Speaker 1: All right, and we're just about ready. Here we go,
coming down in three two one, and we are back
with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Matt Kittle,
Senior Elections correspondent at the Federalist and your experience Shirpa
on today's Quest for Knowledge. As always, you can email
the show at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow
us on x at fbr LST, make sure to subscribe
wherever you download your podcast, and of course to the
premium version of our website as well. Our guest today
is Ryan Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy
Center EPPC's new eyeopening study found a shocking eleven percent
of women suffer at least one serious adverse effect within
forty five days of taking the abortion pill known as
Miffa pristone for an abortion. Ryan, thank you so much
for being here on this very important topic.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me. It's a pleasure to be with you,
and you're exactly right.
Speaker 3: This is a vitally important topic and so I'm very
glad to get to discuss it with you for the
Federalist audience.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't know of anything more important. When we're
talking about the foundation of this great republic. Life comes
first in the whole notion of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. This was from my colleague Jordan Boyd,
excellent reporter here at the Federalist and producer of this
fine show, The Federalist Radio Hour, noting this study. Abortion advocates,
their allies in the corporate media, and even the US
Food and Drug Administration insists the pill responsible for more
than half of the nation's abortions, is safe and effective.
The new wide ranging analysis of insurance claims regarding the
abortion drug regimen, however, found that the rate of life
threatening complications due to this wonder drug so called was
twenty two times higher than that what the FDA and
the drugs manufacturer suggest. That is shocking, to say the least.
Tell us how this study came about? What you looked at?
Speaker 3: Sure, so you know, as your listeners know, all of
our data is for sale, whether it's our smartphone data,
our GPS data, our Internet browsing, or our health insurance data.
And so we were able to get access to an
all pair insurance claims database from twenty seventeen to twenty
twenty three. And that database it had over eight hundred
and sixty five thousand insurance claims.
Speaker 2: For mifipress stone abortions.
Speaker 3: We then analyze, you know, this entire data set, looked
at all, right, of women who are prescribed mithipres stone
for abortions, right, so we excluded people who are prescribed
mithiprestone for miscarriage or for other purposes. We looked at
where the insurance code was for abortion, what rate within
a forty five day period then experienced a serious adverse event,
you know, using the technical definition that the FDA eight itself.
Speaker 2: Uses, that was caused by the abortion pill.
Speaker 3: And what we discovered, as you said, it was nearly
eleven percent of women, it was ten point nine to
three percent of women. That's one in nine women who
take the abortion drug mifipres stone will then experience within
forty five days a serious adverse event that's related to
the abortion pill.
Speaker 2: So also, you know, some of the critics.
Speaker 3: Are like, well, you just counted anyone that had something
bad happened. No, it's like over seventy percent of women
who ended up in the er we excluded from our
analysis because they went to the er for something utterly
unrelated to the abortion pill. We only counted someone who
experienced a serious aditors event where it was related. And
as you said, that's twenty two times higher than what
the FDA claims. The FDA label says it's less than
zero point five percent of women who will suffer such
a complication. We're seeing that it's in real life more
like eleven percent, twenty two times higher.
Speaker 1: That is astounding, absolutely astounding. And of course all of
the research, if you will, all of the approvals for
the abortion pill go back what about a quarter of
a century now, don't they.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: So it was first approved in the United States in
the year two thousand under the Clinton administration, and at
the time when the Clinton administration, FDA approved this it
required three in person doctor visits. It would only be
allowed to be prescribed if gestational age was seven weeks
or younger. It could only be prescribed by a physician.
It could only be dispensed in the physician office. The
pill was taken at the office, it required a follow
up doctor visit three day later to make sure things
were going okay, and then it required an additional doctor
visit two weeks after that. In twenty sixteen, Obama reduced
this to one in person doctor visit.
Speaker 2: The pills were.
Speaker 3: Dispensed in the office, but they didn't have to be
taken in the doctor's office, and extended the gestational age
up to ten weeks. And then the Bienen administration got
rid of all of those safety provisions. No more in
person doctor visits, no more dispensing in person. This allowed
for telehealth visits and mail order abortion pills. Why this
is so dangerous is that if you're further along than
seven or ten weeks in pregnancy, the abortion pill may
not work, and that's going to lead the life threatening complications.
If you have an ectoptic pregnancy, meaning the child is
developing in the fallopian tube, not in the uterus, the
abortion pill isn't going to work. And so by eliminating
the in person doctor visits, by eliminating the in person
dispensing of this medication, both the Obama and Biden administrations
we're really just playing Russian Roulette with the lives of women.
So one of the things that we're hopeful for is
that the Trump FDA can reinstate the original safety provisions.
Here women deserve to know the truth about the risks
that they're going to be undertaking with this, and women
deserve to have safe healthcare.
Speaker 2: I mean, the realities at the.
Speaker 3: Abortion pill when it works kills the unborn baby. At
the very least, the Trump FDA should make sure that
eleven percent of the time it's not also threatening the
life of the mother.
Speaker 1: Indeed, this is very scary stuff, eye opening to say
the least. This I think really sums it up this
quote that you had in the statement. Again, you'll find
this story at the Federalist dot com. The study is
the statistical equivalent of a Category five hurricane hitting the
prevailing narrative of the abortion industry. It reveals, based on
real world data, the shocking number of women who suffer
serious medical consequences because of the abortion pill. So this
is the question, if these indeed are the consequences, and
the consequences are much more severe than even the FDA
has reported, does this open a floodgate? All of the
women who experienced all of these complications and in too
many cases, very very serious health threatening complications.
Speaker 3: Say more by what you mean by opening the floodgate.
Speaker 1: I'm just to put it simply, I'm curious if this,
if there will be lawsuits coming out of this given
their study.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, I mean, so anything is possible. I'm not
a lawyer, so I don't want to speak to whether
or not we could see you know, medical malpractice or
class action lawsuits, or you know, anything like that. I mean,
obviously things like this have happened in the past.
Speaker 2: We did see with.
Speaker 3: Various painkillers opioids that there were lawsuits against the pharmaceutical companies.
Speaker 2: I shouldn't speculate on that.
Speaker 3: I think more immediately what we would like to see
is the Trump FDA reinstate these safety protections. What's telling
about our studies that because we used real world health
insurance data, this is not what happens under an idealized
clinical trial study where everything is followed, you know, by
the tee. This is what happens in the real world, right.
This is what happens when the safety protections were removed
by Obama and by Biden. This is what happens when
doctors prescribe the abortion pill without verifying gestational age, and
so women are taking the abortion pill when they're no
longer in the first trimester, you know, they're in the
second or the third trimester. This is what happens when
people cut corners, which unfortunately is what happens in real
life medicine. And so I think, to a certain extent,
like what subsequent papers, we're going to be doing a
series of analyzes of the data that we have access to,
and unfortunately, what we're already seeing is that it is
not always prescribed or dispensed the way that it ought
to be. And part of that is because the FDA
has removed the requirements for how it ought to be
prescribed and dispensed.
Speaker 1: I guess that is the question. You would like to
see these precautions put in place by the FDA. Seems
like we're getting some mixed signals from the FBA and
from the the person who leads the FDA. Where do
you think things stand right now? Where do they go
from here?
Speaker 3: Sure, President Trump and Vice President Advance made it clear
when they were campaigning that they were in favor of
quote access to MiFi prestone. We're not asking for right
now that they would remove access to MiFi prestone. We're
asking that they would reinstate safety protections that existed for
the first sixteen years. You know this, This drug was
approved in the year two thousand. It was twenty and
sixteen that the you know, last year of the Obama administration,
that they weakened those safety rags, and then Biden, using
COVID as an excuse, temporarily removed the last remaining in
person doctor visit and in person dispensation, and then in
twenty twenty three made those changes permanent. So I think,
in keeping with what they have said about access to
MiFi prestone, they can say we support access, but it
has to be safe, at least for the mother. I
also think this is in keeping with what RFK said
about make America healthy. You cannot make America healthy again
if you have a drug on the market that has
an all eleven percent rate of serious adverse event.
Speaker 2: And then I think this also fits with, you know.
Speaker 3: One of the promises that President Trump made, both the
first time he ran and then the second time he
said he was going to undo all of the stupid
things that Obama did, and second time he runs. All
the stupid things that Biden has done. Eliminating these safety
protections were mistakes that his predecessors, the Obama and the
Biden administration, did, so I think Trump can make good
on the promises that he made the American people, to
make America healthy again, to undo the stupid, misguided policies
from the Obama and Biden years, without in any way
going back on what he said about supporting access to
the pill. He should just support access with certain safety provisions,
and then I think we can then, you know, later
have a discussion about whether or not this pill is
actually safe for the unborn baby, because obviously it isn't.
Speaker 2: Safe for the unborn baby.
Speaker 3: But for right now, I think we should start by
looking at whether or not it's safe for the mother.
Speaker 1: It's deadly for the unborn baby, and it always is
and it always will be. That's the design of this
death drug. But we have seen women lose their lives
because of this death drug. Final question for you, I think, ultimately,
what your study, what your organization aims to do is
to make known the real story here that this is
a bigger problem than previously assumed. How do you do
that when so many in the legacy corporate accomplice media
refuse to even mention the study or to talk about
this in any level of detail.
Speaker 3: Well, I mean, that's why it's so great that we
have the Federalist. As you mentioned, the reporting that Jordan
has done on this has been outstanding. Being able to
go on the Federalist Radio hour and talk with you
about this report is really important. There's a number there
are a number of other new media, center right media
that have really picked up this story and run with it.
I think you guys have led with it, and others
have been running with it as well. I think that's
how we bypass the gatekeepers in corporate media and mainstream,
you know, legacy media. I think to a certain extent,
a lot of people don't realize the truth about the
deadly complications of the abortion pill. Deadly both to the
unborn child, as you know, but also in many cases
to the women.
Speaker 2: Who take it.
Speaker 3: And so part of this is that women deserve to
know the truth about chemical abortion, and the FDA owes
it to women. The current label on the pill says
that it's the abortion pill, says it's less than zero.
Speaker 2: Point five percent. That's not the truth. And so at
the very least we owe it to.
Speaker 3: Inform women the truth about this. And then I think,
you know, this is part of an incrementalist strategy. The
ultimate goal here is to make sure that every baby
has his or her life protected in law, welcomed in life.
That's fundamentally incompatible with a pill who's only purpose is
to kill.
Speaker 1: It's horrifying on so many levels, but particularly because there
are people in this country playing politics with the truth
and that is absolutely unacceptable. Thanks to my guest today,
Ryan Anderson, President of the Ethics and Public Policy Center,
The center's new eye opening study found a shocking eleven
percent of women suffer at least one serious adverse effect
within forty five days of taking mifiprestone for an abortion.
Very stunning information, very important information. Thank you so much
for joining us on this edition of the Federalist Radio Hour.
Speaker 2: Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Okay, I guess I was recording without the microphone on,
so that's yet another good twist to all of this.
And now my dogs keep barking in the background, so
it's been one thing after another. We're going to record
here momentarily after they stop driving me insane. This has
been quite the day. This is the second part, the
monologue part, to fill out the fifteen minutes that we
will require here of the podcast. Do our level best
to do that, and we will do that. Coming down
in three two one. There are a lot of incredibly
sad things, troubling things clearly about this late study. Troubling
that there are eleven percent of women that experience complications,
some very serious complications from this so called wonder drug
of an abortion pill that's been on the market for
twenty five years now. It's troubling that the numbers are
twenty two percent higher, the problems associated with it twenty
two percent higher than we got from the manufacturer, from
the FDA. Very very troubling. Sad or still is the
fact that nobody in the corporate media, or very few,
seem interested about getting the word out to the people
who need this information most. That that is troubling. As
my colleague Jordan Boyd wrote at The Federalist under the
headline media blackout on abortion pill study proves they never
cared about Amber Thurman's death. I think it spells out
exactly what's at stake and why the usual suspects in
the corporate media are so loath to report on this
very new round of information, this study that goes well
beyond expansively what we've known about this drug for some time.
As Jordan writes, Democrats and corporate media spent much of
the twenty twenty four election cycle trying to pin deaths
directly linked to the abortion pill on pro life policies.
Their lies and deceptions primarily centered on the story of
Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died alongside her twin
babies after suffering complications stemming from the abortion pill. You
remember this story. This was a big part of the
left the Democratic Party's pursuit of using the abortion issue
the unfettered access to abortion on demand, as part of
their major talking point. It was not as successful, certainly
as it was in the twenty twenty two midterms following
the Supreme Court's landmark decision that overturned Roe v. Wade,
But Thurman's death, as Jordan Wrights, is no doubt the
direct result of a two drug regimen, Mifa pristone and misoprostol,
responsible for more than half of the nation's abortions. Get
outlets such as Pro Publica skipped past Mifa prestone's known
correlation with serious adverse effects to insist that women who
took the pills, such as Thurman and Candy Miller, lost
their lives due to the pro life laws the narrative
and the actual story. The left's narrative and their pr
agents in the corporate media don't often line up the
real story and the narrative, and that was the case
years after Thurman's death. Jordan writes, the harmful and sometimes
fatal effects of the abortion drug on women and their
babies are no doubts. Still news yet yet when the
largest known study of the abortion pill debuted last week
showing the rate of serious or life threatening complications after
the abortion pill is twenty two times higher than the
US Food and Drug Administration and the mifipristone manufacturer Danko
Laboratory suggest the same outlets that spent months nearing pro
life protections to advance Democrats' radical abortion agenda were well,
they were silent, and perhaps to the surprise of no one.
What one senator in particular is hopeful for is that
the man who now leads the Food and Drug Administration
is not silent, but indeed steps forward and talks about
where he ultimately stands on these issues. A Josh Holly,
Senator from Missouri wrote a very compelling piece and op
ed in The Federalist, and you can find it at
Federalist dot Com published on Monday, but in short, Senator
Holly notes that US Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty
mckarey recently told a DC get together that he has
no plans to take action on mithipristone, the chemical abortion
drug responsible for more than seventy percent of abortions in
the United States. That's undecidedly different, an undecidedly different answer,
Holly writes, than the one he gave the Senator under
oath during his confirmation hearing, doctor mcarey pledged to quote
review the totality of data with respect to the abortion pill.
He also said that quote 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. It's
an interesting term and a phrase, to say the very least,
it has the feel of a protective stance, that is
to say, protecting the Secretary and the Commissioner. I should say,
as Holly continues, the new data is here, as we've
been talking about, and it is sending a signal that
can't be missed. If a prestone is not safe. He
goes into the study, and we've talked a good deal
about that. What the number is show and as I
mentioned before, if the corporate media isn't absolutely ignoring this story,
which in most cases it is, it has spent some
amount of time in trying to attack the messenger, which
is what the corporate media does. As Holly notes, and
the numbers tell us, the data is absolutely astounding, jaw dropping,
jaw dropping numbers, and they have been largely hidden from
the public, and as we talked about earlier, they have
been largely hidden from the public thanks to the FBA.
The rate of serious health events revealed in the study
again is twenty two times greater than the numbers reported
on the FDA approved drug label. The FDA's official numbers,
by the way, rely on clinical trials more than four
decades old. At the very least, there needs to be
a whole regime of critical trials that are not four
decades old. That's for sure. And what our guest today,
Ryan Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center,
the folks that put together this new eye opening study
is saying, and what a lot of advocates are saying,
at the very least, you need to put in the
safeguards that were removed at the end of the Obama
administration to at least protect people, so many women who
are unaware of the seriousness the consequences of taking this
abortion pill. As Hally notes, the federal government once acknowledged
those serious risks of the dangerous drug when if a
presst own was first to prove, the government imposed a
host of safety measures. Those included prescription by physician only,
a requirement that physicians dispense the drug, mandatory follow up
physician visits, reporting of adverse effects, and even a black
box warning learning women to the drugs many dangers. And
all of this was done originally by Bill Clinton President
Bill Clinton in two thousand before he left, before Obama left,
everything was removed, all of those safeguards, all of those
safety procedures, and that act put so many women their
very lives in danger because of this drug. And what
we're finding out is how much more dangerous this drug
is than advertised. This is a wake up call for
the FDA, an FDA that intends to make America healthy again.
At least that's what the commissioner has said in his
opening statements when he became the commissioner. No doubt a
solid first step in making America and Americans healthy again,
the women of this country healthy again, is to make
sure they know the full dangers and are at least
at some level protected from them as they were twenty
five years ago. Those of us in the pro life
movement in America would like to see this drug no
longer as accessible as it is. As accessible as a
universal mail in ballot in California, anybody can get it
at any time. It's abortion on demand. It's problematic for
a lot of reasons, but at the very least knowing
the days of this drug to women, Women at least
should have the benefit of knowing the dangers of this drug.
You can guarantee one thing. Jordan Boyd, our excellent reporter
who's been working on these stories and these issues, will
continue to report on them, as well as other members
of our excellent Federalist staff. And you can find what
you can't find elsewhere in the usual realm of corporate
media and prov depress accomplice media. You can find important
life saving information like this at the Federalist dot com. Again,
I want to thank my guest today, Ryan Anderson, President
of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, EPPC's new eye
opening study found a shocking eleven percent of women suffer
at least one serious adverse effect within forty five days
of taking if a pristone for an abortion. You've been
listening to another edition of The Federalist Radio Hour. I'm
Matt Kittle's senior elections correspondent at the Federalist. We'll be
back soon with more. Until then, stay lovers of freedom
and anxious for the fray. Okay, Well, hopefully that a recorded,
and hopefully that doesn't suck. Did my best to expound
on the subject butchering the name. I screw the name
up all the time of the product. But hopefully that's
not too glaring in here. We'll shut this down and
I think that will give us, I believe, a full
thirty minutes, which is I think we need to make
sure that we've got this all set.
Speaker 3: Okay,