Signed onto this letter asking for the restoration of strong, longstanding pro-life provisions in the Republican platform:

July 12, 2024 

Dear Republican National Convention Delegates: 

For the first time in decades, the Republican Platform retreats on life. Pro-life Americans are rightly outraged and gravely concerned. 

As drafted, the platform removes long-standing Republican promises on life, from prohibiting taxpayer funding for abortion to a Constitutional amendment to specific protections for unborn babies. 

Since 1976, the platform has supported a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution.

Since 1980, the platform has called for ending taxpayer funding for abortion. 

Since 1984, the platform has affirmed that the 14th Amendment already protects unborn children.  Beginning in 1996, the platform condemned partial-birth abortion. 

In 2004, language was added to protect babies born alive following failed abortions. 

In 2012, language was added to protect pain-capable babies. 

In 2016, language was added opposing federal funding for embryo harvesting. Since the Reagan Revolution, the party has spoken with an unambiguous voice – Republicans stand for life. 

Today, that promise has been watered down and ultimately compromised. As you gather in Milwaukee for the Republican National Convention, the eyes of conservatives across America are upon you. As delegates, ensuring a strong platform is your responsibility. You are the grassroots conservative leaders, entrusted by the conservatives of your states, to represent their values at the national level. 

This is the last opportunity to restore the Republican Party’s strong pro-life platform. You can restore the RNC’s pro-life platform. 

We encourage you to support the Platform Committee’s Minority Report, amendments that strengthen the pro-life resolve of the platform, and to vote down any platform that weakens the party’s pro-life stance.

Sincerely,

[List of signers]

Tuesday, May 7, 2024

OPINION:

With South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem now dogged by her own publicized poor judgment (“Noem defends her shooting of chicken-killing dog,” web, May 2), who should rise to the top of Donald Trump‘s vice presidential candidate shortlist? Former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo‘s experience, steadiness, faith and conservative principles make him the most qualified and reassuring choice.

Mr. Pompeo‘s resume includes a Harvard Law School degree and tax law experience, a U.S. Army career as a captain, entrepreneurial endeavors, a congressional career and loyal service as the former president’s Central Intelligence Agency director and secretary of state.

The choice of Mr. Pompeo would reassure the pro-life and evangelical communities that Mr. Trump‘s second administration will have a strong voice urging support for the value of human life and protection of religious freedom. Mr. Trump and Mr. Pompeo can hammer home the fact that Democrats insist on legalizing abortion right up to the point of birth — a position deplored by most Americans and adopted by only a handful of countries, including China, Vietnam and North Korea.

Choosing Mr. Pompeo would prove both principled and pragmatic, as it would solidify and energize the former president’s base while attracting independents who value experience, stability and strength in foreign affairs at a time when our adversaries are advancing.

Mr. Pompeo‘s solid conservative credentials would reassure ideological conservatives that a second Trump term would steer our careening nation back toward limited government, fiscal responsibility, a strong national defense and judicial constitutional restraint.

While coalescing conservatives and the faith community on whom his election depends, choosing Mr. Pompeo would provide Mr. Trump with a Renaissance man upon whom to depend for counsel and support.

JONATHAN IMBODY

Mechanicsville, Virginia

 

March 29, 2024

Clinton abused powers on abortion drug

COMMENTARY

OPINION:

While the Supreme Court analyzes the technical legal standing of pro-life doctors to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the chemical abortion pill mifepristone, the case holds the potential to highlight the health dangers to women posed by the drug and its politically prompted approval (“Supreme Court justices weigh rolling back use of the abortion pill,” Web, March 26).

When I worked with these doctors and pro-life advocates in 2002 to help draft the original “Citizen Petition” complaint against the FDA‘s politically tainted fast-tracking of the drug, we noted that the “FDA's violation of its standards and rules have put women’s health and lives at risk.” We detailed how the FDA waived its own rules in fast-tracking the drug (such as not requiring testing on minors). The FDA also developed a drug regimen inconsistent with clinical trials. Transvaginal ultrasounds that can date a pregnancy and rule out dangerous ectopic pregnancies, for example, while employed in the U.S. clinical trial, were not required under the FDA's regimen.

We also revealed the intense lobbying for the drug by the Clinton administration, first to bring what was then a French abortion pill to the U.S. and then to fast-track its approval by the FDA.

We highlighted the disturbing fact that “President Clinton reportedly wrote to [French abortion pill manufacturer] Hoechst asking the company to file a new drug application with the FDA—an unprecedented situation in the pharmaceutical industry—which Hoechst intransigently refused to do.” Undeterred, the Clinton administration, with Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala leading the campaign, worked feverishly to get the drug’s patent rights transferred to an American company, which then hired a Chinese manufacturer to produce the drug.

Ultimately, the FDA illegitimately and perversely deployed Subpart H—a fast-track mechanism developed for rapid approval of drugs for life-threatening illnesses such as HIV—to approve a life-ending abortion drug.

Whatever the court decides regarding the legal standing of pro-life doctors in this lawsuit, nothing will change the dangers posed by the drug to women or the dangers posed to the American public by a politicized FDA.

JONATHAN IMBODY

Mechanicsville, Virginia

 

The evidence of the elite leftists' domination agenda is everywhere

In her insightful editorial, "Stupidity of Nobel laureates (and the White House)," Kelly Sadler succinctly summarizes the cause of runaway government spending and inflation: $6 trillion in stimulus resulting in "too much money chasing too few goods" and also the solution: cut spending and taxes and deregulate.

In the face of disastrous results, why do Biden and his elite Nobel laureates remain wedded to profligate spending and massive government? Because they want to dominate the rest of us as a ruling elite, as modern philosopher-kings. 

Unable to obtain such dominance as individuals or through persuasion, elitist leftists plot to do so collectively, through coercion--as leaders of a de facto authoritarian government.

The evidence of the elite leftists' domination agenda is everywhere:

Rage over the pending reversal of Roe reveals the coercive character of the left

The abortion battle goes to the heart of a democratic republic and highlights a dark side of human nature.

Abortion activists for nearly half a century have relied upon the Supreme Court to silence the opposition, coerce the country and block all efforts to stanch the bloodshed of 60 million innocents. Their tyrannical rage exploded after a leaked draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson signaled the overturning of the 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision, returning the issue to democratic debate and constitutional federalism.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer immediately invoked biblical language in a scathing statement: "The Republican-appointed Justices’ reported votes to overturn Roe v. Wade would go down as an abomination…."

The pro-abortion group Ruth Sent Us proclaimed, "We’ll be burning the Eucharist to show our disgust for the abuse Catholic Churches have condoned for centuries."

Biden's Catechetical Dementia

Edited and published in The Federalist, April 27, 2022. Original version is below:

How the administration's abortion ideology-driven assault on faith and conscience threatens care for millions of needy individuals

By Jonathan Imbody[i]

The year is 2024, and the Biden administration's assault on conscience freedoms has taken a tragic toll on the healthcare landscape.

Since the 2022 elimination of U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) conscience protections for health professionals, government-sanctioned discrimination has driven out of medicine persons of faith and pro-life convictions, accelerating and exacerbating the long-predicted physician shortage crisis. The shortage leaves millions of patients, especially the poor and marginalized, without the faith-based care on which they had depended.

From medical students to doctors to hospitals and clinics, no one who hews to Hippocratic or Judeo-Christian ethics can survive the administration's ideological purge of healthcare.

Biden, abortion and conscience

Published by The Washington Times, April 20, 2022

If you are a health professional who follows the Hippocratic oath's proscription against abortion, should a government-funded hospital be allowed to coerce you to participate in abortions against your professional ethics and personal conscience?

Nurse Cathy DeCarlo faced just such coercion, despite her agreement with a hospital that she would not participate in abortions, due to her moral and ethical conscience convictions. The fateful day came when hospital supervisors suddenly demanded she participate in an upcoming abortion, threatening her with a charge of insubordination and abandoning her patient if she refused.

“They threatened my job and my nursing license if I did not take part in the murder of that baby. I felt violated and betrayed," Cathy recalls. Forced to count the body parts of the baby torn apart during the abortion, she says, "It was like something out of a horror film."

Weighing the interests of mother and baby

Justice Brett Kavanaugh (left) sworn in.

The Supreme Court of the United States held oral arguments on December 1 on a landmark case (Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health) that challenges the infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.

Mississippi's Attorney General, defending that state's law that bans abortions after 15 weeks, argued that the states and the people--not the nine justices of the Supreme Court--should decide how to handle abortion, given that the US Constitution does not enumerate a right to abortion. The abortion industry and its allies in the Biden administration leaned heavily on the legal doctrine of stare decisis, arguing that women have come to depend on Roe and therefore the precedent cannot be overturned without decimating the Court's legitimacy. Mississippi countered that following the Constitution--and responsibly correcting an error such as Roe in interpreting the Constitution--preserves rather than destroys the Court's integrity.

Biden's catechetical dementia on Hyde

President Biden's recently released budget request to Congress reveals the self-professed Catholic's catechetical dementia regarding the sanctity of human life.

Besides squandering our children's inheritance with a reality-detached spending spree, Biden's budget also kills several longstanding life-protecting provisions he previously supported, such as the Hyde Amendment, which bans the use of our taxpayer dollars for most elective abortions.

Passed every year since 1976 on a bipartisan basis and backed by a solid majority of Americans, Hyde provides that "None of the funds appropriated in this Act … shall be expended for any abortion." The amendment, long a demilitarized zone in the abortion war, provides for exceptions in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother.

Joe Biden's evolution from protecting to killing Hyde illustrates how a lifetime of moral compromise eventually darkens the mind and sears the soul.

Why some conservatives are vaccine ‘hesitant’

Published in The Washington Post, April 26, 2021

Regarding the April 21 Politics & the Nation article “ ‘I’m still a zero’: A warning from vaccine skeptics.”:

Conservatives who value limited government, federalism and checks on individual power will disdain what they view as vaccination propaganda from partisan politicians who have used the pandemic as a blatant power grab. Trump supporters won’t abide vaccination rhetoric of public health officials such as Anthony S. Fauci, who publicly dissed President Donald Trump.

Conservatives also respect conscience convictions. While I have received the Moderna vaccine and have written of ethical and practical reasons for taking the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, I understand the apprehensions of conservative colleagues who voice concerns about the use of a fetal cell line in testing, the new mRNA technology and the lack of longitudinal studies.

Conservative vaccine resisters view the “impending doom” pandemic rhetoric of this administration as alarmist, manipulative, condescending and coercive. Some, however, may still respond to respectful, common-sense messages from trusted faith leaders and local health experts who can reasonably and transparently lay out the risks of coronavirus vaccination vs. infection.

Jonathan Imbody

The writer is a federal policy analyst for the Christian Medical Association.

The Equality Act would trample on doctors' religious freedom

Published in The Washington Examiner

by Jonathan Imbody  | March 29, 2021

Imagine you are a family physician who entered medical school motivated by the teachings of your faith: to help and bring healing to others.

In medical school, you determined to adhere to the "do no harm" ethical bedrock of the Hippocratic oath: "I will use treatment to help the sick, according to my ability and judgment, but I will never use it to injure or wrong them."

Throughout your medical career, you have treated all your patients with compassion and respect, and you have followed scientific evidence in exercising medical judgment.

But then, one fateful day, the radical federal Equality Act takes effect nationwide.

The "Equality Act" will erase religious freedom and medical judgment

 

The U.S. Congress has taken one step closer to ending religious protections—and medical judgment for health professionals—on gender issues, by passing the Equality Act by a largely partisan vote in the House of 224 – 206.

This radical legislation, a top priority of the Biden administration and the Democrat party that controls Congress, would literally remove religious freedom protections on gender issues and replace medical judgment with governmental coercion regarding treatment of children and adult patients experiencing gender dysphoria.

The Christian Medical Association (CMA), which has been fighting in court to strike down a similarly coercive Obama-era transgender mandate, outlined reasons for opposing the Equality Act in a letter to Members of Congress.

Biden reverses life-affirming policies

From U.S. House of Representatives pro-life advocates, a sad summary of damage to life-affirming policies done by President Biden in his first 10 days of office:

On Jan. 28, President Joe Biden issued a memorandum that rescinded the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance (PLGHA) policy, directed the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to consider rescinding the Protect Life (Title X) Rule, channeled money to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), directed the United States to withdraw from the Geneva Consensus Declaration, and emphasized federal foreign assistance for “sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights.”  The White House fact sheet may be viewed here.

Federal court strikes down transgender mandate, protects medical judgment and conscience

 A federal court has provided protections for physicians committed to following medical evidence and conscience convictions regarding the transgender and gender-questioning patients for whom they care.

The U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota has struck down an Obama-era rule that would have nixed physicians' considerations of conscience and medical judgment on transgender procedures and prescriptions. Becket, the legal firm representing the plaintiffs in the case--an order of Catholic nuns, a Catholic university, and Catholic healthcare organizations--describes the victory in a press release below.

Becket also represents the Christian Medical & Dental Associations (CMDA) and a Catholic health entity in a different federal court in a similar case, Franciscan Alliance v. Azar.

Policy versus politics: A retrospect and prognosis

A physician member of the Christian Medical Associations (CMA) recently asked me for a perspective on the tragic temporary takeover of the U.S. Capitol and the role of politicians before and after that tumultuous event.

The physician's email began, "I’m so saddened by this incident and so appalled…."

I've been asked to share the response to that physician more widely, so my edited response is below, followed by some thoughts on public policy ministry, the past four years and the next four years.

Thoughts on the Capitol takeover and surrounding events

I responded to the physician's concern and request for perspective about the Capitol takeover and surrounding politics as follows:

Dr. Fauci reveals his true political colors as an abortion advocate

If you've ever wondered where Dr. Anthony Fauci is politically, or exactly how "unifying" the Biden administration plans to be on abortion, read Fauci's 1/21/21 comments below on abortion.

Fauci delivered these remarks as President Biden's newly appointed representative to the World Health Organization (WHO). The previous administration withdrew U.S. funding from WHO, charging that the organization lied about the Coronavirus due to its entanglement with the Chinese Communist Party.

New Jersey flirts with radical abortion bill

The Washington Examiner recently published my Op-ed on a horrible New Jersey abortion-promoting bill:

With recent appointments to the Supreme Court nudging the institution away from judicial activism and toward an originalist view of interpreting the Constitution, some state lawmakers supported by the abortion industry are panicking.

U.S. sends shot across bow of UN, WHO with multilateral, pro-life health declaration

HHS Sec. Alex Azar joined Sec. of State Mike Pompeo
at the Geneva Consensus Declaration signing ceremony.

"At stake in this battle is the funding and prevalence of abortion, influencing societal views on abortion and securing or losing conscience freedom for pro-life healthcare professionals."

By Jonathan Imbody

At a signing ceremony in Washington, DC on October 22, 2020, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Alex Azar laid out a multilateral agreement that sends a clear message to the United Nations and the World Health Organization: Stop pressuring countries to submit to a radical abortion agenda and focus instead on consensus global health issues.

Led by the United States and now joined by 31 other countries, the Geneva Consensus Declaration lays down four pillars of priorities for international healthcare programs:

1.      improving women's health;

2.      preserving human life;

3.      strengthening the family; and

4.      protecting national sovereignty.

The Declaration asserts, for example, that:

·         "there is no international right to abortion, nor any international obligation on the part of States to finance or facilitate abortion;"

·         "in no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning;"

·         "the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State;" and

·         "motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance."

Christian health professionals laud the Declaration

In a Christian Medical and Dental Associations news release heralding the Declaration, Senior VP for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows noted, "As an obstetrician, I especially appreciate the Declaration's dual emphasis on mother and child. The Declaration reaffirms both that 'motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.' It also notes that 'the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth' and that 'special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children,' based on the principle of the best interest of the child.'

"Countries must learn to work together on consensus global health issues," Barrows continued, "rather than fight each other on ideological disagreements. Working together on consensus health issues, we can maximize our health resources and programs that will benefit all women while respecting the dignity of every person."

Declaration counters UN, WHO abortion activism and agenda

The Geneva statement reflects the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy of the United States. According to HHS, the policy "negotiates health policy at multilateral settings where policies are debated and set, like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UN)." Activists within both the UN and WHO have vociferously advocated for abortion on demand, reportedly pressuring countries behind the scenes with the threat of loss of funding and standing should they fail to enact the pro-abortion agenda into laws.

In April this year, President Trump yanked hundreds of millions of dollars in U.S. funding of the WHO, saying the agency had put "political correctness over lifesaving measures."

In September this year, the President declared in a speech to the UN General Assembly, "My administration is advancing religious liberty … and protecting unborn children."

That pro-abortion activism and agenda falls well outside the founding mandates of these organizations. Often ignoring the cultural and religious values of many countries, the abortion advocacy of these agencies and ideologically aligned countries also diverts funding and energy from addressing solvable health problems on which there is universal agreement.

Abortion activism undermines action on solvable health problems

As I noted in the press release, "When surveyed on women's global health, our members serving in medical missions around the world have overwhelmingly agreed that 'Rather than advocating for abortion rights, the international health community, governments and international bodies should instead focus energy, time and resources on meeting women's health needs for which there is widespread agreement regarding strategies.'

"They also overwhelmingly agree with the statement, 'Abortion rights advocacy by some governments, world health and other international bodies is detracting attention and resources from women's health needs on which there is widespread agreement.'

"Instead, these medical missionaries say that efforts should focus on addressing solvable women's health issues such as maternal health, pregnancy complications, malaria and sexually transmitted diseases."

International abortion policies impact US policies and conscience freedoms

This international battle over abortion and health priorities is vitally important, not just for overseas patients and health professionals and institutions, but also for patients and pro-life health professionals and institutions in the United States. The international abortion movement (a) exerts significant pressure on U.S. policymakers to conform to "world opinion"; (b) reinforces the activism of U.S. abortion advocates; and (c) validates the policy agendas of pro-abortion U.S. politicians.

Because this battle impacts the funding and prevalence of abortion, influences societal views on abortion and threatens conscience freedom for pro-life healthcare professionals, it merits our effective engagement.

What can I do?

1.      Pray that God would:

a.       combat the invisible spiritual forces of darkness and death;

b.      increase and strengthen pro-life influence in international agencies; and

c.       turn the hearts of the mothers and fathers in our own nation back to Him and His Kingdom principles.

2.      Vote and advocate for pro-life candidates for office. Visit our Freedom2Care website to register to vote and to see who are your candidates.

3.      Urge policymakers in the White House, Congress and federal agencies to keep policies such as Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance that prevent U.S. funds from propping up the abortion industry overseas. (Sign up for Freedom2Care updates, to receive action opportunities as they arise.)

To learn more

·         HHS main page on Geneva Consensus Declaration:  www.hhs.gov/Declaration   

·         Text of the Declaration:  https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/geneva-consensus-declaration-english.pdf

·         HHS Press Release:  https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/10/22/trump-administration-marks-signing-geneva-consensus-declaration.html

·         CMDA Press Release: https://cmda.org/pressrelease/christian-medical-association-lauds-us-signing-of-geneva-consensus-declaration/

·         Remarks by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and HHS Secretary Alex Azar:  https://www.state.gov/secretary-michael-r-pompeo-with-secretary-alex-m-azar-ii-at-the-signing-ceremony-of-the-geneva-consensus-declaration/

·         News Article:  https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/oct/22/us-joins-global-declaration-disavowing-abortion-hu/

 

Christian Medical Association lauds US signing of Geneva Consensus Declaration, stresses need to focus on consensus global health issues

U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo highlighted
the pro-life, pro-family precepts in the Declaration.

Bristol, TN—October 22, 2020—The nation's largest faith-based medical organization, the 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org), today heralded the signing of a multilateral agreement on consensus global health issues, following a signing ceremony cohosted by U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar.

CMA Senior VP for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, an Ob-Gyn, said, "The four pillars of the Geneva Consensus Declaration—improving women's health, preserving human life, strengthening the family and protecting national sovereignty--provide a noble framework for consensus global engagement on women's health issues.

"As an obstetrician, I especially appreciate the Declaration's dual emphasis on mother and child. The Declaration reaffirms both that 'motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance.' It also notes that 'the child… needs special safeguards and care… before as well as after birth' and that 'special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children,' based on the principle of the best interest of the child.'

"Countries must learn to work together on consensus global health issues rather than fight each other on ideological disagreements. Working together on consensus health issues, we can maximize our health resources and programs that will benefit all women while respecting the dignity of every person."

The Geneva statement reflects the Protecting Life in Global Health Assistance policy of the United States.

CMA Director of Federal Government Relations Jonathan Imbody noted, "We appreciate the commitment of Secretaries Pompeo and Azar to achieving the goals outlined in the Geneva Consensus Declaration, and the vital work behind the scenes by many such as Valerie Huber, HHS's Special Representative for Global Women’s Health, that made this event possible.

"When surveyed on women's global health, our members serving in medical missions around the world have overwhelmingly agreed that 'Rather than advocating for abortion rights, the international health community, governments and international bodies should instead focus energy, time and resources on meeting women's health needs for which there is widespread agreement regarding strategies.'

"They also overwhelmingly agree with the statement, 'Abortion rights advocacy by some governments, world health and other international bodies is detracting attention and resources from women's health needs on which there is widespread agreement.'

"Instead, these medical missionaries say that efforts should focus on addressing solvable women's health issues such as maternal health, pregnancy complications, malaria and sexually transmitted diseases."

CMA doctors denounce judge's injunction against FDA safety precautions on abortion pill as a "pyrrhic victory" for abortion advocates

July 20, 2020—Bristol, TN: Today the 18,000-member Christian Medical Association (CMA, www.cmda.org) denounced an injunction issued by a federal district court judge that bars the FDA from enforcing health and safety precautions on a chemical abortion pill during the pandemic.

Dr. Jeffrey Barrows, an Ob-Gyn and CMA's Senior Vice President for Bioethics and Public Policy, said, "The judge handed pro-abortion forces a pyrrhic victory at the cost of women’s health and lives. The reason the FDA placed a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) on mifepristone is that since its approval, 24 women have died from various complications including infection and internal hemorrhage.

"Since mifepristone was approved in 2000, 97 women have been documented with a pregnancy outside the womb--a life-threatening situation. I know from personal experience that these abnormal pregnancies are difficult to diagnose and require in-person consultation and examination. Prescription through telemedicine will hamper the ability to diagnose these abnormal pregnancies."

A federal district court judge for the District of Maryland on July 13 issued a preliminary injunction blocking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) enforcement for the “Elements to Assure Safe Use” in the Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for the chemical abortion pill mifepristone. The injunction allows mifepristone to be dispensed after telemedicine consult by clinics, medical offices, and hospitals via mail or delivery service and applies until thirty days after the end of the COVID-19 public health emergency.  

This injunction comes after Rep. Bob Latta (R-OH) and Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS) led 38 Senators and 121 House Members in a bicameral letter urging FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn to enforce the REMS.

The letter noted, "Unfortunately, there are some who seek to exploit this time of crisis to push for the weakening or overturning of critical Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) associated with medication abortion drugs, which would put women at significant risk."

The Congressional letter also highlighted that "research proves that as many as five to seven percent of women who take abortion drugs will require follow-up surgery, and three percent could end up in the emergency room. Self-managed abortions from home are especially dangerous; in fact, half of abortion providers do not consider them safe."

The Members of Congress had urged Hahn "to continue to robustly enforce the REMS for medication abortion....”