The Propaganda That Threatens the FDA’s Mifepristone Regulations

Mifepristone is the first (and extremely safe) of two medications that people will take during a medication abortion—and access to it is under blatant attack in the courts. Dr. Ushma Upadhyay, Public Health Scientist based at University of California San Francisco, and Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney with the ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project, sit down to talk with us about recent anti-abortion propaganda and how it could be used to shape the FDA’s regulations of medication abortion.

A past case, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, was brought by anti-abortion groups to a federal judge in Texas known to have a hostile record against abortion with the goal of challenging the FDA’s mifepristone regulations. In June 2024, The Supreme Court ruled that these groups could not challenge the regulations. Anti-abortion Attorneys General of Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho are now attempting to revive this litigation, called Missouri v. FDA. Meanwhile, a new report from a Project 2025-backed organization falsely states that 11% of people who have a medication abortion have a serious adverse event. Sec. Kennedy has cited this report as a basis for conducting a “complete review” of the FDA’s mifepristone regulations.

Links from this episode

Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health
ACLU’s Reproductive Freedom Project
ACLU’s People Power
Trump Administration Announces that FDA Will Consider Imposing Greater Restrictions on Medication Abortion Nationwide
Dr. Upadhyay’s Comment Letter critiquing the EPPC report
Critique of the EPPC report from Society of Family Planning
GOP Lays Groundwork To Restrict Abortion Pill With New Junk Science Report

Take Action

Transcript

Jennie: Welcome to rePROs Fight Back, a podcast on all things related to sexual and reproductive health, rights, and justice. [music intro]

Read More

Jennie: Hi rePROs. How's everybody doing? I'm your host, Jennie Wetter, and my pronouns are she/ her. So y'all, I'm going to do a little bit of crowdsourcing today. There's a podcast that's a movie podcast that's interested in having me come on to talk about movies and talk about a movie with abortion in it, and my brain is struggling at the moment, so I would love to hear some of y'all's favorite movies that have abortion storylines. The one that obviously comes to my mind is Dirty Dancing, but they've already done Dirty Dancing. So, I would just really love to hear some more options. And I would really like to keep it realistic and maybe current-ish. The other thing that I'm hoping to avoid is one where, like, Revolutionary Road, where the pregnant person died. So ideally, not that, but... definitely open. It's something I can have a conversation about on the podcast, even if the pregnant person does die. But I really want to keep it a little bit more true to what we see right now. So, if anybody has any great ideas, I would love, love, love to hear them. What is your favorite movie that has an abortion storyline? I would love to hear all about it. You can reach out to me on social media. I'm on Blue Sky and sometimes still on Twitter, mostly just to share episodes, but you can still find me there. It's @JennieinDC and that's Jennie with an IE or you can feel free to shoot me an email it's jennie@reprosfightback.com. Always love to hear from y'all but yeah if you could shoot me what your favorite movie with an abortion storyline is I would really appreciate it—like I said my brain is like struggling at the moment and I'm sure there are lots of great ones and I will also be checking out the amazing resource that ANSIRH has that has movies and TV shows that have abortion in it, but I still would love to hear what all of y'all's favorite is. So, shoot me a note. I would really love that. Let's see. What else? I don't know. I've not been baking as much lately. And I don't know why that is. I've just not been in the mood. For so long, I had been really you know making what I was gonna eat for breakfast that week on Sunday and I just I don't know if I'm just not been feeling making bread because I feel like the last couple things I made were like lemon bars or some deserty thing or something else that was quick and so I feel like I need to get back on on the baking what I want for breakfast train and I just I haven't been there right now and so if anybody has any recipes that are like inspiring them to to bake at the moment I would love to hear them. Like I said, I just- I don't know. I feel like Sunday rolls around, and I have the best of intentions of baking something for the week, and I've just been, like, I don't want to. So, I feel like I need to get started again. I feel like once I start, it'll be better, but maybe I'll start small and shoot for muffins this weekend or something like that, something quick and easy before I tackle a yeasted bread or something. I don't know. I've just not been in the mood. Yeah, I don't know why. I'm going to have to work on that. Let's see. I don't know if I have anything else too exciting that's been going on. Like I said, I haven't been in the mood to bake. I've still been doing a lot of reading, which, as you know, is a big hobby and one of my favorites. I have been kind of all over on my reading, though, and... mostly I've been I- so I do love reading but I also love looking for books to read and my buying them and downloading them on my my Nook account has gotten out of hand y'all and so I've been trying really hard to not buy anything new and just read down what I already have and I've been doing pretty good about it I think I bought some new stuff for the trip I took but I That was a while ago, but I had bought them, like, way in advance of the trip. So, I'm really, my goal is to, like, really read down what I have on my e-reader at the moment. And it's hard because I keep seeing books I want to read. So, my wish list is getting really long again. And what always happens is I then break and buy a bunch of books. And then my reading down the list is shot to hell because I buy more than I had read. I need to not do that. So, that is my goal for the summer—no new books. Just read down what I already have on my e-reader. So, that is going to be my goal for the summer. We'll see what happens. But I'm going to try. I'm going to try to make a real dent because there are so many I already have on there that I just need to get it under control. Okay. I think, like, let's turn to this week's interview. I'm very excited about it there is a lot happening around mifepristone right now and access to mifepristone between lawsuits and possible action at the FDA so I thought it was really important to talk about what is going on and talk about this new "study"—and that is said with the world's largest air quotes around it—talking about how medication abortion is unsafe : spoiler it is not and that study is a bunch of junk. But let's talk about it this week so that you can be up to date on what is happening. And I could not think of two better advocates to come on and talk about it. I'm so excited to have with me this week, Dr. Ushma Upadhyay with the University of California, San Francisco, and Julia Kaye with the ACLU. And with that, let's go to my conversation with Dr. Upadhyay and Julia.

Jennie: Hi, Julia and Dr. Upadhyay. Thank you so much for being here today.

Ushma: Thanks for having us.

Julia: Thanks so much for having us on.

Jennie: So, before we get started, would you like to take a minute and introduce yourselves? Dr. Upadhyay, would you like to go first? Sure.

Ushma: I'm Ushma Upadhyay, and you can call me Ushma. I'm a public health scientist based at University of California, San Francisco, and I primarily do research on abortion access and abortion policy and abortion safety.

Julia: I'm Julia Kaye. My pronouns are she/her. I am a senior staff attorney with the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project, and I lead our litigation relating to medication abortion.

Jennie: I'm so excited to talk to both of you about everything happening around medication abortion right now because I feel like there is so much happening. Maybe we'll take a quick second and do just a little bit of background before we get into what is happening at the moment. Ushma, do you want to talk a little bit about, we're going to talk about mifepristone a lot, so maybe just, like, take a quick second and make sure everybody's on the same page of what we're talking about when we talk about mifepristone.

Ushma: Sure. mifepristone is the first of the two medications that a person will take during a medication abortion. Sometimes it's called the abortion pill, which is kind of a misnomer because there's multiple pills, but it's fine to call it the abortion pill. mifepristone actually stops a pregnancy from growing. And then misoprostol, which is taken about 24 to 48 hours after the mifepristone, causes uterine contractions and causes the uterus to empty.

Jennie: Awesome, I always just love to make sure everybody's on the same page when we get started. Julia, there has been a lawsuit going around, and I feel like people have probably heard about it, especially because the administration took action recently that got reported all over the place in ways that I think, if you're not steeped in this stuff like we are, could have been confusing. So, maybe we can talk a little bit about the legal challenges we've seen.

Julia: Yeah, I think that it does make sense to start with the attacks on medication abortion moving through the courts. So, your listener's may recall a case called Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. And this was a lawsuit that a group of anti-abortion organizations and doctors brought shortly after the Dobbs decision overruling Roe v. Wade. And they filed it in Amarillo, Texas, where they could guarantee that it would be heard by a particular federal judge with a record of hostility on abortion. These anti-abortion groups and doctors asked the court to undo virtually every single regulatory decision the FDA had made relating to mifepristone, going all the way back to the FDA's original approval of mifepristone in 2000. And the Texas judge, as they had hoped and expected, rubber-stamped all of their requests. The case ultimately went up to the U.S. Supreme Court. And last June of 2024, the Supreme Court held that these anti-abortion organizations and groups did not have legal standing to challenge the FDA's mifepristone regulations. And that is because these plaintiffs did not use mifepristone themselves, they did not prescribe mifepristone, and they had absolutely no connection to the FDA's regulation of mifepristone other than their desire to see all abortion banned everywhere. So, the Supreme Court kicked the case on that standing question. But the extremist anti-abortion attorneys general of three states, were not to be deterred from their quest to restrict abortion access nationwide and so they basically picked up the baton. And now we have the states of Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho attempting to revive this litigation and specifically they want to continue the attacks on medication abortion in the courtroom of the same Texas judge who previously ruled to take mifepristone off the market nationwide. So, this case is called Missouri v. FDA, but it is taking place in Amarillo, Texas. So shortly before Donald Trump's inauguration, the Biden administration's Department of Justice filed something called a motion to dismiss. And in that motion, they raised a range of procedural and technical defects with the case. And now, this is a pretty standard thing for defendants in litigation to file. This is your first opportunity as a defendant to try to make a case go away. But the procedural defects in Missouri's case are hit-you-over-the-head obvious. For one thing, it is preposterous that Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho should be able to sue the federal government in Texas, where they have no connection, just because they want to guarantee that the case is heard by a judge with a record of hostility on abortion. On top of that, the states lack legal standing for the same reasons that the original plaintiffs in this case lacked legal standing. They are past the statute of limitations for some of the challenges they are bringing to the FDA's regulatory updates in 2016. And the bottom line is they are trying to revive a case that the US Supreme Court held was defective from the start. This case, it is as though it never existed because the Supreme Court said that the original plaintiffs never had a right to sort of walk through the courthouse doors in the first instance. So, it is just glaringly obvious that Missouri and co. should not be able to try to piggyback on this defective case in order to stay in court in Texas. So that's what the Biden Department of Justice argued before they left office. Then in March, it was time for the Trump Department of Justice to weigh in for the first time. And many folks were watching to see, would the Trump administration change course? Ultimately, the Trump Department of Justice continued to make the same technical arguments on this motion to dismiss that the Biden Department of Justice had. But I want to be very clear that the Trump administration said absolutely nothing about the merits of the case, about the validity of the FDA's decisions to lift certain of its regulations on mifepristone, nothing on the merits at all. It really was not a motion about abortion at all. They were just raising these preliminary technical questions. And so, I'm really glad you asked about this because I think that some reporters were taken by surprise to see the Trump administration file a motion to dismiss a case that one would expect the Trump administration to be sympathetic to, and interpreted this as a really significant decision to defend access to mifepristone, when in fact, it was just the Trump DOJ making the same procedural defenses that they have raised, will be raising, want to raise in many of the other cases the Trump administration is currently defending.

Jennie: Yeah, I feel like I got a lot of questions about it like: are you excited? And like, isn't this great news? And it was just like, I mean, I just assume it's because they have something else planned that's probably worse. And like, that this is not something to celebrate. I mean, the bar is so low for celebration but like... no?

Julia: Yeah, I think you were very right to be wary. And as I'm sure we will get to shortly, it is now clear that the Trump administration is teeing up new nationwide restrictions on medication abortion.

Jennie: I'm not really sure the best place to start on what's next because they kind of happen simultaneously. Maybe, Ushma, we'll go to you and talk about this study that is being used to try and attack medication abortion with the FDA, and we'll get to the FDA part after we talk about the study and all of the great research.

Ushma: Yeah, I don't, you know, to call it a “study” would be very generous so we'll go with, like, report.

Jennie: Yeah, it felt like there should be air quotes.

Ushma: [chuckles] Yeah there's you know we call it the the new EPPC report that has come out uh the issue is that they have they've come out and they have estimated that 11% of people who have a medication abortion have a serious adverse event. And when you take a deep dive, and it's actually, you can hardly even take a deep dive because it is a report. It is not a study. It's very thin on details and very thin on the methodology. It was published on their website. It's not peer-reviewed, and it was not published in a journal. So, those are the makings of a study when it is...

Jennie: Those all feel real important.

Ushma: Yeah. I mean, it's... part of the vetting process, the standard medical vetting process that any study goes through.

Julia: I think it might be helpful to give it a little context for who the Ethics and Public Policy Center is that published this report. This is a Project 2025 sponsor organization whose stated mission is to inject religious ideology into law and policy. One of the reports to co-authors recently published a book entitled Abortion Harms Everything. So, you can't make this up. So, it is very clear that they had an overt ideological goal in publishing this paper and that the timing of the publication was not a coincidence. They are... the anti-abortion folks like EPPC, they are desperate to get the FDA to reverse some of its updates to its mifepristone regulations. And they took this opportunity as part of a coordinated attack to release this junk science white paper and then have members of Congress like Senator Josh Hawley wave it around and say to Secretary Kennedy, HHS Secretary Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Marty McCary, what are you going to do about mifepristone? Look at this. Look at these alarming numbers. What are you going to do? And reporting from Politico recently connected all of these dots. And in fact, there is a campaign name. This is called Operation Mifepristone, Rolling Thunder, which is truly hilarious. Truly hilarious if what they're trying to do weren't so... seriously scary.

Ushma: Yeah, it uses a lot of the same methods that another paper authored by Studnicki from the Lozier Institute used in a previous paper, which was retracted. And so, that is why I think that they chose not to publish it in a peer reviewed journal, because it would certainly, if it got through a peer review process, it would certainly get retracted as well.

Jennie: I feel it's worth taking the time—we don't need to debunk it point by point—but obviously, as somebody who researches medication abortion, do you maybe want to tackle some of the safety claims at least a little bit?

Ushma: Yeah. I mean, I have a 10-point document if anyone wants to read it.

Jennie: Oh, I read it. It was good.

Ushma: I can get to that. But I think overall, the top three issues that I have with it is number one—and I want to share these top three issues because as you hear about abortion safety, these are the red flags that you should be on the lookout for—number one is they classify any emergency department visit that was within 45 days after an abortion as a serious adverse event. And everyone knows people go to the emergency department when they can't get a regular source of care. We have research that shows that when people live further away from their original abortion provider, they'll go to an ER to ask questions about side effects: is this amount of bleeding normal? The other thing is people will go a few weeks after their abortion pills- taking the abortion pills to find out: am I still pregnant or not? Because a pregnancy test won't work until about four or five weeks after the abortion because the pregnancy hormone is still in the system. And so, they'll want an ultrasound: is my abortion complete? Can I get back to my life? And just any questions about bleeding. So that is number one. The second issue is that we also know that after a medication abortion, about three to five percent of all people who take abortion pills will need a little more treatment. They just don't result in a complete abortion for three to five percent of people. And those individuals may need a procedure to complete the abortion, or they may need another round of medications, misoprostol, to complete the abortion. And so, anyone who had an additional procedure was classified as a serious adverse event. Now, it's not serious. It doesn't even have to be done in an emergency room. But even if somebody had that procedure within 45 days at their OBGYN, that was classified as a serious adverse event. And then third, it's really opaque about how they identified the index abortion, the abortion, the medication abortion. They talk about using pharm prescriptions for mifepristone. There's a lack of clarity on whether they picked up mifepristone that might have been prescribed to treat miscarriage. Sometimes people will, if they're pregnant, pregnant people, they're experiencing bleeding, they might go to an emergency room, be diagnosed with a miscarriage and receive mifepristone and misoprostol right then and there to treat the miscarriage. This is not a complication of abortion, but yet that situation, that case would have been classified as a serious adverse event. So there's a lot of, you know, in a normally peer-reviewed scientific paper, all of this would be very clear in the methods section. And sometimes the methods sections are longer than the results. And so because you have to specify the procedures that you took so that the study can be replicated by others. Oh, and the other big, hugest issue is that they do not say what database they use. They say it's the large all-payer insurance claims database, and they don't reveal which one. So that also means we can't replicate it.

Jennie: And am I misremembering, but they didn't even classify like what you went to the emergency room for? Like you could have gotten into a car accident and like... unrelated to your abortion and that got counted?

Ushma: They said abortion related, but they counted, you know, and we learn about a little bit more because they subsequently released an FAQ document. And they said, no, if somebody broke their leg, that was not classified, but any infection. So, if somebody had a UTI, which is common among people who were sexually active, if anyone had an STI, a sexually transmitted infection—which was not caused by the abortion, it was caused by the sex that caused the abortion and the STI—those were all classified as serious adverse events. So yes, absolutely lots of unrelated conditions, you know, conditions unrelated to the abortion were classified as serious adverse events.

Jennie: And we'll definitely make sure to include that 10-point breakdown in our show notes so people can look at it because I found it really helpful to read through.

Julia: The other thing that jumped out at me from a policy perspective is that the report starts with a series of policy changes that FDA allegedly should make based on the paper's findings. But there's actually no logical connection between the policy changes they want to see—the same policy changes that were called for in Project 2025—and the study's findings, even if you take this pseudo-study’s results at face value. So, for instance, they argue that their report is a basis for reinstating the FDA's former requirement that mifepristone be dispensed only on site at a hospital clinic or medical office. And they call on the FDA to block the use of telemedicine for medication abortion to prevent patients from filling their prescription by mail or at a local pharmacy. But the paper says absolutely nothing about how mifepristone was dispensed in the cases where they claim to have identified serious adverse events. It just provides no information at all on whether those patients obtained care in person or through telemedicine, whether the medication was dispensed by mail or at a clinic on site or at a pharmacy, and yet somehow they take their nonsense propaganda findings as a basis for this wish list of policy changes that have nothing to do with even the complications they claim to have found.

Ushma: I'll add to that. The study was from 2017 to 2023. And yes, it was legal during, you know, after 2021, there was telehealth medication abortion. However, the vast, vast majority of providers of telehealth abortion between 2021 and 2023 did not accept health insurance. They are largely the telehealth providers that are virtual clinics, like Hey Jane, Abortion on Demand. Primarily during this period, they did not accept health insurance. So, there is no way that there's any reasonable proportion of the patients in the data set. So, there is a minimal chance that there's a reasonable number of patients who had a telehealth abortion that is represented in this data set.

Jennie: Okay, so the next part that we need to talk about is what is going on with the FDA and how this is being, honestly, how this is being coordinated, because this all came out in a very coordinated manner, like... starting with, I think it was Kennedy's testimony and being like, well, you know, if I had more information, we could take action type thing. So maybe let's talk a little bit about some of the stuff that's happening at the FDA.

Julia: A few weeks ago on the Hill at a Senate hearing, Secretary Kennedy revealed that he has directed the FDA to undertake, in his words, "a complete review of its mifepristone regulations." And he cited this propaganda from the Ethics and Public Policy Center as a basis for and the focus of this review. This is extremely troubling on many levels. Let me start by saying that if FDA were going to undertake a good faith review of the extensive data confirming mifepristone's exceptional safety record, we would be all for that because actually FDA should take a closer look at its regulations on mifepristone and on the basis of mifepristone's exceptional safety record, lift its remaining medically unjustified and burdensome restrictions on mifepristone. That is what the nation's leading medical associations like the American Medical Association, like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have long been calling for the FDA to eliminate its uniquely burdensome and unjustified restrictions on this very safe and effective medication. But that is not what we expect to see here. And really, the tell is that this propaganda from this Project 2025 sponsor organization is the apparent motivation for the review. There is every reason to believe that this FDA review ordered by HHS Secretary Kennedy is a precursor to imposing greater nationwide restrictions on medication abortion that will severely reduce access everywhere in the country, including in states where abortion access is legally protected. We should be very, very concerned about the likely outcome here. And the other piece of it that I want to lift up is that Secretary Kennedy said at this hearing that it was going to be President Trump's decision ultimately whether the FDA changes its policy here. So, if we had any doubt that this was not going to be a review and a policy decision grounded in scientific expertise. There's no reason to doubt any longer because Secretary Kennedy told us this is going to be a political decision. In his words, it's going to come through the White House. We should all be very scared if our access to safe, effective FDA approved medications is based not on medical expertise, but on President Trump's gut instinct.

Jennie: I just, like, bigger than the abortion part, I just think of the loss of trust that this could cause. Like, people trust if things are FDA approved, that they are safe. And if they see this politicization, like, really seeping into the system... sorry, cat took out my notebook. It could present greater harms in the future.

Ushma: Yeah, I think what troubles me is that we're so focused on holding back, keeping the status quo when my energy as a researcher should be focused on studies that are proactive—that test, you know, gestational limit of 12 weeks and 13 weeks for medication abortion. We should be pushing the science forward, not replicating the same safety studies to show what we already know so that it's more current and that we could defend the currently overly restricted regulations on mifepristone. So, I worry that this is a distraction that's keeping us busy when we could be more proactive and make this medication even more accessible than it already is.

Jennie: I think the other thing I really worry about is what this would mean [for] access to care. So, like, if the FDA took action, I mean, there's a whole range of things they could do, but even putting back in place the in-person requirements, like, what this would mean for the system providing abortion right now.

Ushma: A lot of my research focuses on telehealth abortion. I just completed a very large study on the safety of telehealth abortion, and we found that the safety rate and the effectiveness rate was exactly the same as in-person care: 98% of people had a complete abortion, and then it was a quarter of 1% had a serious adverse event, even without any contact with an abortion provider and any in-person contact. And there's asynchronous telehealth care available now that many people prefer because it allows people autonomy and the ability to access this telehealth medical care through an app or online or while they're at work or while they are taking care of their children And in our study, in our research, we found that people who face the most health inequities, including younger people, people living on lower incomes, people living in rural areas, and those who lived further away from abortion clinics, were more likely to say that telehealth enabled them to have an abortion sooner and at all. So, it really made the difference for people who are most marginalized from health care.

Julia: Right now, more than 20% of all U.S. abortions are provided via telehealth with the patient receiving the medication by mail or at a local pharmacy. So, we are not talking about some small sliver of care. We are talking about potential agency action that would upend the way abortion care is delivered and across the country, and that's just focusing on the risk that the in-person pill pickup requirement will be reinstated. We do not know if the FDA is going to restrict which qualified healthcare professionals are permitted to prescribe this medication, whether they are going to withdraw approval for the generic version of mifepristone that comprises two-thirds of the market, or withdraw approval from mifepristone altogether. At this point, it seems like everything could be on the table. And so, the threat here is very grave.

Jennie: Okay. So, I don't like to end with just like, here's what's happening, and things are bad. Let's do a little bit of: what can our audience do? How can they get involved in the fight for some of this stuff?

Ushma: Well, Telehealth is really expanding access right now, as I mentioned previously. One thing we didn't talk about are shield laws that are in several states across the country that reduce legal risks for providers who offer telehealth abortion for people living in states with abortion bans. These have been critical to expanding access to enabling people to get abortion care and really it has been a lifesaver for so many people. And so, these providers, oftentimes people don't have the ability to pay for these abortion pills, as well as people who are traveling very long distances to obtain in-person care. So, I think the number one thing that people could do is support their local abortion funds, support abortion funds that help people living in banned states get connected to care. So, that is one thing.

Julia: Yeah, absolutely echo that supporting abortion funds is a critical way for folks to get involved, specifically on the question of the FDA's review and this threat of new nationwide restrictions on medication abortion. The FDA's decision here should be based purely on science, on the mountain of safety data that we have for mifepristone over 25 years. But it appears that it is instead going to be based on politics. So, I think this is a moment to make sure that your political representatives know where you stand on abortion access. That includes your members of Congress, President Trump, we need to be loud about how important it is to protect access to medication abortion. We should be calling our members of Congress and demanding that they do what they can to protect medication abortion access, to protect telehealth access, in particular to hold the FDA accountable and make sure that the FDA is following the science. And I want to just, again, state that what the FDA should be doing here is lifting medically unnecessary restrictions on this very safe and effective medication, not imposing greater barriers to care. The other thing I would encourage your listeners to do is sign up for the ACLU's volunteer network, which is called People Power. If you just Google ACLU and People Power, you will find a website there. And that is how we will connect you with opportunities to make your voice heard to agencies like HHS and FDA, to members of Congress. There are a variety of actions that we will be encouraging folks to take on abortion access, including and beyond medication abortion. And then you can also be tapped into the full range of work that the ACLU is doing at this critical moment, including with respect to trans justice and protecting access to gender affirming medical care, attacks on immigrants, on free speech, on so much more. So, People Power, ACLU, and we would love to have you as part of our community and action power.

Jennie: Well, Julia, Ushma, thank you so much for being here. It was so lovely to talk to both of you. 100%.

Julia: Thanks so much for having us, Jennie.

Ushma: Thank you. Thanks for addressing this topic. I think it's something that people should know about proactively, even before they hear what happens with the ongoing cases.

Jennie: Okay, y'all, I hope you enjoyed my conversation with Dr. Upadhyay and Julia. It was so great talking to them about everything happening around mifepristone right now. And with that, I will see everybody in two weeks. [music outro] If you have any questions, comments, or topics you would like us to cover, always feel free to shoot me an email. You can reach me at jennie@reprosfightback.com or you can find us on social media. We're at @RePROsFightBack on Facebook and Twitter or @reprosfb on Instagram. If you love our podcast and wanna make sure more people find it, take the time to rate and review us on your favorite podcast platform. Or if you wanna make sure to support the podcast, you can also donate on our website at reprosfightback.com. Thanks all!