By MIKE MAGEE<\/p>\n
For those prepared to take a deep breath and relax in the aftermath of the MAGA induced assault on the First Amendment that whipsawed Disney leadership<\/a> last week as they abandoned and then rescued Jimmy Kimmel, be advised reproductive health access is at the top of the list when it comes to MAGA campaigns to \u201crestrict liberties.\u201d<\/p>\n Consider the ongoing campaign to federally restrict <\/a>telemedicine enabled medication abortion.<\/p>\n A few facts:<\/p>\n Medication abortion is a process that involves taking two medications (mifepristone and misoprostol) at specific intervals over one to three days. It is approved for use up to the first 70 days of a pregnancy and costs on average<\/a> about $500.<\/p>\n As defined by Yale Medicine<\/a>, \u201cMifepristone is a medication that blocks progesterone activity in a female\u2019s body. Progesterone is a critical hormone for supporting an early pregnancy. The second medication, misoprostol, causes contractions and expels the pregnancy tissue. It typically takes 12 to 24 hours to pass the tissue.\u201d<\/p>\n The overall number of abortions<\/a> have risen since the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade. There were 1.1 million US abortions in 2023, that is 88,000 per month compared to 80,000 the year before.<\/p>\n Medication abortions account for 2\/3 of all abortions<\/a> in the US. At least 1 in 4 <\/a>of these last year involved telemedicine provision by mail order including to citizens from states with highly restrictive abortion laws.<\/p>\n Success rate<\/a> in terminating pregnancy is 99.6%. Major complications occur in .4% of cases and mortality is nearly non-existent.<\/p>\n Anti-abortion advocates are currently focused on obstructing legal access to abortion pills.<\/p>\n Immediately following the Dobbs decision<\/a>, 12 states banned abortion and 4 states imposed a 6-week gestational limit on access to abortion. Nine of these states now explicitly ban telehealth enabled medication abortion. Countering these measures, eight states where abortion remains legal have passed \u201cshield laws\u201d <\/a>that protect health professionals from prosecution by other states for engaging in telehealth support of patients seeking self-care within states where abortion is illegal. By latest count,<\/a> 1 in 7 telehealth assisted medication abortions involved practitioners from shield states.<\/p>\n President Trump\u2019s campaign pledge to reinstate the dormant 1873 Comstock Act<\/a> to cripple telehealth efforts in support of medication abortion has gone nowhere. In a similar vein, flawed science studies<\/a> engineered by anti-abortion advocates attempting to challenge FDA clearances for safety and self management of the drugs involved have been exposed as unscientific, deceptive and biased. Multiple state suits, for and against imposing additional FDA hurdles to access in the absence of demonstrable medical benefit or risk mitigation are piling up in the courts. And Louisiana r<\/a>ecently took a different tact, reclassifying misoprostol a \u201ccontrolled substance\u201d and inviting provider countersuits.<\/p>\n As Cornell legal experts<\/a> remind us, the freedom of expression and the right to freedom of speech may be exercised \u201cin direct (words) or a symbolic (actions) way.\u201d When first written, and adopted as the first of the original 10 entries in the Bill of Rights in 1791, the First Amendment said: \u201cCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.\u201d<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n Nowadays, the provision applies to the entire federal government<\/a> and is reinforced by the Due Process Claus of the 14th Amendment <\/a>which protects citizens from state government interference as well.<\/p>\n For better or worse, the actions leading up to the Dobbs decision were led, funded, organized and executed primarily by religious groups, primarily Roman Catholics and Evangelical Christians, joining ranks on the issue five decades ago. Those very religions legitimacy and independence has long been protected by the First Amendment.<\/p>\n A simple listing of the opening salvo of our Bill of Rights reveals a complex tangle of protections that define not only our primary rights as citizens, but also our power and legitimacy as a healthy representative democracy.<\/p>\n What\u2019s included? According to legal experts<\/a>, our 1st Amendment \u201cprotects the\u00a0right<\/a>\u00a0to freedom of religion and freedom of expression from\u00a0government<\/a>\u00a0interference. It prohibits any\u00a0laws<\/a>\u00a0that establish a national\u00a0religion, impede\u00a0the\u00a0free exercise of religion<\/a>, abridge\u00a0the\u00a0freedom of speech<\/a>, infringe\u00a0upon the freedom of the press, interfere\u00a0with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibit\u00a0people from\u00a0petitioning<\/a>\u00a0for a governmental redress of grievances.\u201d<\/p>\n Religious leaders remain deeply divided. Opposing reproductive choice while protecting the religious freedom assured by the very same 1st Amendment is a difficult needle to thread. Consider the comment <\/a>of Baltimore Archbishop William Lori, Chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops\u2019 Committee on Pro-Life Activities, on June 24, 2022, the day of the Dobbs decision: \u201c<\/em>I recognize there are people on both sides of the question in the Catholic Church. What we are finding though is that when people become more aware of what the church is doing to assist women in difficult pregnancies \u2026 hearts and minds begin to change.\u201d<\/em><\/em><\/p>\n