This episode takes a deep dive into the troubling revelations from a groundbreaking study on the abortion pill Mifepristone. Ryan Anderson from the Ethics and Public Policy Center unveils findings that suggest the FDA has grossly underestimated the drug’s adverse effects, putting women’s health at risk. Dr. Donna Harrison provides a compelling medical perspective on these findings, advocating for stricter safety regulations. Additionally, we highlight an ongoing Supreme Court case that tackles religious liberties in education, addressing parents’ rights to opt their children out of controversial curriculum.
SPEAKER 20 :
from the heart of our nation’s capital in Washington, D.C., bringing compelling interviews, insightful analysis, taking you beyond the headlines and soundbites into conversations with our nation’s leaders and newsmakers, all from a biblical worldview. Sitting in for Tony is today’s host, Jody Heiss.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon. Welcome to this Monday edition of Washington Watch. I am Jody Heiss, the Senior Vice President here at the Family Research Council and President of FRC Action. An honor to be filling in today and this week for Tony. Tony is in Israel. He’s leading a delegation with some Christian leaders from here in the United States and I’ll be filling in. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, we’re already off to a packed news week and it’s only Monday. Let me give you some of the highlights that we’ll be covering today. Tomorrow marks President Trump’s 100th day back in office and to kick off the week, the White House put focus on what he’s doing on border security.
SPEAKER 14 :
Today we kick off 100 Day Week with a focus on the President’s historic effort to secure our southern border. Later this afternoon, President Trump will sign an executive order on law and order and another executive order on sanctuary cities.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was White House Press Secretary Carolyn Leavitt earlier this morning, and I’ll discuss the latest on President Trump’s border security efforts when I’m joined by North Carolina Congressman Brad Knott here in just a few moments. And of course, not everyone is planning to use this week to celebrate President Trump’s first 100 days. In fact, the legacy media wants people to believe that the president’s approval ratings have plummeted.
SPEAKER 18 :
As we approach the end of Trump’s first 100 days, it seems he was pretty quick to squander whatever goodwill he came in with. And that’s not just me saying it. I mean, poll after poll after poll, and I literally mean there’s so many of them, is making that all perfectly clear.
SPEAKER 08 :
That was former Biden White House Press Secretary Jean Psaki yesterday on her show that airs on MSNBC. But what do we need to know? What do we need to keep in mind when we see all these poll numbers that she references, especially when we consider how off so many of them were during the 2024 election? Well, I’ll be discussing this later with Mark Mitchell. He’s the chief pollster at Rasmussen Reports, which has been pretty accurate in their polling, certainly unlike those in the legacy media. And speaking about accuracy, there’s a new report out, the largest known study of the abortion pill. And it says that adverse effects from Mifepristone, catch this, are 22 times more frequent than what is recognized by the FDA. Wow. Well, hopefully the new Trump FDA will take notice of that.
SPEAKER 07 :
Look, I believe as a scientist, you’ve got to evolve as the data comes in. And as you may know, there is an ongoing set of data that is coming in to FDA on mifepristone. So if the data suggests something or tells us that there’s a real signal, then we can’t promise we’re not going to act on that data that we have not yet seen.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, that was FDA Commissioner Marty McCary last Thursday at a summit in Washington, which happened to be just days before the release of today’s report. And now that we have this data, could there be action soon to address the problem? Well, I’ll be joined later by one of the authors of this new study, Ryan Anderson. He’s the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. And then I’ll discuss it further with Dr. Donna Harrison. She’s a CEO Emerita of American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. And then also on today’s program, I want to share with you part of Tony’s weekend interview with one of the attorneys who’s representing the religious parents whose case was heard last week by the U.S. Supreme Court. And I can just assure you, you want to tune in for that. So as usual, we’ve got a lot coming your way today. You don’t want to miss any portion of it. But in case you do, of course, our website is TonyPerkins.com. All right, let’s jump into our first topic. Earlier this morning, the Trump administration kicked off the president’s first 100 days week by highlighting his effort to secure America’s borders. And in fact, on the White House lawn, they displayed photos of the worst of the worst. These are criminals, illegal criminals, immigrants who have been arrested since President Trump returned to the office. And they announced that the president would be signing more. executive orders today to further secure our borders. So with so much that’s already been done by the administration to address the border, what does all this tell us about the claim of the previous administration that legislation was the only solution? Well, here to discuss this is Congressman Brad Knott, who serves on the House Homeland Security Committee as well as the Judiciary Committee. He represents North Carolina’s 13th congressional district. Congressman Knott, welcome back to Washington Watch. Great to have you.
SPEAKER 12 :
Thank you so much. It’s good to be here.
SPEAKER 08 :
OK, let’s see. White House Press Secretary Carolyn Leavitt and the president’s borders are Tom Holman. They were looking at two executive orders that the president was scheduled to sign today. Can you take us down that road? What were these executive orders? What more is he looking to do on our borders?
SPEAKER 12 :
It’s a great question and it’s an important topic. I want to go back to where you led into the question ultimately with what’s different, what’s distinct between this administration, what this administration is doing with the previous administration. And the executive orders that we see today, they are in the same theme that President Trump has really been exercising the entire time he’s been in office. All 100 days, he has been focused on making America more secure and making America more free. And you cannot have a secure country with an open border. And President Trump has worked very effectively from day one in streamlining processes, freeing up resources, pressuring our neighbors to the north, the south, and all over the world diplomatically to really make sure that our border is secure. And it’s not a very radical proposal. All we’re after is we want to know who you are and why you’re here when you come into the country. And if you do come into the country, you must do so in accordance with our laws. The previous administration, as you alluded to, They did not, not only did they not enforce the laws, they worked very vigorously to deconstruct any legal enforcement. If you showed up on our border, you were going to get legal entry, or excuse me, you were going to be granted entry whether or not you came through the, quote, legal process or the illegal process. And the harm that our country has faced is, it’s hard to quantify it. And the claim that Joe Biden made that it required new legislation, was flatly untrue and he knew it was untrue. He worked the entire time he was in office to welcome anybody who wanted to come to the country, into the country, regardless of their legal versus illegal status. And President Trump has effectively stopped that effort.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, and he continues. I mean, now the big news last week, we were seeing going after sanctuary cities and all this kind of stuff. I mean, he’s just been relentless to protect our borders, as you mentioned, as the previous administration did just the opposite. In fact, the Biden administration had claimed for years, really, that – Nothing can be done except legislatively. He spent four years blaming Congress for the immigration problems. And, of course, today, and I’d like for you to respond to this, Holman and Leavitt both drilled the Biden administration and claimed that his purposeful open border policies were at stake here. So is the Biden administration now reaping what they’ve sowed, do you think?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, really, the country has reaped what the Biden administration sowed, and that’s the real tragedy. We’ve seen that, again, this was a purposeful construct from Biden. They not only welcomed people into the country here illegally, they signed them up for government entitlements. They placed them in politically sensitive environments. They shuttled them all over the country. You’re still seeing that. We just saw it with Judge Duggan in Wisconsin. What did she do? She actively worked to protect an illegal immigrant criminal from apprehension by ICE while that criminal’s victims were in her courtroom. What an astounding metaphor. You have a judge who is actively working to subvert the law at the expense of her state, of her country, and the victims that she should be concerned about who are American citizens.
SPEAKER 08 :
And that’s really- What should happen to these judges? Real quickly, what should happen to these judges?
SPEAKER 12 :
When you do things like that, that is a clear violation of the law. Her arrest and apprehension were absolutely appropriate. She worked dishonestly to thwart ICE and their investigation and their apprehension, and then she took the next step in trying to assist the illegal immigrant in flight. She absolutely should have been charged. And of course, everyone’s innocent until proven guilty. But if my account is correct and what I’ve read is correct, she should be sentenced. It’s absolutely outrageous what she did. And you cannot assist lawbreakers and claim to be loyal to the United States. Anyone who’s here legally should be reported.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well said. All right, let me shift gears for you. Our time is slipping away here. Of course, Congress is reconvening. My understanding, Speaker Johnson has met or perhaps is still meeting with President Trump to discuss the budget reconciliation bill. What can you tell us at this point about the bill’s progress? What do you anticipate happening?
SPEAKER 12 :
Well, we are working in earnest. Again, the president is working to secure the country and to make the country more free. And he’s hoping to do that immediately by reversing Joe Biden’s policies and then permanently through legislation. That’s where reconciliation comes in. We are working in earnest, trying to get this big, beautiful bill tight. We’re trying to get it across the finish line. And all the committees that I’m in, Judiciary, Homeland, and Transportation, are marking up bills this week to include in the reconciliation package. And so we’re hoping to get this bill across the finish line in the coming weeks. Memorial Day is the target. We’re hoping we’re hoping we’re working towards that. But again, a lasting, free agenda, a secure agenda, one that benefits the country and her citizens rather than the world is what we’re after. And we’re working very hard to achieve that.
SPEAKER 08 :
And what’s your take real quickly? Because I got one more question for you with the Senate’s role in this. What’s going to happen on that side?
SPEAKER 12 :
We have worked with the Senate. Leadership obviously has. And we have gotten very explicit agreement that more liberty, more security, spending cuts, et cetera, are top of their list, too. So we expect them to follow the president’s lead and to follow the House lead as we move through reconciliations.
SPEAKER 08 :
Well, great to hear that. We’re going to be keeping a pulse on it and pushing and praying forward with you. All right. On a real quick final note here, you recently called for Congress to reauthorize the Tax Cuts and Job Act. You put out an op-ed, in fact, today in North Carolina. Explain your position on that. What is this act and how does it help your state? How does it help others?
SPEAKER 12 :
Again, the act is really the first term of President Trump when he enacted the tax cuts. Everyone felt the economic benefit, rising wages across every spectrum, robust job growth, robust job creation. There was really a vigor in the economy. I believe someone said that the animal spirits were back in the economy pre-COVID. And that bill had a 10-year sunset. And we’re hoping to codify that bill on a permanent basis, again, to really invigorate the economy, to invite entrepreneurialism, and to secure, again, a free economy for generations to come that will protect America and ensure her long-term prosperity.
SPEAKER 08 :
Fantastic. Congressman Brad Knott, North Carolina, I want to thank you so much for the great work that you’re doing. And as always, thank you for joining us on Washington Watch. Great to have you.
SPEAKER 12 :
Yes, sir. Thank you.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, coming up, we’ve got a lot more to bring your way. We’re going to delve further into President Trump’s first 100 days when we come back after the break. Specifically, we’re going to be looking at and talking about all the polling numbers, which the legacy media would have you believe are plummeting. in behalf of President Trump. Well, is that really what’s happening? I’ll be speaking with Rasmussen Report’s Mark Mitchell on that data when we get back. So stay tuned. Much more coming your way right after this.
SPEAKER 15 :
At Family Research Council, we believe religious freedom is a fundamental human right that all governments must protect. That’s why FRC President Tony Perkins went to Capitol Hill to testify on behalf of persecuted Christians in Nigeria. Islamist terror groups target Christians and other religious minorities in Nigeria with brutal violence. Representative Chris Smith, who chaired the hearing, said 55,000 people have been killed and 21,000 abducted in the last five years alone. The congressman also stressed that 89% of Christians in the world who are martyred are from Nigeria.
SPEAKER 01 :
Yet the government of Nigeria has failed to make progress against religiously motivated persecution of Christians despite religious freedom being enshrined as an essential human right in their constitution.
SPEAKER 15 :
Tony Perkins called for the United States to send an unmistakable message.
SPEAKER 09 :
This is systematic religious violence. Nigeria must be redesignated a country of particular concern. The Biden administration’s removal of this designation was a reckless mistake that emboldened the very terrorists who are slaughtering Christians.
SPEAKER 15 :
Redesignating Nigeria will enable the U.S. government to pressure Nigerian leaders to protect vulnerable Christians.
SPEAKER 09 :
These are not just numbers. These are fathers, their mothers, their children, their families.
SPEAKER 15 :
Bishop Wilfred Anagabe risked his life to speak out, sharing firsthand accounts of the danger faced in his church district in central Nigeria.
SPEAKER 02 :
We live in fear because at any point it can be our turn to be killed. But to remain silent is to die twice. So I have chosen to speak.
SPEAKER 15 :
FRC is calling on President Trump to act now to promote religious freedom around the globe and speak up on behalf of Christians in Nigeria.
SPEAKER 05 :
Looking for a trusted source of news that shares your Christian values? Turn to The Washington Stand, your ultimate destination for informed, faith-centered reporting. Our dedicated team goes beyond the headlines, delivering stories that matter most to believers. From breaking events to cultural insights, we provide clear, compassionate coverage through a biblical lens. Discover news you can trust at The Washington Stand, where faith and facts meet every day.
SPEAKER 04 :
Download the new Stand Firm app for Apple and Android phones today and join a wonderful community of fellow believers. We’ve created a special place for you to access news from a biblical perspective, read and listen to daily devotionals, pray for current events and more. Share the Stand Firm app with your friends, family and church members and stand firm everywhere you go.
SPEAKER 08 :
Thank you so much for joining us today on Washington Watch. Welcome back. I am your host, Jody Heiss, filling in for Tony while he is leading a delegation of Christian leaders in Israel. All right, as the Trump administration celebrates the president’s first 100 days back in office, some new polling would suggest that Trump’s popularity is waning. So we have different media organizations including, surprise surprise, ABC, CNN, they’ve published their own polls that claim the president’s approval rating at this 100 days mark is the lowest of known polling data. But we must all ask, how accurate are these polls? Do they really reflect the actual feelings of the American people? Or do they just merely reflect the people whom these media companies cater towards? Well, here to discuss all this with me now is Mark Mitchell. He’s a chief pollster at Rasmussen Reports. Mark, welcome back to Washington Watch. Good to have you. Yeah, great to be back. All right, I’m looking forward to getting your take on this. You actually posted on X that you said all of this is just a psychological operation. Explain what you meant by that.
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, as an honest pollster, I’m basically daily fighting an information war against the lying mainstream media who, in my opinion, appears to have thrown out all profit interest in attempting to undermine the only anti-establishment candidate that I remember. And everybody’s focused on Trump approval. You look at Google search volume. You can go look at Google trends and you can see that people are searching for the term approval now pretty much more than they ever have. And for some reason, Trump approval is way more interesting than Biden approval, Obama approval or Bush approval ever was. So that’s telling me people are seeing headlines. They’re hearing stories. They’re getting push notifications to their phone. And it’s all the mainstream media trying to undermine Trump to convince you that he’s not popular. Another sign is that some of the pollsters like ABC News, Washington Post and New York Times haven’t even really pulled Trump approval in months. And all of a sudden, Six of the pollsters dumped polls over the weekend that were really horrible for Trump, and it’s the same kind of people who were six, seven, and even eight points to the left of me back in the fall. So what I consider is they probably just waited and said, hey, I got a little surprise for Trump on his 100 days. Rasmussen Reports gets elections right, and I don’t think that you can poll approval without getting elections right. And we’re the only people in the industry still polling approval on a daily basis. And what I can tell you is that if you take the first six months of Obama’s first term away – and look at the rest of his polling, that’s pretty much where Trump approval has been and is going to be. We’re in a situation where it’s like peak threat of violence. People are really political divisive. You’re never going to see a Trump 60% approval rating, but I don’t think it’s going to drop below 45% either. And what I think is a much more important number is the fact that our right direction polling is setting records on a weekly basis now because Americans are finally getting what they voted for.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, so explain that, the right direction polling. What is that referring to? The people of America are saying we’re going in the right direction, but what is that saying to us? What are you seeing from that polling?
SPEAKER 11 :
Well, we’ve been in business 20 years, and just alongside presidential approval, the question we ask is, is the country headed in the right direction, or has it gotten off on the wrong track? And people have been really unhappy for a long time. Right direction, how has always been less than wrong track, except for one week. And that week happened a month and a half ago under Trump’s second administration. It got up to 48% highest it’s ever been in our polling history. And now it’s setting a record for 13 consecutive weeks higher than 42% or higher. The previous record was only seven weeks. And that was also in a Trump term. And that’s because Trump’s an economic populist. And the general trend has been that Trump was elected because the American dream, our futures, the ability to put food on the table, to form families, to buy affordable houses, all that stuff has been stolen and shipped overseas. And Americans understand that.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wow. All right, so we have pretty strong differences in polling information. Of course, polls can say anything you want them to say, but Rasmussen is on target because you do authentic polling. Is it fair to say or assume perhaps that some of these other media organizations have a conflict of interest, that this is just a political push? You alluded to that, but do you think that really is the underlying factor that’s driving these numbers that they’re putting out?
SPEAKER 11 :
I think the trend we’re seeing is a collapse in integrity in all of our institutions. And if you see this happen in the FBI, if you see it happen in corporate boardrooms, if you see it happen in church denominations, it’s probably happening in newsrooms too. And that’s if your boss or your boss’s boss or your boss’s friend in DC really wants some headline and your paycheck depends on it, you’re probably going to give them the headline. And are some people doing it not on purpose? Sure. And also there are some honest pollsters who that are out there having their headlines and their numbers cherry picked as well. That’s, you know, the information gatekeepers in these media organizations are very effective at spinning these tails. But even if you don’t look at polling, if you just look at the percent of voters who turned out for Trump and how many of those voters he won in his second term, we’re not talking about polling. We’re talking about actually people that showed up and voted. Trump did really good this time around. He got 32% of the electorate. He He only got 28 percent his first time around. He increased, which means people saw his first term and they said, I want more of that. And they came and voted for him again. And that puts him a lot higher than many other previous presidents, higher than JFK, higher than both Clinton’s Clinton terms, higher than Bush won, higher than the second term of George W. Bush. And Obama came in higher than Trump in his first term. and then got less of a share of the vote in his second election. So the idea that Donald Trump is something.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, in relation to that, I know AOC and Bernie Sanders have been going all over the place. Is there any polling that they somehow are moving the needle, be it with a third party or just in general? Is there any polling on them?
SPEAKER 11 :
No, I think they’re just indicative of how bad the situation the Democrats are in. The Democrats don’t really have a platform or authenticity to convince voters that all of a sudden they have an answer to MAGA. And so there’s been this vacuum, and I think it’s being filled by their noisiest people, Bernie Sanders and AOC, who quite frankly poll not that great. Um, they are third, fourth, fifth, when ranked against other Democrats about who they want to run the primary, but they’re the only ones out there speaking. And I’ll tell you, they have no chance. Americans fundamentally think that free market economies are better. They’re not going to vote for open socialist candidates. And, um, right now they just need an answer to Trump MAGA populism and that’s it. But there’s a, there’s a vacuum in the Democrat party.
SPEAKER 08 :
Mark Mitchell, chief pollster at Rasmussen Reports. Thank you so much for joining us. Great info. All right, friends, coming up next, we’re going to air a segment of Tony’s weekend program this week on Capitol Hill regarding the Supreme Court and religious liberties for parents. So stay tuned. We’ll be back in a moment.
SPEAKER 19 :
Everything we do begins as an idea. Before there can be acts of courage, there must be the belief that some things are worth sacrificing for. Before there can be marriage, there is the idea that man should not be alone. Before there was freedom, there was the idea that individuals are created equal. It’s true that all ideas have consequences, but we’re less aware that all consequences are the fruit of ideas. Before there was murder, there was hate. Before there was a Holocaust, there was the belief by some people that other people are undesirable. Our beliefs determine our behavior, and our beliefs about life’s biggest questions determine our world view. Where did I come from? Who decides what is right and wrong? What happens when I die? Our answers to these questions explain why people see the world so differently. Debates about abortion are really disagreements about where life gets its value. Debates over sexuality and gender and marriage are really disagreements about whether the rules are made by us or for us. What we think of as political debates are often much more than that. They’re disagreements about the purpose of our lives and the source of truth. As Christians, our goal must be to think biblically about everything. Our goal is to help you see beyond red and blue, left and right, to see the battle of ideas at the root of it all. Our goal is to equip Christians with a biblical worldview and help them advance and defend the faith in their families, communities, and the public square. Cultural renewal doesn’t begin with campaigns and elections. It begins with individuals turning from lies to truth. But that won’t happen if people can’t recognize a lie and don’t believe truth exists. We want to help you see the spiritual war behind the political war, the truth claims behind the press release, and the forest from the trees.
SPEAKER 08 :
Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m Jody Heiss filling in today for Tony. I mentioned to you that he is in Israel leading with a delegation with a group of Christian leaders. But before he left, Tony sat down with Beckett Fund with an attorney to deal with the parents’ case that the Supreme Court heard arguments about last week. And I’d like to share a part of that interview from Tony’s program. It’s called This Week on Capitol Hill. Here’s how Tony got this conversation started, and we’ll come back afterwards.
SPEAKER 09 :
So explain the issue here in this case.
SPEAKER 10 :
So in 2022, Montgomery County Public Schools introduced curriculum for pre-kindergarten through fifth graders that are storybooks. And these storybooks present topics like a puppy that gets lost in a pride parade. And at the end of that book, which is designated specifically for pre-K, which in montgomery county can have people as young as three there’s a i spy section where it says hey go back through this book and try to find things like leather or drag king or drag queen and not only did the school board introduce these books but they also gave their teachers specific instruction of how to teach the books and so you know if a child says hey you know boys can boys have to like girls or girls can’t like girls the teachers are instructed to disrupt either or thinking. And so when these books were first implemented and this instruction was first given, for the first year or so, parents were allowed to opt their children out of the classroom. But in March of 2023, the school board reversed course overnight and said, we’re not gonna let you know when these books are gonna be read. We’re not gonna give you the opportunity to opt your kids out of the books. And this caused a massive backlash by predominantly religious parents of Muslim and Ethiopian Orthodox faith, as well as others. My firm, the Beckett Fund, represents parents from Muslim backgrounds, Jewish backgrounds, Christian backgrounds who sued the school district saying, hey, you know, you can implement this curriculum if you so choose, but we want to opt our kids out of it.
SPEAKER 09 :
Why did the school change course? Was it too many parents were wanting their kids out of the curriculum, and so they were afraid that they weren’t going to be able to get this information into the minds of kids?
SPEAKER 10 :
You know, we don’t know for sure. They’ve given kind of differing reasons. You know, on the one hand, there’s some evidence to say like some parents that hold views that the books are good things were upset that other parents were allowed to opt out. During the course of litigation, the school district came forward with this, ah, there’s too many opt-outs for us to handle. That seems a little absurd given that the school district handles opt-outs in a number of other contexts. They’ve had Before this case, they had religious diversity guidelines because Montgomery County is one of the most religiously diverse counties in the country, saying, you know, if anything substantially burdens your beliefs, we’ll opt you out of the classroom. And it wasn’t until parents started opting out of these books specifically that they changed course.
SPEAKER 09 :
So, Colton, that is the issue before the court. The parents simply wanting, I mean, they’re not trying to get rid of them. They’re not trying to pull the books off the shelves. They’re just saying, look, we want to know when our children are going to be exposed to this material because it runs counter to what we’re teaching them. We just want to know so we can opt them out. Is that the question?
SPEAKER 10 :
That’s right, Tony. It’s purely, you know, we don’t control the school board. We don’t control what’s in the classroom. But if teachers and people of authority are going to stand in front of a class and read from these books and provide instruction, our parents feel like they need to protect their children from the contents of those books. And especially since the contents of those books at times conflict with their religious beliefs.
SPEAKER 09 :
According to the oral arguments and the questions from the justices, this is not presented in a neutral fashion. Much of this is promotion. And even there’s evidence to suggest that was introduced into the court that school board officials and other officials were derogatory in describing parents and their motivations for wanting to opt their children out of this type of curriculum.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, that’s right. So during school board, after they implemented this policy change and removed the opt-outs, hundreds of parents protested. And in response to some of those protesters and parents showing up at the meeting, one school board member said that a Muslim girl was just parroting her parents’ dogma. They compared the Muslims to xenophobes and white supremacists. So there was some pretty blatantly derogatory statements made about these religious parents.
SPEAKER 09 :
Colton, it appeared from the questions that the justices seemed taken aback by the fact that the Montgomery County School would not allow parents to opt their children out. It seemed like this is all you want. You just want to be opted out and they’re not accommodating you.
SPEAKER 10 :
Yeah, that’s right. I think you saw some shock from members of the court, some of whom are residents of Montgomery County, saying, you know, Maryland as a state was founded on religious liberty. And this is exactly contrary to that teaching. You know, I would say, Tony, you mentioned Obergefell at the beginning of the segment. You know, even in the majority of opinion in Obergefell, Justice Kennedy notes that there can be people of good religious faith on the other side of this issue. And so in that, you know, we take that to mean like, look, if you’re going to recognize a right to same sex marriage. That also means one day you’re going to have to protect the religious liberty of people that disagree with that decision. And so this case is an opportunity for the court to recognize, like, you know, we have to permit religious liberty to thrive in the midst of a pluralistic society.
SPEAKER 08 :
Fascinating interview. That was an interview Tony had with Colton Stansberry with the Beckett Fund. It took place over the weekend on the program This Week on Capitol Hill. I encourage you, if you’ve not seen that or you would like more information about that program, check out thisweekoncapitolhill.com. Thisweekoncapitolhill.com. Fantastic interview there. All right, stay tuned. Much more coming your way after the break. There’s new findings that have been released from the largest ever study in regard to the abortion pill, chemical abortion. You’ll be shocked to hear what the study revealed. So stay tuned for those details. We’ll be back.
SPEAKER 16 :
Are you ready to transform your trials into triumphs? Dive into the book of Daniel with FRC’s new study guide, Daniel, Visions and Valor. Perfect for those seeking courage and wisdom from one of the Bible’s most faithful figures. This 13-day journey is ideal for small groups or individual study as part of our ongoing Stand on the Word Bible reading plan. It’s a timeless resource ready to deepen your engagement with Scripture. Explore how Daniel’s life and God-given visions offer a blueprint for navigating challenges. Each day includes Scriptures, reflection questions, and space for notes to enhance your understanding and application. Available in digital and physical formats, order your copy of Daniel, Visions and Valor today and start your journey of transformation. To order, text the word DANIEL to 67742. That’s DANIEL to 67742.
SPEAKER 03 :
What is God’s role in government? What does the separation of church and state really mean? And how does morality shape a nation? President John Adams said our Constitution was made only for moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. Join Family Research Council for God and Government, a powerful 13-part series that equips you with biblical truth to engage in today’s most pressing debates. From the Ten Commandments in Classrooms to the Immigration Crisis of America, we’ll uncover the foundations of our nation’s history and why it’s relevant for today. Defend God’s plan for government because faith and freedom were never meant to be separate. New episodes available each Monday. To view the series on the Stand Firm app, text COURSE to 67742.
SPEAKER 13 :
How should Christians think about the thorny issues shaping our culture? How should Christians address deceitful ideas like transgenderism, critical theory, or assisted suicide? How can Christians navigate raising children in a broken culture, the war on gender roles, or rebuilding our once great nation? Outstanding is a podcast from The Washington Stand dedicated to these critical conversations. Outstanding seeks to tear down what our corrupt culture lifts up with an aim to take every thought and every idea captive to the obedience of Christ. Whether policies or partisan politics, whether conflict in America or conflict abroad, join us and our guests as we examine the headlines through the lens of Scripture and explore how Christians can faithfully exalt Christ in all of life. Follow Outstanding on your favorite podcast app and look for new episodes each week.
SPEAKER 08 :
Good afternoon. Welcome back to Washington Watch. I’m your host, Jody Heiss, filling in for Tony this week. That last interview with Colton Stanberry with the Beckett Fund, a fascinating interview dealing with religious liberties, specifically of these parents, but even more broadly than that is the issue that we’re dealing with. And that reminded me, and I want to just encourage you, if you’ve not already taken advantage of the new God and Government series, that is putting together a 13-week video series for you. We just released week number 11 coming out this week, and this one actually deals with kind of like that interview was just talking about, deals with how to embrace a biblical worldview in a post-Christian culture. Folks, how important is that to understand? What does the Bible have to say? What are the essential ingredients for a strong culture and society? Well, you can find out. Get the God in Government series to get more information or to check it out yourself. Simply text the word COURSE to 67742. All right, there is a brand new study that’s come out. It’s a stating really what many have been saying for a long time, basically that the abortion pill mifepristone is more harmful than what the Food and Drug Administration officially recognizes. And it’s actually worse than what many even thought. The study that has been published by the Ethics and Public Policy Center says that adverse effects from mifepristone are 22 times more frequent than what’s recognized by the FDA. So how should this change the narrative on the abortion pill? And what kind of action is needed? Well, here to discuss it all is Ryan Anderson, who is the president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center and one of the authors of this study. Ryan, welcome back to Washington Watch. Thanks for having me. It’s a pleasure to be with you. Well, it is our pleasure to have you, and what a monumental report that you’ve come out with. So break down, if you would, break down the contents of this study for us. What are the major takeaways?
SPEAKER 06 :
Sure, I mean, the major takeaway here is that it’s a 22 times higher rate of serious adverse events for women who take the chemical abortion drug than what the FDA claims on the label. The FDA claims it’s less than half of a percent of women will suffer from a serious adverse event. Real world insurance claim data shows that it’s actually 10.93% of women who will suffer with a serious adverse event. Things like sepsis, hemorrhaging, infection, an ER visit, right? These aren’t minor things like an upset stomach or diarrhea. Serious adverse events, 22 times higher than what the FDA claims. And this is based on real world data. This isn’t based on idealized clinical studies where the drug is administered perfectly. This is how it’s really administered in the real world based on 850,000 insurance claims. And then the last thing I’ll say is that why do we see such poor outcomes? Both the Obama and the Biden administration got rid of most all of the major safety protections that the FDA originally required when they approved of the pill. So what we’re calling on the Trump FDA to do is for right now, just reinstate those original safety provisions. Reinstate doctor office visits, in-office visits. Don’t allow telehealth. Don’t allow mail-order abortion pills. Require physician oversight as a woman takes the abortion pill. Women deserve to know the truth about the abortion pill, and women deserve to have safe, quality health care.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, when you’re talking about 22 times higher adverse serious consequences, this is no insignificant number. How did the FDA miss it so much? I mean, you just said they took away some of the measuring equipment. elements, I guess, of all of it. But still, 22 times is an enormous difference. How did this happen when health is supposed to be the central concern?
SPEAKER 06 :
I mean, a couple of things to say there. The co-author of the paper is our director of data science at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. What he discovered is that the original FDA studies, what they did was one study would look at ER visits, one study might look at hemorrhaging, one study might look at sepsis, and then they would add all of those things up together as if all of the studies had looked for all of the serious adverse events. And so there’s a numerator-denominator problem here, if you’re familiar with math, is that the numerator is way too small and then they inflated the denominator, ending up with a much smaller fraction. Maybe this was politicized, maybe this was just an honest statistical mistake. One way or the other, they got their math wrong. But then what we saw in the Obama years and now most recently from the Biden administration, it was clearly politicized medicine to get rid of these original safety provisions. It used to require three in-person doctor visits when the pill was initially prescribed and dispensed, three days later, and then two weeks later to make sure that everything was going well. That initial visit to make sure you didn’t have an ectoptic pregnancy. Instead, they’re now doing it with online telehealth, mail-order abortion pills across state lines. This isn’t looking out for the best interest of women, certainly not looking out for the best interest of their unborn children.
SPEAKER 08 :
Wow. This is stunning information. You actually described this as like a Category 5 hurricane hitting the prevailing narrative of the abortion industry. I think that is a perfect word imagery of it all. But go into more details. What do you mean by that? Why is this such a catastrophic study for the abortion industry?
SPEAKER 06 :
Sure. I mean, pro-abortion activists say that chemical abortion drugs are as safe as Tylenol. That is not the case. I mean, the most conservatively estimated studies here would be something like one in 10,000 patients taking Tylenol will end up with a serious adverse event. Here we have one in 10. It’s actually closer to one in 11. It ends up being 10.9% of women who have this serious adverse event. That’s one in nine, sorry, virtually one in nine. That’s not what we’re seeing with Tylenol. This has been politicized. The Obama and Biden administrations didn’t act on new data to get rid of safety provisions. They did this simply to make the abortion pill more accessible. What we’ve also now noticed is that many blue states, pro-choice states, are mailing the abortion pill across state lines. So one of the things that President Trump promised, he promised to make America healthy again. He promised to undo the Biden and Obama era bad regulations and policies. And he promised to leave abortion to the states. Well, you can’t leave it to the states if California is mailing abortion pills to the other 49 states. You can’t make America healthy again if you have a 10.9% rate of serious adverse events. And you can’t undo all the stupid things Biden and Obama did unless you also undo what they did to the abortion bill. Right. So that’s what we’re calling on the Trump FDA to do here. And this just strikes me as both a winner politically and it’s a winner for women’s health and for their informed consent.
SPEAKER 08 :
Excellent information. Ryan Anderson, president of the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Great job. Well done. Hats off to you and your team for doing this work and for getting it out. And as always, thank you for coming on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 06 :
Happy to do so.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, I want to continue this conversation, but more now from a medical perspective. Dr. Donna Harrison is a board-certified OBGYN with three decades of experience. She is also CEO Emerita and the current Director of Research for the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists at the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs. Dr. Harrison, welcome back to Washington Watch. It’s an honor to have you.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you. Thank you for having me on.
SPEAKER 08 :
Okay. This is such a critical moment potentially right now. And you have authored peer review papers on maternal mortality and Mifepristone mortality and so forth. Does your own professional experience line up with what you probably just heard our interview with the EPPC, what they found in their study?
SPEAKER 17 :
Yes, it does. And not just mine, but app blog docs across the country are seeing similar kinds of things in the ER. Seeing women with hemorrhages, women with tissue left inside, women who have ectopic pregnancies that never should have gotten the abortion pill at all. And they got it because they never had an inpatient visit. They never had an ultrasound. And what really bothers the American Association of Prolifobi Gins is that this kind of sloppy distribution of mifeprex hurts women and not only kills their baby, but it also hurts the women. And there is no way that you can actually give informed consent to a woman if you don’t know how far along she is in a pregnancy and there’s no way you can tell how far along she is in a pregnancy by looking at a laptop screen it just it doesn’t happen so we know that women who uh come into our office about half the time we change the due date based on an early ultrasound so there is no way that these women are being told what their risks are because As the pregnancy gets further and further along, the woman’s risk of hemorrhage, infection, sepsis, tissue left inside, all of those risks increase. And she’s not even being told whether or not she has a baby in the womb or in the tube. And a baby in the tube is an absolute contraindication to giving mifeprex. So I’m so glad to see this study come out. And finally, some real-world data looking at how women are being affected by this. And the abortion industry doesn’t care.
SPEAKER 08 :
Yeah, that’s what’s so stunning to me. It’s like they do not care about the health of women with all of this. The study, the EPPC study, mentions that the current FDA-approved drug label is based on the results of 10 clinical trials with a little over 30,000 or so women. But less than 0.5% reported severe adverse reactions, and yet the truth is much less. worse than that is nowhere close to 0.5 percent no uh so how do you explain this how do we get it so wrong so there’s a couple things going on one clinical trials are done under very controlled circumstances all of the women in those trials had an ultrasound
SPEAKER 17 :
before they got into the trial to make sure that they were eligible for the trial and to make sure the baby was in the womb. And if they had an ectopic pregnancy, they were excluded. And if they were too far along, they were excluded. So these trials sort out healthy women where their gestational age, the dating of the pregnancy is perfectly known. And then they’re followed very, very, very carefully. OK, so that’s not what happens in the real world. In the real world, Sally Smith, who may be 14, gets online, gives her gift credit card and gets mailed Mifeprex. She has no idea how far along she is. She may think that she’s eight weeks. And I’ve seen cases where where women were told, oh, you’re eight weeks along and they take the mifeprex and they deliver a 22-week baby who could have survived if that baby had been delivered under the right circumstances. It’s this kind of horrendous care. And that’s not the only thing going on. Women who have a blood type that’s negative, like O negative or B negative or A negative, They’re supposed to get a medicine called Rogam, and that’s to prevent their body from rejecting the next baby that comes along. And that’s supposed to happen whether they have a miscarriage, an abortion, or a delivery. When that doesn’t happen and they don’t get Rogam, they have a very high chance of that next baby dying, even if it’s a wanted baby, dying in their womb because their body rejects it. So these women are not getting Rogam. They’re not getting ultrasound. They’re not getting informed consent. It’s horrendous. And then who is taking care of the women who have a difficult time accessing care? These drugs are mailed to women who may not have access to an emergency room. So if you hemorrhage and you lose half your blood volume and you’re right down the road from an ER that has blood, you’ll survive. If you’re in Timbuktu, you won’t. You’ll die. And this is the thing. There’s no concern about the health care needs of women who are getting these drugs. It’s just abysmal. So that’s why I agree with EPPC stating that at the very minimum, at the very minimum, The safety requirements that were thrown away by the Obama and Biden administrations, those safety requirements should be reinstated. And they should add more if they don’t pull the drug altogether.
SPEAKER 08 :
So this is such a dangerous drug. Why in the world has the FDA allowed it to be on the market for so long?
SPEAKER 17 :
Well, I would suggest that you read the AHM versus FDA filing that you can find on the ADF website, where we detail all of the irregularities in the approval process. It was a political approval from day one. Clinton ordered the approval to happen. There were safety steps that were missed. It was approved under a… clause called Subpart H, which is for the treatment of life-threatening infections or life-threatening diseases. So they had to call pregnancy a life-threatening disease. I mean, it’s ridiculous. Pregnancy is a physiological normal function. Normal women… become pregnant and they deliver healthy babies. That’s the goal. Pregnancy is not a life-threatening disease and it never should have been fast-tracked. It was fast-tracked. There’s a bunch of things that were wrong with the initial approval. But even at the minimum, we should go back to those safety requirements under the initial approval. You know what was really bad? When the Obama administration relaxed the requirements, they allowed for women to get this drug and not be monitored by a physician. They also, at the same time, told the abortionists, you don’t have to report any complications anymore. You only have to report deaths. Isn’t that crazy? You change all these safety requirements, you relax them, and then you say, we don’t want to know about any complications that happen because of our change in the safety requirements. It’s just, it’s horrendous.
SPEAKER 08 :
It is horrendous, and may this be a moment in our nation’s history on this issue, not just for those who are pro-life. This certainly, for those of us who are pro-life, we are pushing for this for multiple reasons, but just those who are concerned for health of the mother and the dangers that are associated with drugs like this. This is a moment in history to turn the corner. All right. Dr. Donna Harrison, thank you so much for this incredible time that you’ve spent with us. And thanks for the tremendous work that you do at the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. God bless you. Thank you for joining us today on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 17 :
Thank you for having me.
SPEAKER 08 :
All right, friends, that wraps up this edition. Wow, a lot going on, and we’re just on Monday. So you want to join us again tomorrow and the rest of the week. God bless you. We’ll be back tomorrow here on Washington Watch.
SPEAKER 20 :
Washington Watch with Tony Perkins is brought to you by Family Research Council and is entirely listener supported. Portions of the show discussing candidates are brought to you by Family Research Council Action. For more information on anything you heard today or to find out how you can partner with us in our ongoing efforts to promote faith, family, and freedom, visit TonyPerkins.com.
