Janine Jackson interviewed Guttmacher Institute’s Rachel K. Jones about the Mifepristone ruling for the April 21, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.
Janine Jackson: As we record on Thursday, April 20, the US Supreme Court has extended, until tomorrow, its decision on whether reproductive rights will be severely curtailed, including in so-called “blue states,” by restricting access to Mifepristone, approved for more than 20 years as part of a medical method of terminating pregnancies.
Washington Post (11/19/23)
The Washington Post tells readers:
The Biden administration, abortion providers and anti-abortion activists, drug makers and the Food and Drug Administration have engaged in a rapid and at times confusing legal battle over Mifepristone.
Well, that suggests a sort of informational free-for-all, in the face of an actual disinformation campaign on the part of a minority of Americans opposed to the right to choose when and whether to have a child.
To the extent that there is any cloudiness around the science or the human rights involved here, one would hope that journalists would sort it, and not throw up their hands.
Rachel K. Jones is principal research scientist at Guttmacher Institute, the research and policy group focused on sexual and reproductive health and rights. She joins us now by phone. Welcome to CounterSpin, Rachel Jones.
Rachel K. Jones: Yeah, thank you for inviting me.
JJ: Very narrowly, this Supreme Court case is about the authority of the FDA to approve drugs. But anybody paying attention can see that it’s actually about much more.
I wonder if you could just tell us a bit, first, about the impact of the introduction of medication abortion; it’s been 20 years now. What has that meant in terms of the ability of people to access abortion, and how widely is it used?
RJ: Right. So we know from decades of medical research that Mifepristone is safe, effective and widely accepted by both patients and providers, and Guttmacher’s own research has established that the majority of abortions are done with medication abortions, 53% in 2020.
JJ: So what would we expect, I mean immediately, and then maybe longer term, if this effort to make Mifepristone unavailable, if that were to actually go through, what sort of impacts would you be expecting?
RJ: OK, so there’s actually a lot that we don’t know about what’s going to happen or what would happen if the Supreme Court were to impose restrictions on Mifepristone. But, again, it’s important to recognize that any restrictions that are put in place are not based on medical science.
We do know that any restrictions that were put in place would have a devastating impact on abortion access. Again, 53% of abortions are medication abortions. Currently, only 55% of women in the US live in a county that has an abortion provider. And if Mifepristone were taken away, that number would drop to 51.
But there are 10 states that would have a substantially larger, notable impact. So about 40% of clinics in the US only offer medication abortion. And so, again, there’s 10 states where if these clinics were taken away, if these providers were taken away, substantially large proportions of people would no longer have access to abortion.
And some of these are states that are actually supportive of abortion rights, states like Colorado, Washington, New Mexico and, again, just one example: In Colorado, it’s currently the case that 82% of women live in a county that has an abortion provider. If Mifepristone were no longer available, this number would drop to 56%.
JJ: I think it’s important, the way that Guttmacher links health and rights, and the way that your work shows that access—sometimes media present it as though we’re talking about “the United States,” and rights to access abortion in the United States, but it varies very much, as you’re just indicating, by region, by state, and then also by socioeconomic status. So there are a number of things to consider here in terms of this potential impact, yeah?
RJ: Definitely. Again, we know, from decades of Guttmacher research on people who have abortions, that it’s people in disadvantaged populations—low-income populations, people of color—who access abortion at higher rates than other groups.
And so, by default, any restriction on abortion, whether it’s a complete ban, a gestational ban, a ban on a certain type of method, on a medication abortion, it’s going to disproportionately impact these groups that are already, again, at a disadvantage.
JJ: And I think particularly when we’re talking about medication abortion, if you know, you know. If you never thought about it, then maybe you never thought about it. But there’s a difference between having to go to a clinic, where maybe you’re going to go through a phalanx of red-faced people screaming at you, and the ability to access that care in other ways. It’s an important distinction, yeah?
RJ: Definitely. You know, one of the benefits of medication abortion, of Mifepristone, is that it can be offered via telemedicine. If there’s a consultation, it can be done online or over the phone, and then the drugs can be mailed to somebody. There are online pharmacies that can provide medication abortion.
This means that people, right, don’t have to, in some cases, travel hundreds of miles to get to a clinic, that they don’t have to worry about childcare, and taking off time from work.
So medication abortion has the ability to—and has, for a number of people—made abortion more accessible.
JJ: If you talk to staunch anti-abortion people, the conversation is very rarely about science or about medicine. But then, some of them, and their media folks, will throw around terms that sort of suggest that they’re being science-y. You know, they’ll talk about “viability” or “heartbeat,” or they’ll say it’s about concern about the safety of drugs.
And I just wonder, as a scientist who actually is immersed in this stuff, what do you make of the reporting on the medical reality of abortion, and would more knowledge help inform the broader conversation? Or is it just two different conversations? What do you think?
Rachel K. Jones: “We have decades of scientific medical research establishing that medication abortion is safe, effective and widely accepted.”
RJ: I definitely think it’s two different conversations. Like I said, we have decades of scientific medical research establishing that medication abortion is safe, effective and widely accepted. People who don’t support abortion choose to ignore the science and the safety, and dig for their own factoids and supposed scientific facts to support their arguments.
JJ: It’s so strange how the media debate always seems to start again and again at point zero, as though there were no facts in the matter, or no experience, and as though women aren’t experts on their own experience, you know?
Well, finally, we see things like the Women’s Health Protection Act federalizing the right to abortion. I know the law is not necessarily your purview, but in terms of responding to these court moves, and these state level moves, do you think that federal action is the way to go?
RJ: Certainly that is one solution, right? The Women’s Health Protection Act would enshrine the right to abortion federally.
But we also need, and especially in the current environment…. I don’t want to say the Women’s Health Protection Act is pie in the sky, but given everything that’s going on right now, we also need federal and state policy makers to step up to restore, protect and expand access to abortion.
Quite frankly, the right to abortion was removed because of Roe, and that allows states to impose pretty much any restriction that they want to, we’re seeing from all these different laws that are being implemented.
And so it really is, a lot of times, at the state level, and then certainly in the current environment, the state level is what we might need to focus on.
JJ: And then anything you would like to see more of, or less of, from journalism in this regard?
RJ: On medication abortion, it seems like the media are actually doing a decent job of covering the issue, of acknowledging, again, the decades of research showing that medication abortion is safe, effective and commonly used.
I guess the only issue we might have is one that you see any time that abortion is the subject of media stories, and that is, a lot of times, reporters think, well, if they have to take a fair and balanced approach, that means that they have to talk to the people who oppose abortion.
And again, when this is about science and facts and research, then you don’t need to talk to people who don’t believe in sound science, or who are going to ignore, again, decades of solid medical research.
JJ: All right then. We’ve been speaking with Rachel K. Jones, principal research scientist at Guttmacher Institute. You can find their myriad resources online at Guttmacher.org. Thank you so much, Rachel Jones, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
RJ: Sure. Thank you for having me.
The post ‘People Who Don’t Support Abortion Ignore the Science and the Safety’ appeared first on FAIR.
This content originally appeared on FAIR and was authored by Janine Jackson.
Janine Jackson | Radio Free (2023-04-25T21:55:44+00:00) ‘People Who Don’t Support Abortion Ignore the Science and the Safety’ – CounterSpin interview with Rachel K. Jones on Mifepristone. Retrieved from https://www.radiofree.org/2023/04/25/people-who-dont-support-abortion-ignore-the-science-and-the-safety-counterspin-interview-with-rachel-k-jones-on-mifepristone/
Please log in to upload a file.
There are no updates yet.
Click the Upload button above to add an update.