In what can only be described as a moment of breathtaking cynicism, even for an administration known for its audacious power plays, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stood before a Senate committee this past Wednesday, May 14th, and casually announced a directive that threatens to unravel decades of established reproductive healthcare for millions. He has ordered the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to conduct a “complete review” of mifepristone, the safe, effective, and most commonly used medication for abortion in the United States.
Let no one be mistaken: this is not a benign bureaucratic procedure or a genuine inquiry into drug safety. This is a politically engineered assault, a Trojan horse designed to achieve a de facto nationwide restriction, if not an outright ban, on medication abortion. It is an act of profound disdain for scientific evidence, for women’s autonomy, and for the democratic process itself—an attempt to “sneak one past” Congress and the American people, who have consistently shown support for abortion access. The fury this action should ignite is not just warranted; it is essential. For too long, the public has been assured by figures like President Punk that he would not sign a nationwide legislative ban on abortion. Yet, this administrative gambit reveals a far more insidious strategy to achieve the same end through the backrooms of regulatory agencies, guided by extremist ideology rather than public will or medical science. And as this critical story arguably struggles to gain the sustained, top-tier mainstream media traction it demands, the danger of this administrative coup succeeding in the shadows only grows.
A Fig Leaf for a Foregone Conclusion
Secretary Kennedy’s justification for this sweeping FDA review hinges on a recently published report by the Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC), titled “The Abortion Pill Harms Women.” During his Senate testimony, Kennedy, echoing concerns raised by anti-abortion stalwart Senator Josh Hawley, called the EPPC’s findings “alarming” and declared that, “At very least, the label [for mifepristone] should be changed.”
But what is this EPPC report? It is not, as Kennedy implies, a groundbreaking piece of scientific research demanding urgent regulatory attention. Instead, as numerous medical experts, reproductive rights organizations, and even figures within the anti-abortion movement have pointed out, it is a piece of “bogus political ‘research’,” as California Governor Gavin Newsom aptly termed it. The EPPC, an organization with a long history of opposing reproductive rights and notably on the advisory board of Project 2025, claims its study is the “largest-known” on the abortion pill, analyzing insurance claims to find that nearly 11% of women using mifepristone experience a “serious adverse event.” This figure is wildly inflated compared to over two decades of extensive clinical data and real-world use by millions of women, which consistently show serious complications occur in less than one percent of cases.
The Society of Family Planning (SFP), among others, has eviscerated the EPPC paper’s methodology. It is not peer-reviewed (the EPPC dismisses peer review as “terribly biased against conservatives”). It fails to reveal the database used for its analysis, employs non-standard and misleading definitions of “hemorrhage” and “serious adverse event” (for example, counting routine ER visits for questions or to confirm an abortion is complete, contrary to FDA guidance), and its authors are openly anti-abortion. Even Dr. Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life OBGYNs, reportedly warned fellow anti-abortion leaders that the report is “not a study in the traditional sense” and “not conclusive proof of anything.” The SFP has urged the FDA to dismiss this “junk science” as “irrelevant to its regulatory decision-making.”
Yet, this is the document Secretary Kennedy is using to justify a “complete review.” The charade is made even more transparent by Kennedy’s own admission during the Senate hearing that any policy changes regarding mifepristone “will ultimately go through the White House.” This isn’t about science; it’s about a political directive from the top, with the FDA and its commissioner, Dr. Martin Makary (who himself has a documented history of anti-abortion views), expected to deliver a predetermined outcome. The irony, as Governor Newsom highlighted, is that Kennedy, just a day before demanding this medication review, told the Senate, “I don’t think people should be taking medical advice from me.” Apparently, that modesty doesn’t extend to imposing his administration’s ideology on the nation’s access to essential healthcare.
Forging Chains on Choice – No Legislation Required
The targeting of mifepristone is no accident. This medication, used in combination with misoprostol, accounts for over 60% of all abortions in the United States. Restricting its access is, therefore, a monumental blow to reproductive freedom nationwide. And the Punk administration, seemingly unwilling or unable to achieve this through Congress, has a bureaucratic arsenal at its disposal:
Weaponizing the FDA and its REMS Program: The FDA regulates mifepristone through a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS). Recognizing its safety, the FDA has, over years of evidence-based reviews, eased earlier, more burdensome REMS requirements. Most significantly, in January 2023, it permanently lifted the in-person dispensing requirement, allowing mifepristone to be prescribed via telehealth and sent through the mail, and permitting certified pharmacies to dispense it.
Secretary Kennedy’s “review” could easily become the pretext to roll back these crucial modernizations. Reinstating medically unnecessary demands for in-person doctor visits, prohibiting mail delivery, or limiting prescribing physicians would effectively shutter access for vast numbers of people—particularly those in rural areas, low-income individuals, women of color who already face systemic healthcare disparities, and anyone who cannot easily travel to one of the dwindling number of physical abortion clinics.
Resurrecting the Comstock Act – The Zombie Law: A more insidious and potentially far-reaching strategy, explicitly outlined in Project 2025 and championed by anti-abortion extremists, involves the reinterpretation and aggressive enforcement of the Comstock Act of 1873. This archaic anti-vice law prohibits the mailing of “every obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile article, matter, thing, device, or substance” and, crucially, “every article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.”
Should the Department of Justice, under political direction, choose to interpret this 150-year-old statute as a blanket ban on mailing abortion pills (and potentially even related supplies or information), it could effectively criminalize medication abortion by mail nationwide. This would impact every state, regardless of its own laws protecting abortion access, and all without a single congressional vote on the matter. A December 2022 DOJ Office of Legal Counsel opinion stated that Comstock does not prohibit mailing mifepristone if the sender does not intend the drugs to be used unlawfully. However, such legal opinions can be withdrawn or reversed by a new administration committed to a different interpretation.
The “Nuclear Option” – Revoking Mifepristone’s Approval: The most extreme goal pushed by some factions within the anti-abortion movement and echoed in Project 2025 recommendations is to pressure the FDA to entirely revoke its approval of mifepristone, a medication deemed safe and effective for over two decades. Such an action would be an unprecedented politicization of the FDA’s scientific drug approval process and would face immediate, massive legal opposition, but it remains a stated aim.
These administrative pathways represent a clear and present danger, a concerted effort to achieve through regulatory fiat what cannot be achieved through democratic legislative processes.
IProject 2025’s Fingerprints All Over
The actions and rhetoric emerging from HHS and its allies are not occurring in a vacuum. They align with chilling precision with the detailed playbook laid out in Project 2025, the nearly 1,000-page transition plan developed by the Heritage Foundation and a coalition of over 100 conservative organizations. This project provides a roadmap for a potential second Punk term, advocating for a radical reshaping of the federal government. It’s chapter on the Department of Health and Human Services explicitly calls for combating “abortion tourism,” cutting funds to states that support abortion access, and, critically, using the FDA to restrict access to drugs like mifepristone and exploring Comstock Act enforcement.
The reliance on the EPPC (a Project 2025 advisory organization) for the “evidence” to trigger an FDA review, Kennedy’s deference to White House direction, and the focus on administrative mechanisms rather than legislative ones, all bear the unmistakable fingerprints of this meticulously crafted, long-term strategy to roll back reproductive rights from the top down, using the full power of the executive branch.
A Betrayal of Promises and Democratic Norms
This administrative assault is made all the more galling by President Punk’s own past statements. While campaigning, he indicated that abortion should be an issue for the states and told TIME Magazine in December that it was “very unlikely” the FDA would do anything to further restrict abortion pills. The current strategy of using HHS and the FDA as tools to achieve a de facto nationwide restriction appears as a calculated deception, designed to circumvent his own public positions and the likely inability to pass a national legislative ban through a divided Congress.
This approach shows profound contempt for the democratic will. Public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans support legal access to abortion, particularly in the early stages of pregnancy, and oppose outright bans. To use the opaque processes of regulatory review and archaic law enforcement to impose an unpopular minority agenda is an affront to democratic principles, the separation of powers, and the expectation that federal agencies will operate on scientific evidence and public interest, not partisan directives.
Whose Lives, Which Bodies?
The real-world consequences of decimating access to medication abortion would be catastrophic, falling hardest on those already marginalized. But beyond the immediate impact on reproductive healthcare in the U.S., the underlying ethos of this administrative push invites a broader, deeply uncomfortable question about whose lives and whose bodily autonomy are truly valued.
As this furor over mifepristone unfolds in Washington, ostensibly under the banner of “safety” and implied concern for “babies,” we must not turn a blind eye to tragedies elsewhere. This very week, news emerged of Tzeela Gez, a 37-year-old, nine-months-pregnant Israeli mother of three, shot and killed by a Palestinian attacker in the West Bank. Her baby was barely saved. Hamas, despicably, praised the attack as “heroic.” This is a singular, horrific tragedy, yet it occurs within a geopolitical context where the U.S. provides substantial support to parties in long-standing conflicts where pregnant women and children are undeniably, and frequently, in harm’s way.
The stark juxtaposition is unavoidable for those who question the sincerity of the “pro-life” or “pro-woman” rhetoric used to justify abortion restrictions in the U.S. If the overriding concern was genuinely the universal sanctity of every mother and every potential life, one might expect a consistent level of moral outrage and policy focus across all contexts where they are endangered. The perceived selectivity—intense domestic efforts to control women’s reproductive choices, potentially using flawed science, while navigating complex international realities where women and children suffer with arguably less direct intervention aimed at their immediate protection from similar political quarters—fuels the powerful argument that the domestic agenda is less about universally “saving babies” and far more about controlling women’s bodies, their autonomy, and their fundamental right to make their own decisions about their lives and healthcare.
The Danger of the Unseen Attack
As these significant moves to restrict abortion access unfold through administrative channels, one must also ask: Is the full gravity of this situation receiving the urgent, sustained, and prominent mainstream media coverage it truly warrants? While specialized outlets and advocacy groups are sounding the alarm, there’s a danger that for the broader public, distracted by a deluge of other news, the technical and bureaucratic nature of a potential FDA review or a Comstock Act reinterpretation might not immediately register as the five-alarm fire it represents.
Complex administrative threats to fundamental rights can indeed be “snuck past the press” or, at least, past widespread public comprehension, if not consistently and clearly illuminated. If the full implications of this backdoor assault on abortion access are not made starkly apparent to every American, it allows a potentially devastating rollback of rights to proceed with far less public resistance than it deserves.
From Disdain and Fury to Unyielding Resistance
The unfolding situation around mifepristone is more than just another policy debate; it is an administrative coup in progress against reproductive freedom, scientific integrity, and democratic accountability. The use of a discredited report to trigger an FDA review, the stated intention to have the White House dictate scientific policy, and the looming threat of misusing the Comstock Act are tactics that should fill every American who values fairness, truth, and bodily autonomy with absolute fury and profound disdain.
This is not a time for quiet acquiescence. This is a moment that demands incandescent rage, channeled into focused, strategic, and unwavering resistance. We must demand transparency from HHS and the FDA. We must hold Secretary Kennedy, Commissioner Makary, and ultimately President Punk accountable for these actions. We must support the organizations on the front lines, legally challenging these assaults and providing care. We must amplify the voices of medical and scientific experts who attest to mifepristone’s safety. We must ensure our elected representatives in Congress understand that an administrative end-run around the legislative process on an issue of such fundamental importance is unacceptable.
The fight for reproductive freedom has entered a new, insidious phase, moving from legislative chambers to the bureaucratic trenches. If the goal is to control women’s bodies under the guise of procedure and obscure reinterpretations of archaic laws, then the response must be to drag these maneuvers into the brightest possible light and meet them with the full force of an informed, enraged, and mobilized public. Our fundamental rights are not negotiable, and they will not be stolen through the back door.
Impeach.
Convict.
Remove.
Discover more from Chronicle-Ledger-Tribune-Globe-Times-FreePress-News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
