Sarah McCammon on Reproductive Rights in the U.S.

>>> ANY DAY NOW, A JUDGE IN THE UNITED STATES IS GOING TO DECIDE WHETHER AN ABORTION PILL WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR YEARS SHOULD BE COMPLETELY BANNED IN THE UNITED STATES.

IF SO, CRITICS SAY THAT 40 MILLION WOMEN WOULD LOSE ACCESS TO THE DRUG MIFEPRISTONE.

THAT'S ON TOP OF THE NEARLY 25 MILLION WOMEN ALREADY LIVING IN STATES WITH ABORTION BANS.

LAST WEEK, WYOMING BECAME THE FIRST U.S. STATE TO CRIMINALIZE THE PRESCRIPTION AND THE SALE OF ABORTION PILLS WITH A MAXIMUM SIX-MONTH PRISON SENTENCE.

NPR REPORTER SARAH McCAMMON JOINS HARI SREENIVASAN TO DISCUSS THE FATE OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS IN AMERICA.

>> CHRISTIANE, THANKS.

SARAH McCAMMON, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

EXPLAIN FOR THE AUDIENCE, BEFORE WE GET INTO WHERE THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL LANDSCAPE IS OVER REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS RIGHT NOW, THE FOCUS SEEM TO BE ON THE PILLS THAT PREVENT PREGNANCY FROM TAKING HOLD.

WHAT DO THESE PILLS DO?

>> RIGHT, AND THAT'S FOR GOOD REASON.

YOU KNOW, MEDICATION ABORTION IS THE DOMINANT FORM OF ABORTION IN THIS COUNTRY TODAY, SO IT IS A BIG FOCUS.

AND THE PRIMARY MECHANISM THAT'S USED IN THE UNITED STATES IN ABOUT 98% OF MEDICATION ABORTIONS, ACCORDING TO THE GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE, INVOLVES A TRO-DRUG PROTOCOL.

THE FIRST DRUG IS THE ONE THAT'S THE FOCUS OF A LOT OF ATTENTION, THE FOCUS OF A FEDERAL LAWSUIT.

IT'S CALLED MIFEPRISTONE.

THOSE REMEMBER BACK TO THE YEAR 2000 REMEMBER, RU-486.

IT'S ONE AND THE SAME.

IT'S A PRO-JESTER OWN BLOCKER.

WHICH IS ESSENTIAL FOR PREGNANCY TO DEVELOP.

AFTER THAT DRUG IS TAKEN, THERE'S A SECOND PILLED THAT HELPS SORT OF BRING ON ESSENTIALLY A CHEMICALLY INDUCED MISCARRIAGE.

BUT MIFEPRISTONE, USING THAT COMBINATION IS MORE EFFECTIVE THAN ANY OTHER PROTOCOL, MOST DOCTORS WOULD SAY.

AND IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE GOLD STANDARD IN THE UNITED STATES.

SO THE FIGHT OVER THAT PILL IS REALLY -- IT'S A LARGER FIGHT.

IT'S ABOUT ACCESS TO ABORTION, OF COURSE.

>> RIGHT.

SO, YOU KNOW, SO MUCH OF THE ATTENTION WAS ABOUT WHERE WOMEN COULD GO TO GET A MEDICAL ABORTION, WHICH STATES WERE ALLOWING THAT, AND NOW IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT THIS IS HOW THE BULK OF ABORTIONS ACTUALLY HAPPEN, THROUGH THESE PILLS, IT SEEMS STRATEGICALLY MORE IMPORTANT TO EITHER OUTLAW OR TO PROTECT ACCESS TO THAT SPECIFIC MEDICATION.

>> RIGHT, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROTOCOL, THE DRUG APPROVED BY THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION REQUIRES A HEALTH CARE PROVIDER TO PRESCRIBE IT, TO CONSULT EITHER IN PERSON OR NOW, THANKS TO SOME RULE CHANGES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, OVER TELEHEALTH WITH THE PATIENT, MAKE SURE SHE UNDERSTANDS THINGS LIKE HOW FAR ALONG SHE IS IN THE PREGNANCY, WHEN HER MENSTRUAL -- WHERE SHE IS IN HER CYCLE BECAUSE THOSE ARE IMPORTANT FOR A SAFE MEDICATION ABORTION.

BUT WHAT'S ALSO HAPPENING IS THAT THROUGH OTHER MEANS, SOMETIMES THROUGH ONLINE PHARMACIES OR ONLINE PROVIDERS, PEOPLE ARE ALSO GETTING THESE PILLS IN OTHER WAYS, SOMETIMES FROM OVERSEAS.

THE FOCUS OF THE FEDERAL LITIGATION THAT I'VE BEEN COVERING LATELY IS REALLY THIS FDA-APPROVED PROTOCOL.

AND I GUESS ONE OTHER THING THAT'S WORTH UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IF YOU'RE IN A STATE WHERE ABORTION IS ILLEGAL, YOU KNOW, HAVING A DOCTOR PRESCRIBE AN ABORTION PILL IS ALSO GOING TO BE ILLEGAL.

BUT OFTEN EASIER FOR PEOPLE TO TRAVEL, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ACROSS THE STATE LINE, PICK UP AN ABORTION PILL, AND SOON AFTER GO BACK HOME.

IT MIGHT BE PREFERABLE FOR SOME PATIENTS TO DO THAT THAN TO SCHEDULE A SURGICAL PROCEDURE.

AND IT ALSO JUST SORT OF EXPANDS THE BANDWIDTH, SO TO SPEAK, OF WHAT PROVIDERS CAN OFFER THEIR PATIENTS BECAUSE IF THEY'RE JUST LIMITED TO SURGICAL PROCEDURES, WELL, THAT REQUIRES ROOMS.

THAT REQUIRES A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PROVIDERS, AND IT'S JUST -- IT'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF RESOURCES THAT'S NEEDED.

>> SO IF THIS WAS ALREADY ILLEGAL IN THE STATES THAT ARE BANNING ABORTIONS OUTRIGHT, WHY WERE THE HEADLINES ABOUT WYOMING LAST WEEK SO BIG?

>> WELL, THE KEY DIFFERENCE WITH WYOMING IS THAT THIS IS THE FIRST STATE LAW, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT SPECIFICALLY TARGETS ABORTION PILLS, MEDICATION ABORTION.

IN STATES LIKE TEXAS AND MANY OTHERS, WHERE THERE ARE LAYERS OF ABORTION RESTRICTIONS PROHIBITING, YOU KNOW, VIRTUALLY ALL ABORTIONS FOR ALMOST ANY REASON, MEDICATION ABORTION WOULD FALL UNDER THAT, SO IT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN A BAN.

BUT THIS WYOMING LAW SPECIFICALLY FOCUSES ON ABORTION PILLS.

SO THAT'S THE BIG DIFFERENCE.

THE OTHER LIMITATION THAT HAS EXISTED EVEN BEFORE THE FALL OF ROE V. WADE WITH THE DOBBS DECISION LAST YEAR IS THAT SOME STATES WILL NOT ALLOW ABORTION PILLS TO BE PRESCRIBED OVER TELEHEALTH.

THAT IS AN OPTION THAT GROUPS LIKE THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS HAVE PUSHED FOR AND SAY IT CAN BE DONE VERY SAFELY IF PATIENTS UNDERSTAND, AGAIN, WHERE THEY ARE IN THEIR CYCLES AND SO FORTH AND IF DOCTORS PROVIDE ADEQUATE INFORMATION.

BUT THAT LIMITATION, NOT ALLOWING THE PRESCRIPTION OVER TELEHEALTH, I THINK OBVIOUSLY MAKES IT MUCH HARDER TO GET THESE PILLS BECAUSE THEN A PATIENT STILL HAS TO GO IN PERSON TO A PROVIDER AND MEET WITH THEM, MUCH AS THEY WOULD FOR A SURGICAL PROCEDURE.

>> YOU AND I ARE TALKING ON A TUESDAY MORNING, AND THERE'S A CHANCE THAT THIS STORY COULD CHANGE BY THE TIME THAT OUR AUDIENCE SEES THIS ON THE AIR.

THE CASE THAT YOU HAVE BEEN FOLLOWING, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT.

WHAT IS THE SORT OF CORE CHALLENGE HERE THAT'S IN FRONT OF A JUDGE?

>> SO LAST YEAR, LATE LAST YEAR, A GROUP OF ANTI-ABORTION HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS AND GROUPS, SO A COALITION THAT OPPOSES ABORTION RIGHTS, CAME TOGETHER AND FILED A LAWSUIT IN AMARILLO, TEXAS, IN FEDERAL COURT, CHALLENGING THE FDA'S APPROVAL OF MIFEPRISTONE, WHICH AGAIN GOES ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE YEAR 2000.

THEY'RE CHALLENGING SOME OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF HOW THAT DRUG WAS APPROVED AND SOME OF THE SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS BY THE FDA THAT HAVE FOLLOWED, THINGS LIKE MAKING IT EASIER TO MAIL ABORTION PILLS AND PRESCRIBE THEM REMOTELY, OKAY?

SO THE FOCUS IS ASKING THIS JUDGE TO OVERTURN THE FDA APPROVAL.

THESE GROUPS -- A FULL WIN FOR THEM WOULD BE SEEING MIFEPRISTONE COMPLETELY REMOVED FROM THE MARKET PERHAPS THROUGH A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION.

ANOTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW ABOUT THIS SPECIFIC CASE IS THAT THE JUDGE INVOLVED, JUDGE MATTHEW KAZ MARIC, IS A TRUMP APPOINTEE.

HE WAS APPOINTED BY FORMER PRESIDENT TRUMP, HAS A LONG TRACK RECORD OF CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISM AND ALLIANCES WITH CONSERVATIVE RELIGIOUS GROUPS.

HE WORKED FOR A CHRISTIAN LEGAL FIRM IN TEXAS FOR SOME TIME BEFORE HE BECAME A JUDGE.

AND JUST LAST YEAR, HE RULED IN FAVOR OF A CHRISTIAN FATHER FROM TEXAS, WHO SUED CHALLENGING ESSENTIALLY ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL FOR MINORS THROUGH THE FEDERAL TITLE 10 FAMILY PLANNING PROGRAM.

THIS MAN SAYS BECAUSE OF HIS CHRISTIAN FAITH, HE OBJECTED TO HIS TEENAGE DAUGHTERS POTENTIALLY HAVING THE ABILITY TO GET BIRTH CONTROL WITHOUT HIS KNOWLEDGE OR CONSENT.

AND JUDGE KACSMARYK SIDED WITH HIM.

SO THIS JUDGE HAS, AGAIN, A LONG CONSERVATIVE RECORD AND A LOT OF PEOPLE ACCUSE THE PLAINTIFFS IN THIS CASE OF JUDGE SHOPPING AND SPECIFICALLY CHOOSING HIS COURT, HOPING FOR A FAVORABLE RULING FROM HIM.

IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN EXACTLY HOW HE WILL RULE.

BUT IF HE WERE TO ISSUE A NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION, THAT COULD EITHER IMMEDIATELY OR PERHAPS THROUGH A SERIES OF PROCEDURES THAT THE FDA WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW LEAD TO THIS PILL BECOMING MUCH, MUCH MORE DIFFICULT TO GET ACCESS TO FOR ABORTION, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

>> IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, IT'S NOT THE SAFETY OF THE PILL.

THAT'S NOT BEING CHALLENGED.

IT'S HOW THE FDA APPROVED THIS PILL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IT'S KIND OF BOTH.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I WANT TO STRESS THAT MAJOR MEDICAL GROUPS LIKE THE AMA, THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBST OBSTETRICIANS AND GYNECOLOGISTS POINT TO YEARS AND YEARS OF STUDIES.

THIS DRUG HAS NOW BEEN ON THE MARKET MORE THAN 20 YEARS.

IT'S BEEN USED BY SOME 5 MILLION PATIENTS, AND IT HAS A VERY STRONG SAFETY RECORD ACCORDING TO THESE HEALTH EXPERTS.

BUT THE PLAINTIFFS, THE ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS WHO BROUGHT THIS CASE, ARE POINTING TO SOME OF THE SIDE EFFECTS THAT DO OCCUR.

AND, YOU KNOW, JUST TO SORT OF STEP BACK FOR A SECOND, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A DRUG THAT INDUCES ESSENTIALLY A MISCARRIAGE.

SO THERE ARE SIDE EFFECTS.

THERE ARE CRAMPING AND BLEEDING.

THAT'S KIND OF THE INTENTION OF THE DRUG, RIGHT?

AND SOME WOMEN EXPERIENCE MORE SEVERE SIDE EFFECTS THAN OTHERS.

SOME NEED FOLLOW-UP CARE FROM THEIR DOCTORS.

FROM MY REPORTING I UNDERSTAND THAT SOMETIMES THAT'S JUST REASSURANCE THAT THIS IS NORMAL, THIS IS PART OF THE PROCESS, AND THAT MIGHT REQUIRE TAKING, YOU KNOW, SOME IBUPROFEN OR USING A HEATING PAD.

OTHER PEOPLE WILL HAVE COMPLICATIONS AND WILL REQUIRE ADDITIONAL FOLLOW-UP CARE, SOMETIMES EVEN A SURGICAL PROCEDURE TO COMPLETE THE ABORTION.

BUT ALL OF THAT IS SORT OF WITHIN A RANGE OF THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN AND THAT HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS, OBGYNs ARE GENERALLY PREPARED TO DEAL WITH.

>> LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE POLITICS OF THE CASE HERE.

WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE WAY THAT THE CASE IS BEING PLAYED OUT THAT GIVES PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE OR OF THIS ISSUE GREAT CONCERN?

>> I THINK ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING THINGS THAT HAPPENED IN THE FEDERAL COURTROOM IN AMARILLO LAST WEDNESDAY WHEN I WAS THERE IS THAT THE JUDGE AND THE ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, FOR THE ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS, MORE THAN ONCE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT A GROUP OF 22 REPUBLICAN ATTORNEYS GENERAL FROM RED STATES THAT HAVE TRIED TO BAN ABORTION OR HEAVILY RESTRICT IT SINCE THE FALL OF ROE V. WADE, HAVE WEIGHED IN ON THIS CASE.

THEY FILED AN AMICUS BRIEF ARGUING ESSENTIALLY THAT THE WIDESPREAD ACCESS TO THE ABORTION PILL MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO ENFORCE THEIR STATE LAWS RESTRICTING OR PROHIBITING ABORTION.

AND I THINK THAT'S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE THAT IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE STATED REASON FOR THIS CASE.

AGAIN, THIS CASE IS ABOUT THE FDA'S APPROVAL.

IT'S ABOUT RAISING QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE DRUG.

>> MM-HMM.

>> BUT THAT ARGUMENT IS REALLY ABOUT STATE/FEDERAL RELATIONS, ENFORCEMENT OF STATE ABORTION BANS, AND TO WHAT EXTENT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD HAVE TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THESE STATE LAWS SAY.

AND THE RESPONSE IN THAT COURTROOM FROM THE LAWYER ARGUING ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS ESSENTIALLY, THAT'S BESIDE THE POINT.

THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS DRUG IS SAFE.

IT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED AND DEMONSTRATED AS SAFE OVER MANY YEARS.

AND WHAT STATES DECIDE TO DO, HOW THEY DECIDE TO REGULATE IT THEMSELVES IS A SEPARATE QUESTION.

SO I THINK THAT POINTS TO THE REAL POLITICAL FIGHT OVER ACCESS TO ABORTION THAT UNDERLIES ALL OF THIS.

>> CAN WE ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT KIND OF THE NORMAL PROCEDURE FOR HOW THESE CASES ARE PLACED ON THE DOCKET OR NOT?

I MEAN YOU WERE ONE OF THE FEW REPORTERS WHO WERE ACTUALLY IN THE ROOM.

>> RIGHT.

AND, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, LEGAL EXPERTS THAT I HAVE TALKED TO ACCUSE THE PLAINTIFFS OF SELECTIVELY CHOOSING JUDGE KACSMARYK, HOPING FOR THE KIND OF OUTCOME THEY WANTED.

ONE OF THE SORT OF WRINKLES IN ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN A FIGHT OVER ACCESS TO THE COURTROOM ITSELF THAT EMERGED IN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS.

THE WEEKEND BEFORE THE HEARING, LAST WEDNESDAY, "THE WASHINGTON POST" REPORTED THAT JUDGE KACSMARYK HAD SORT OF QUIETLY SCHEDULED THE HEARING, HELD A MEETING, I BELIEVE, ON A FRIDAY, SCHEDULING THE HEARING FOR THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY, AND ASKED THE JUDGES IN THE CASE TO KEEP IT QUIET.

HE DIDN'T ISSUE A GAG ORDER, BUT HE SAID -- HE CITED SECURITY CONCERNS SURROUNDING PROTESTS AND THAT SORT OF THING AND ASKED THEM TO KIND OF KEEP IT CLOSE TO THE VEST.

ACCORDING TO "THE POST" REPORT, HE WAS NOT GOING TO PUBLICIZE THAT INFORMATION, PUT IT ON THE DOCKET SO THAT THE PUBLIC AND THE PRESS WOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF WHEN AND WHERE THE HEARING WOULD BE UNTIL TUESDAY NIGHT.

NOW, THAT'S FOR A WEDNESDAY MORNING HEARING.

AMARILLO, TEXAS, IS NOT A BIG CITY.

IT'S A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND PEOPLE.

IT'S THE BETTER PART OF A DAY'S DRIVE FROM MAJOR CITIES IN TEXAS LIKE DALLAS AND HOUSTON.

WE ALL HAD TO FLY IN TO GET THERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR "THE POST" SOMEHOW BECOMING AWARE OF THIS, MOST OF THE PRESS WOULD NOT HAVE MADE IT.

AS IT WAS, ONLY ABOUT 19 REPORTERS WERE ABLE TO BE IN THAT ROOM.

THERE WAS NO PUBLICLY AVAILABLE LIVESTREAM.

THERE WAS NO RECORDING, NO CAMERAS.

AND SO REALLY NOBODY KNEW WHAT HAD HAPPENED IN THAT ROOM FOR TWO DAYS EXCEPT FOR THOSE OF US WHO SAT OUT, YOU KNOW, IN THE COLD FOR THREE HOURS WAITING TO GET INTO THE COURTROOM AND REPORTED ON IT.

THE TRANSCRIPT WAS JUST RELEASED LATE LAST WEEK.

WE PUBLISHED THAT AT NPR.

SO THAT IS AVAILABLE NOW.

BUT JUST EVEN GETTING INTO THE COURTROOM, KNOWING WHAT WAS GOING ON, WAS KIND OF A CUMBERSOME PROCESS.

>> SO REGARDLESS OF HOW THIS JUDGE RULES, WHAT'S THE LIKELY NEXT STEP?

I MEAN IS IT JUST GOING TO BE CHALLENGED AT THE HIGHER COURT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

THE LAWYERS HAVE ALREADY MADE THAT CLEAR, PARTICULARLY THE LAWYERS FOR THE GOVERNMENT, WHO ARE DEFENDING THE FDA APPROVAL OF MIFEPRISTONE.

ONE OF THE LAWYERS SAID IF THE COURTROOM LAST WEDNESDAY, ESSENTIALLY ASKED THE JUDGE IF HE ISSUED AN INJUNCTION OVERTURNING THE APPROVAL OF THIS DRUG TO PLEASE ISSUE AN IMMEDIATE STAY SO THAT THEY'D HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL.

THE APPEAL WOULD GO -- AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IF THE JUDGE TO RULE AGAINST THE PLAINTIFFS, I BELIEVE THEY WOULD ALSO APPEAL.

SO ANY APPEAL WOULD GO TO THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, WHICH IS KNOWN FOR HAVING A PRETTY CONSERVATIVE REPUTATION.

IT'S UNCLEAR WHAT THEY WOULD DO.

I THINK, AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE JUDGE SAYS AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT IT TO STATE THE OBVIOUS.

AFTER THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, IT'S ENTIRELY POSSIBLE THIS WOULD END UP AT THE SUPREME COURT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE, JUST THROUGH THE NORMAL APPEALS PROCESS.

AND, SECOND, THERE IS ANOTHER FEDERAL CASE OUT THERE THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT, BUT A GROUP OF 12 DEMOCRATIC ATTORNEYS GENERAL A FEW WEEKS AGO FILED THEIR OWN LAWSUIT IN FEDERAL COURT IN WASHINGTON, ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO PUSH IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION FROM THIS LAWSUIT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IN TEXAS.

THEY ARE ARGUING THAT THERE ARE TOO MANY REGULATIONS ON MIFEPRISTONE, THAT AFTER THESE 20 YEARS OF AN ESTABLISHED SAFETY RECORD, THE REGULATIONS -- AND THERE'S A WHOLE REGULATORY SCHEME ABOVE AND BEYOND NORMAL PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR MIFEPRISTONE.

THEY'RE ARGUING SOME OF THOSE SHOULD BE REMOVED, AND THEY'RE ALSO -- AND THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT -- ASKING A JUDGE TO BLOCK THE FDA FROM TAKING THE DRUG OFF THE MARKET.

SO EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT THIS TEXAS CASE TRIES TO DO.

IF THEY WIN IN WASHINGTON AND THE ANTI-ABORTION GROUPS WIN IN TEXAS, WELL, THEN YOU HAVE DUELING FEDERAL RULINGS, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT CERTAINLY LOOKS LIKE SOMETHING THAT COULD END UP BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT.

>> KIND OF BACKING UP A FEW STEPS, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THIS DRUG, YOU SEE THAT THIS IS COMMON AS SOMETHING THAT DOCTORS PRESCRIBE DURING MISCARRIAGES.

>> RIGHT.

>> EXPLAIN KIND OF THE SCALE OF MISCARRIAGES THAT ARE HAPPENING THROUGH NORMAL PREGNANCIES BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF OUR AUDIENCE IS KIND OF WELL AWARE OF HOW COMMON IT IS AND HOW THIS DRUG THAT'S KIND OF AT THE CENTER OF THIS DEBATE COULD BE PRESCRIBED AS PART OF THE CARE FOR THAT.

>> THE SAME MEDICAL PROCESSES THAT BRING PREGNANCY TO AN END CAN ALSO HELP TO ESSENTIALLY EXPEDITE A MISCARRIAGE THAT'S ALREADY INEVITABLE AND UNDER WAY.

SO SOMETIMES WHEN A MISCARRIAGE HAPPENS, IT CAN TAKE A WHILE FOR THE PREGNANCY TO FULLY PASS, AND THIS CAN PROLONG, YOU KNOW, THE WOMAN'S PAIN AND SUFFERING, EMOTIONALLY AND PHYSICALLY.

AND SO MIFEPRISTONE HELPS TO BASICALLY COMPLETE THAT MISCARRIAGE ALONG WITH THE HELP OF THE SECOND DRUG THAT'S INVOLVED IN THIS FDA-APPROVED PROTOCOL.

YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE SOME REPORTING ON THIS YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, IN PLACES LIKE CANADA.

IT'S VERY EASY TO GET ACCESS TO THIS DRUG FOR THIS PURPOSE AND OTHER PURPOSES AS WELL.

BUT IN THE U.S., THE SAME EXTRA LAYERS OF RESTRICTIONS ON MIFEPRISTONE THAT APPLY FOR ABORTION ALSO APPLY FOR MISCARRIAGE.

SO A WOMAN WHO'S MISCARRYING IS TREATED IN THE SAME WAY AS A WOMAN WHO'S CHOSEN AN ABORTION.

THE PATIENT I TALKED TO A FEW YEARS AGO JUST DESCRIBED THE REAL GRIEF SHE WAS FEELING.

THIS WAS A WANTED PREGNANCY.

IT WAS NOT -- A MISCARRIAGE WAS NOT WHAT SHE WANTED OBVIOUSLY.

BUT TAKING THIS DRUG HELPED HER TO SORT OF GET THROUGH THAT PROCESS A LITTLE MORE QUICKLY.

SOMETIMES AVOIDING SURGERY IS THE GOAL.

IN SOME CASES WITH A MISCARRIAGE, IF IT DOESN'T COMPLETE NATURALLY, A DOCTOR WILL HAVE TO PERFORM ESSENTIALLY AN ABORTION PROCEDURE TO REMOVE THE REST OF THE TISSUE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE THAT MIFEPRISTONE CAN PREVENT AND HELP WITH.

>> NPR CORRESPONDENT SARAH McCAMMON, THANKS SO MUCH FOR JOINING US.

>> THANK YOU.