Morning Wire XX
[0] In 2023, more than a million abortions were performed in the U .S. Six and ten of these abortions were performed with medication that's up from 53 percent in 2020.
[1] The data was released this week by the Gutmocker Institute, which supports abortion, and shows that at -home abortions are on the rise and have become the most popular form of abortion.
[2] On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case that seeks to limit access to abortion drug Mitha Prestone, which can currently be accessed in the main.
[3] and taken without a doctor's supervision.
[4] In this episode, we speak to Aaron Hawley, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, about her case.
[5] I'll note here that Holly was part of the legal team that got Roe v. Wade overturned.
[6] She's now the lead counsel in the Supreme Court's next abortion case.
[7] I'm Georgia Howe with Daily Wire, editor -in -chief, John Bickley.
[8] It's Saturday, March 23rd, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire.
[9] joining me to discuss her Supreme Court case is senior counsel Aaron Hawley, who will be the lead attorney in Tuesday's case.
[10] Erin, thanks for coming on.
[11] Of course, thanks for having me. So you're arguing this case, U .S. Food and Drug Administration versus Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
[12] Tell us a little bit about that case and what your argument's going to be.
[13] So in this case, it concerns the FDA's reckless removal of common sense and basic safety.
[14] Guards for women's health when they are taking the abortion drug Mithoprestone.
[15] In 2021 and 2016, the FDA removed all three doctor's visits prior to a woman taking or during the process of taking mithopress down.
[16] And that means that women don't need to ever be seen by a health care provider before they're prescribed and take this high -risk drug.
[17] Now, you said that there were originally three doctor's visits.
[18] What was the purpose of each of those visits?
[19] Sure.
[20] So, the first visit was called the in -person dispensing visit, and this visit happened on day one, and this gave the health care provider an opportunity to assess women for dangerous conditions like atopic pregnancy, which occur in one of every 50 women, or to accurately assess gestational age.
[21] The longer a woman is into her pregnancy, the more dangerous chemical abortion is.
[22] The complication rate, as a loss need for surgical intervention goes up.
[23] So the day one visit is crucially important.
[24] FDA acknowledged this as recently as August of 2020 when it said that that requirement was both necessary to preserve women's safety as well as minimally burdensome.
[25] So that was the day one visit.
[26] On day three, that's when women went into the office and received the second abortion drug.
[27] This gave the doctor a chance to explain what a woman would expect to adequately inform her.
[28] so she was able to get to an emergency room if she needed to do so.
[29] And then the day 14 visit, as you indicated, was for follow -ups.
[30] And this visit was also crucially important to identify incomplete abortions, instances of retained embryos or fetuses or placental tissue that could quickly develop into infections or sepsis and was necessary to get treatment early to prevent life -threatening conditions.
[31] So under the current paradigm, women are just given this medication with something like a pamphlet with instructions.
[32] What's the current situation?
[33] So the current situation, it's really the Wild West now that the FDA has removed the requirement of any in -person visits.
[34] One of the amicus briefs tells the story about it's a pregnancy care center and one of their clients contacted a Planned Parenthood.
[35] The Planned Parenthood told them to drive across the state lines to park an immigrant.
[36] Donald's parking lot to call a number of a health care provider.
[37] That health care provider, you know, probably asked them a number of questions, you know, how far but long do you think you are?
[38] Do you have various risk factors for ectopic pregnancy?
[39] But of course, never saw or examined this woman.
[40] After this spoke with her for a few minutes, I told her to go to a FedEx drop box to pick the medication and to take it immediately.
[41] She did so.
[42] I immediately regretted it and ended up going to a pregnancy care center and was able to save this baby through abortion pill reversal.
[43] But the idea that you could obtain these high -risk drugs that still have a black box label and the FDA admits send roughly one in 25 women to the emergency room in a McDonald's parking lot in FedEx drop box is really reckless on the part of the FDA.
[44] Now, when you say this is a black box labeled drug, what's the normal procedure when it comes to those types of is it an exception or fairly common for drugs like that to be easily accessible and or taken without supervision?
[45] So I think we're very unusual.
[46] As far as we're aware, this is the only drug that has an FDA label that sends between 2 .9 and 4 .6 % of women to the emergency room.
[47] Again, roughly 1 in 25.
[48] And again, the black box label on Niphyprestone warms women, potentially life -threatening in very serious conditions, including infection.
[49] And so, that's not the sort of thing that you see with a typical drug regulated by the FDA.
[50] Now, what are some of the concerns or risks that these, say, one in 25 women will face?
[51] So they can range a whole series of things can cause complication.
[52] Women can suffer severe hemorrhaging is one of the most common side effects or severe adverse events.
[53] Women have come into our client's rooms bleeding torrentially in our doctor's words.
[54] Sometimes those women need an immediate blood transfusion, sometimes several transfusions.
[55] They may be hospitalized for that condition.
[56] In addition, sepsis is a really dangerous condition.
[57] It's an infection from retained placental tissue or retained baby parts.
[58] It has proven deadly in a number of instances for abortion pill users.
[59] So those are some of the sorts of things that doctors see frequently.
[60] in addition, up to 7 % of women need surgical intervention just to complete the abortion, either because the pregnancy is ongoing or because the baby and tissue were not completely expelled.
[61] We've had this current arrangement since, I think you said, COVID.
[62] Since that time, have we seen an uptick in negative outcomes related to this drug?
[63] Yes, absolutely.
[64] So one of our doctors, Dr. Francis, practices medicine in Indiana, And she testified that during a time period in which a lower court during the COVID pandemic had enjoined this in -person dispensing requirement that was removed in 2021, a federal court had enjoined that.
[65] So FDA allowed Miphyprestone to be dispensed through the mail.
[66] And she said that she noticed an increased incidence of complications from women coming in after having received these drugs either through telemedicine or online or over the phone.
[67] And what will your argument in front of the Supreme Court be?
[68] Are you just arguing to return to that three -visit protocol?
[69] Yeah, so there's two main challenges that our clients are bringing here.
[70] The first one is a challenge as we've been discussing to the removal of the requirement that a health care provider actually see a woman and examine her that in -person doctor's visit in 2021.
[71] So we're hoping at a minimum the Supreme Court restores that safeguard.
[72] And our challenge on the 2021, provision is under a statute called the Administrative Procedure Act.
[73] And the Administrative Procedure Act basically requires that an agency act reasonably.
[74] In this case, the agency examined academic literature to remove this doctor's visit, this in -person dispensing requirements.
[75] And it found that the studies were, quote, not adequate to support a finding of safety for mailing abortion drugs.
[76] But the agency did it anyway.
[77] That is not reasonable.
[78] So at a minimum, we're asking the Supreme Court to require the FDA to reinstate that initial in -person visit.
[79] In addition, the changes in 2016 took away those two other doctor's visits, as well as increase the gestational age, all things that also increase the complication rate for women.
[80] And any indication about how the court might rule on this?
[81] I don't think so, but we do think that the action at issue here, by et cetera, FDA is really unique in that the agency really disregarded its own scientific evidence.
[82] This is not a case in which you're second -guessing an agency about how the science might shake out, but a case in which the agency said that the science was not adequate and yet went ahead and removed the protection anyway.
[83] And there's this doctrine of administrative law that says that when an agency changes a policy, let's remember that the in -person requirement has been in effect for over 20 years under a variety of presidential administrations.
[84] And this doctrine says that when an agency changes a longstanding policy like this, they need to have good reasons.
[85] And they simply don't have good reasons here.
[86] Now, if you were to give us a steel man case of your opposition, what are they going to be arguing?
[87] So I suspect the opposition will try to characterize this case as being about access to abortion, but that really is a straw man. And the reason that's a straw man is that regardless of one's position on abortion and whether one thinks it should be available or not, I would think that we could all agree that high -risk drugs like these drugs that send roughly one in 25 women to the emergency room should be adequately supervised, that we shouldn't mail them to dorm rooms or have them dispensed in McDonald's parking law.
[88] That's not good medicine and that women deserve better.
[89] All right.
[90] Well, Aaron, thanks so much for coming on today.
[91] Thanks so much for having me. I appreciate it.
[92] That was Aaron Hawley, Senior Council at Alliance Defending Freedom.
[93] And this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire.