and in the west, from the Walter
Cronkite school of journalism at
Arizona state university.
Amna: The recent dueling court
decisions on the use of the
abortion pill mifepristone have
ignited a new debate over
women's health.
And with future access in limbo,
some states are stockpiling the
medication.
But, the Biden administration
has asked an appeals court to
overturn the controversial Texas
ruling to suspend the
fda's approval of the drug, that
decision is expected as early as
this week.
Jennifer Klein is the director
of the white house gender policy
council and she joins us now.
Welcome back to the newshour,
and thanks for joining us.
I'm going to begin with the
administration's announcement
today on strengthening privacy
protections under hipaa.
Explain what you been seeing in
the antiabortion movement that
says this move was necessary
now.
Jennifer: One of the things we
have been seeing is that states
are moving to criminalize mostly
health care providers and what
this regulation would do, today
the department of health and
human services put out a notice
of proposed rulemaking so
there's a chance for comment,
and then the rule would
ultimately be finalized.
But that would do is protect
sensitive health information
under what is called hipaa.
While there are exceptions for
law enforcement, we would narrow
that exception to law
enforcement for legal
reproductive health care.
So for example, you've seen
women traveling out of state,
from one state where abortion is
banned to another state where it
is legal, and the lawful health
care that you got in the state
that you travel to, the
discussion she has with her
doctors, the care that she
receives in that state where the
care is lawful would not be
available to law enforcement if
the rule is made final.
Amna: This idea was raised a few
months ago.
A number of senators sent a
letter to president Biden in
September of last year, asking
him to use hipaa in this way.
Could this have been done
sooner?
Jennifer: Initially the
department of health and human
services put up guidance very
early on to make clear what the
protections are under hipaa, and
we were waiting to see that if
this continue to happen and if
we saw states passing laws that
would criminalize health care,
lawful health care, we were
ready to take action, and that's
what the department of health
and human services did today.
Amna: I know we are awaiting the
next step from the appeals
court, but there are all ready
some advocates and some
Democrats even saying the ruling
was unfounded and the
administration should just
ignore it.
Do you think we should do that?
Jennifer: This decision in Texas
is dangerous, but the department
of justice feels that it is also
dangerous to ignore a binding
legal decision.
But what is really at issue here
is that we now have two cases.
We have the case in Texas, which
it would be a nationwide
injunction that would prevent
mifepristone from being
available across the country,
but we also have a case in
Washington that is proceeding.
The department of justice filed
a motion for clarification to
better understand how those two
cases would interact.
So we're using the courts, we
are confident that we have both
the law and the facts on her
side, and we will prevail in
getting a stay and ultimately
succeeding in these cases.
Amna: If that legal process does
not go your way, what is the
plan?
Could you be stockpiling
medication, or other -- are
there other law -- lawsuit you
could file?
Jennifer: The governor of
Connecticut said it well today.
If the drug is illegal,
stockpiling it doesn't actually
help.
As I said, we are pursuing an
aggressive court strategy, and
we believe that we will prevail,
and that is the answer in this
case.
Amna: What about the other drug
in this two drug protocol.
The ruling applies to
mifepristone payment is there
anything else you could be doing
to protect future access to the
other?
Jennifer: This case in Texas
does not speak to that drug.
It remains available, it can be
safely used.
Amna: Are you anticipating that
could be challenged as well?
Is there anything you can do to
preemptively protect access to
it?
Jennifer: There's nothing to do
preemptively.
But again, we don't see any
reason for a very illegal drug
to be challenged in court.
The drug has a lot of uses.
We will be prepared for
anything, but we don't see that
as a concern at the moment,
anyway.
Amna: The reason I ask is it
gets to a larger frustration
I've heard from some advocates
and some Progressive Democrats,
the frustration that the
administration has move slowly
or not been as creative or
aggressive as they would like to
see.
The argument is the urgency of
the moment requires the
administration to meet that's
movement.
That go ahead and get caught
trying, in other words.
What would you say to that?
>> I think we have.
This case is a perfect example
of getting caught trying.
The president -- issue two
executive orders to ensure
access to abortion, to
contraception.
We are protecting the physical
safety and security of patients,
health care providers,
pharmacies.
This administration has worked
quickly and aggressively.
Just this afternoon the third
meeting of the task force that's
designed to bring everyone and
government together.
We've heard about other things
the department of justice is
doing.
We heard from the secretary of
the department of health and
human services about this
announcement on privacy and
other things.
The department of defense, the
department of veterans affairs,
any insinuation that we have not
acted quickly, decisively, and
aggressively, is just not there.
Amna: Jennifer Klein, thank you.
Always good to see you.
Jennifer: Thank you.
You too.
♪♪