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