makary saying he wouldn't rule out changes to mifepristone regulations 'if the data suggests something or tells us that there's a real signal.' The anti-abortion coalition is lobbying senior officials at FDA and HHS and on Capitol Hill, circulating petitions calling on the administration to put restrictions on the pills, and drafting a letter for lawmakers to sign demanding the agency take action. Ryan Anderson, the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, demurred when asked whether he has secured meetings with agency officials, telling POLITICO he 'obviously can't share information about our confidential conversations' and noting that 'it's only been a week' since the report's publication. But his allies on the Zoom call suggested they have conveyed the information to those in power. 'Right away it is very clear that the release of this data … has gotten attention at the highest levels in the administration and on Capitol Hill,' said Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America. Planned Parenthood and other abortion-rights supporters are slamming the report as 'junk science' as they mount their own pressure campaign to save their funding — highlighting that the paper was released directly by the conservative think tank and not published in a medical journal where it would have been vetted by outside experts in the peer review process. Activists on the Zoom call pushed back on those criticisms, arguing that academia is 'broken' and they couldn't trust the peer reviewers not to leak or 'sabotage' their effort. Dr. Christina Francis, the CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs and member of the coalition of conservative doctors that challenged the 25-year-old FDA approval of the pills , also warned the groups not to misrepresent the paper, noting that is is 'not a study in the traditional sense' and 'not conclusive proof of anything.' Still, she and others argued it's valid evidence that merits further research and immediate government action. 'Providing women with the truth about the harms of chemical abortion, and encouraging the Trump FDA to bring doctors back into the equation and reinstate the original [President Bill] Clinton FDA safety provisions, will save lives and it will help protect women,' Anderson said in a statement. The anti-abortion activists stressed on their Zoom call that while they are publicly calling for the restoration of previous federal restrictions on the drugs — including bans on online prescriptions and mail delivery of the pills and cutting off their use after seven weeks of pregnancy instead of the current 10 — they view that as only a 'first step.' If they achieve that, they plan to keep fighting for the drug to be removed from the market entirely. Anderson presented three core talking points the groups will use to push Congress and the Trump administration in that direction. First, that it's not possible to fulfill Kennedy's pledge to 'Make America Healthy Again' without cutting off access to the pills. Second, that Trump pledged to ' reverse damaging policies ' enacted by the Biden administration, and that should include FDA rules easing access to the drugs. And third, while President Donald Trump promised on the campaign trail to leave regulation of abortion to states, 'You're not leaving it to states if California can mail pills to Texas.' The groups believe the administration will be receptive to their push based on recent remarks by Kennedy and Makary leaving the door open to changing how mifepristone is regulated. Makary said in a speech last week that while he has 'no plans' at the moment to roll back access to the drug, that could change. 'I believe as a scientist, that you've got to evolve as the data comes in,' he said. 'So if the data suggests something or tells us that there's a real signal, then I — we can't promise we're not going to act on that.' And Kennedy said in his January confirmation hearing and again in a February interview that Trump has asked him to study the drug's safety. 'Kennedy has said he wants to dig into this question of harms to women, and you provided him this data,' Dannenfelser said on the Zoom call. She then previewed how she plans to address the health secretary directly. 'Now you've got great data, HHS director. You've got data, administration, that you can dig into, and you can go ahead and also do your own studies.' Baer, who advises the coalition on messaging, said they will also work to change public perception of the pills with a series of online and in-person events around the country, kicking off with a May 14 webinar. 'We need to help to create a better, more accurate sense of this medication culturally, which is that it is not something to be taken lightly,' she said. 'It shouldn't be prescribed lightly, and it shouldn't be thought of as an easy or uncomplicated fix to a crisis.' Americans United for Life CEO John Mize added that another piece of the 'Rolling Thunder' plan is to use the report on mifepristone to sue doctors in states with shield laws who prescribe the pills across state lines. They're partnering with the group Center for Client Safety, which describes its mission as, 'Shutting down abortion facilities to protect women and save preborn lives.' Their theory is that they can bring False Claims Act cases against the doctors for telling patients that the drugs are safe. Brittni Frederiksen, the associate director for Women's Health Policy at the nonpartisan health care think tank KFF, is among those skeptical of the groups' findings. She highlighted, for instance, that the report lists ectopic pregnancies — when an embryo implants outside the uterus — as an 'adverse event' from the pills when the pills do not cause ectopic pregnancies. Rather, according to the FDA , ectopic pregnancies are a contraindication, meaning patients are told not to take the pills in that instance because they will not work. Also, a large percentage of the harms listed in the EPPC report are patients who needed a follow-up surgical abortion because the pills did not end their pregnancies — which she and other experts argue is a known potential outcome disclosed on the medication's label and not an 'adverse event.' 'There's just so many things wrong with it and so many red flags,' said Frederiksen. 'I can't imagine any medical journal that would accept this.' Groups that support abortion rights are working to counter the 'Rolling Thunder' campaign, defend mifepristone as safe and effective and lobby Congress to maintain federal funding for Planned Parenthood and other reproductive health providers. Progressive advocates, granted anonymity to share deliberations that have not been made public, are pleased the groups' report has gotten little coverage outside of conservative media and that few GOP lawmakers besides Hawley have promoted it. Still, they are considering writing to the FDA urging the agency to maintain access to the pills. That way, they reason, they can have firmer ground to sue the agency if the Trump administration does impose restrictions on the drugs. Planned Parenthood's advocacy arm is also mobilizing to save the hundreds of millions of federal funding it receives each year. The group held more than 100 events in key congressional districts around the country — focusing on the Carolinas, Iowa and Pennsylvania — during Congress' recesses in March and April. They have also bought ads in Colorado, Iowa and New Jersey arguing that defunding the group would negatively impact patients, and are flying some of those patients to Washington, D.C., in the coming weeks to lobby Congress. 'It's awfully convenient that a few days after Marty Makary says that he had no plans to restrict mifepristone, but that he'd be open to considering new science, some new trash science just happens to land in his lab,' said Angela Vasquez-Giroux, vice president of communications of Planned Parenthood Action Fund. 'We will continue to do what we've always done, which is make sure that as many people as we can reach understand the difference between what they put out and real science.' Sophie Gardner contributed to this report.
