>>> WELCOME BACK.
FIVE WOMAN ALONGSIDE TWO
OB/GYN'S ARE SUING TEXAS OVER
THE STATE ABORTION LAWS.
THE LAWSUIT FILED BY THE SENDER
OF REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS ARE
USING, WOMEN WERE DENIED LIFE-
SAVING CARE BECAUSE MEDICAL
PROFESSIONALS THROUGHOUT THE
STATE OF FEAR OF LIABILITY
UNDER THE TEXAS ABORTION BANS.
THE LAWSUIT SEEKS TO CLARIFY
THE STATE LAW.
NBC SPOKE TO ONE OF THE
PLAINTIFFS WHO SAID THAT
DELAYED ABORTION CARE
THREATENED HER LIFE AFTER SHE
WAS TOLD HER BABY WOULD NOT
SURVIVE.
>> HE SAID, PRETTY QUICKLY IN
ONE BREATH, YOU ARE GOING TO
LOSE THE BABY.
SHE'S NOT GOING TO SURVIVE.
I THOUGHT WHAT THEY WOULD DO
WOULD GO IN AND INTERVENE
IMMEDIATELY BUT SHE TOLD ME
THAT THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE THE
BABIES HEART WAS STILL BEATING AND I WASN'T SICK.
AND I WASN'T SICK.
>> WAS IN TEXAS BANNED DOCTORS
FROM REFORMING ABORTIONS,
EXCEPT DURING A MEDICAL
EMERGENCY ENDANGERING THE
PERSON'S LIFE OR MAJOR BODILY
FUNCTIONS.
THOSE WHO VIOLATE THE LAW COULD
FACE UP TO LIFE IN PRISON.
>> BECAUSE OF THE LAW, I VERY
NEARLY DIED.
>> THE PRESIDENT OF TEXAS BACK
TO LIFE WHO HELP GRAFT THE
HEARTBEAT ACT, AND DOCTORS LIKE
AMANDA ARE MISINTERPRETING IT.
>> IF THEY ARE SAYING THEY HAVE
TO DELAY AND WAIT, LIKE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS
TALKING ABOUT, THAT IS
MALPRACTICE.
THAT IS, IT IS UNCERTAIN THAT
THIS CHILD MAY SURVIVOR MAY
NOT.
TEXAS IS SAYING, WE DON'T JUMP
TO CONCLUSIONS.
>> THE LAW IS NOT CLEAR AND AS
A RESULT, GOING TO ACT ON THE
SIDE OF BEING CAUTIOUS AND THAT
MEANS THAT I MAY HAVE TO WAIT
FOR A WOMAN TO GET SICKER AND
SICKER BEFORE I CAN PERFORM AN
ABORTION I KNOW SHE NEEDS.
>> THAT'S THE WRONG CONCLUSION.
>> SHE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE RIGHTS.
>> NOT THAT THE DOCTORS ARE
BEING TOO CAUTIOUS.
THE REALITY IS, WITHOUT
CLARIFICATION OF THIS TEXT FONT
AND CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES
THAT IS HAPPENING TODAY, IT IS
GOING TO COME THAT WOMEN ARE
GOING TO DIE.
>> IN RESPONSE TO THE LAWSUIT,
THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S
OFFICE SAID THAT HE WILL
CONTINUE TO DEFEND AND ENFORCE
THE LAWS DULY ENACTED BY THE
LEGISLATURE.
THESE TWO COMES AS WE WAIT WORK
OVER MEDICATION ABORTION THAT
COULD COULD PULL A COMMON ABORTION PILL OFF THE SHELF
ABORTION PILL OFF THE SHELF
NATIONWIDE.
ALSO WITH ME, LIZ, PROFESSOR OF
LAW AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS.
DOCTOR KUMAR, I WANT TO START
WITH YOU AND THANKS TO BOTH OF
YOU FOR BEING HERE.
CAN YOU JUST REACT FOR US, WHAT
WE HAVE JUST HEARD FROM THE
PLAINTIFF, AMANDA?
TALKING ABOUT THE FACT THAT SHE
WAS TOLD, HER BABY WOULD NOT
SURVIVE AND YET, SHE COULDN'T
IMMEDIATELY GET THE CARE THAT SHE SAID THAT SHE NEEDED TO
SHE SAID THAT SHE NEEDED TO
SAVE HER LIFE.
>> ABSOLUTELY.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SHARE
THAT STORY AND, UNFORTUNATELY,
IN TEXAS, IT'S A VERY COMMON
STORY WE HEAR FROM PEOPLE.
WHAT WE SEE IN TEXAS IS THAT
WHEN POLITICIANS DECIDED TO
TELL US HOW TO PRACTICE
MEDICINE, THEN THEY HAVE
PUNISHMENTS SUCH AS THE ONE IN THE TEXAS BAND WHERE WE COULD
THE TEXAS BAND WHERE WE COULD
POTENTIALLY GO TO JAIL FOR
LIFE.
IT BECOMES VERY DIFFICULT FOR
US TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH
OUR PATIENTS BECAUSE THEN THE
OPTIONS THAT THEY DESERVE AND
THEY ARE SUFFERING THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT AND THAT
IS SOMETHING THAT I HAVE HEARD
FROM OTHER PATIENTS AS WELL AND
IT'S REALLY, REALLY UNFORTUNATE
AND AVOIDABLE.
>> CANNOT HAVE YOU RESPOND AS
WELL TO A HEARING WHAT WAS
REALLY DIFFICULT, I THINK, TO LEARN, THAT THIS WOMAN'S LIFE
LEARN, THAT THIS WOMAN'S LIFE
WAS PUT AT RISK AND SHE COULD
NOT GET THE CARE THAT SHE SAYS
SHE NEEDS AND SHE SAID, SHAMUS
DIED AND DIDN'T SURVIVE THIS.
>> THESE STORIES ARE THE TIP OF
THE ICEBERG AND IT IS BECAUSE
TEXAS ABORTION LAW LACKS SOME
CLARITY. THERE ARE THINGS THAT
THERE ARE THINGS THAT
CONTRADICT EACH OTHER AND IT
USES TERMS LIKE, SERIOUS RISK
OF SUBSTANTIAL IMPAIRMENT TO A
MAJOR BODILY FUNCTION.
THESE ARE NOT MEDICAL TERMS.
PHYSICIANS JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY MEAN.
THEY MEAN.
WHEN, IN GOOD FAITH, CAN THEY
ACT TO SAVE SOMEONE'S LIFE?
>> IN THIS CASE, DOCTOR KUMAR,
OBVIOUSLY AMANDA WAS HERE TO
TELL HER STORY.
THAT'S WHY SHE HAS A PLAINTIFF
IN THIS CASE, BUT ARE YOU
LEARNING ABOUT CASES IN WHICH
WOMEN ARE NOT AS LUCKY BECAUSE
THEY ARE NOT GETTING THE CARE
THEY NEED?
>> ABSOLUTELY, AND I COMMENDED
THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS CASE FOR
COMING FORWARD.
IT TAKES A LOT OF BRAVERY TO BE
ABLE TO DO SO BUT THERE ARE A
LOT OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE
THAT ABILITY TO DO SO, WHETHER
THEY ARE EXPERIENCING A
COMPLICATION AND UNWANTED
PREGNANCY A COMPLICATION AND A
TOPIC PREGNANCY, OR IF THEY ARE
HAVING A MISCARRIAGE AND NOT JUST ABLE TO GET THE CARE THEY
JUST ABLE TO GET THE CARE THEY
NEED.
THESE STORIES ARE VERY COMMON
IN TEXAS AND OTHER STATES WHERE
ABORTION IS BAND AND IT'S
REALLY JUST ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF
POLITICIANS INTERFERING IN MY
ABILITY TO PROVIDE HEALTHCARE
TO PEOPLE.
>> WHAT DO YOU BELIEVE THE
NATIONAL IMPLICATIONS ARE FOR
WHAT IS HAPPENING IN TEXAS
RIGHT NOW?
>> YEAH, WHAT HAPPENED IN TEXAS
DOESN'T STAY IN TEXAS.
RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE 18 STATES
THAT HAVE AN ABORTION BAN IN
PLACE.
WHAT WE KNOW, WHEN WE BAN
ABORTION, IT DOESN'T STOP THE
NEED OF IT.
IT ALSO AFFECTS OTHER CARE,
SUCH AS MISCARRIAGE CARE AND
COMPLICATIONS THAT CAN HAPPEN
IN PREGNANCY.
WE ARE SEEING THIS CHILLING
EFFECT IN CHAOS EFFECT AS
PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO TRAVEL TO
OTHER STATES AND THEY ARE NOT
GETTING INFORMATION FROM THEIR
HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS AND THEY
ARE LEFT WITH CONFUSION AND
QUESTIONS AND TRYING TO
NAVIGATE THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM
THE BEST THAT THEY CAN.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT MANY PEOPLE
ARE ABLE TO ACCESS THE CARES
THEY NEED AND AS WE HEARD,
PEOPLE ARE SUFFERING WITH THE
CONSEQUENCES OF THAT.
>> HOW DO YOU SEE THE NATIONAL
IMPLICATIONS TO YOUR
PARTICULARLY IDEA.
ARE YOU WORRIED THAT IT IS
HAVING A CHILLING EFFECT ON
WOMEN'S HEALTH AND THE ABILITY
TO TREAT THE RANGE OF
COMPLICATIONS THAT CAN ARISE
DURING A PREGNANCY?
>> YES, SO WE ARE SEEING
DOCTORS WHO FILL -- THEY ARE
NOT WILLING TO SAY THE LETTER A
WORD TO THEIR PATIENTS.
THIS OBVIOUSLY AFFECTS ALL
KINDS OF CARE, BUT WE ARE ALSO
HEARING STORIES ABOUT ONCOLOGY,
ABOUT MRI WHERE DOCTORS AREN'T
ACTING AS THEY NORMALLY WOULD
BECAUSE THEY ARE CONCERNED THAT
THEY MAY BE CREATING RISKS FOR POTENTIAL PREGNANCIES THAT
POTENTIAL PREGNANCIES THAT
COULD SUGGEST THEM TO LIABILITY
UNDER FC EIGHT OR TEXAS'S
CRIMINAL LAW.
>> DOCTOR KUMAR, I WANT TO TALK
TO YOU ABOUT THE MEDICATION
ABORTION CASE OUT OF TEXAS AND
WE KNOW THAT AN ANTIABORTION
GROUP THAT IS BRINGING THE SUIT
HAS ARGUED THAT IT IS UNSAFE
AND THAT THE APPROVAL PROCESS
IS UNLAWFUL.
DOES THE SCIENCE BACK THAT UP?
>> ABSOLUTELY NOT. WE KNOW THAT WHEN OF THE TWO
WE KNOW THAT WHEN OF THE TWO MEDICATIONS USED
BASE.
IT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR OVER 20
YEARS.
THERE HAVE BEEN 5 MILLION
PEOPLE THAT HAVE USED THIS
MEDICATION SAFELY.
IT'S A MEDICATION THAT I HAVE
PROVIDED 2000 PEOPLE AND I
OFTEN SAY WHEN I AM PROVIDING
THAT MEDICATION, THAT YOU ARE
PROBABLY NOT GOING TO FEEL
ANYTHING DIFFERENT TODAY AND
YOU CAN GO HOME AND DO WHATEVER
YOU NEED TO.
THERE ARE VERY FEW SIDE
EFFECTS, IF ANY, AND IT IS VERY
SAFE AND EFFECTIVE FOR PEOPLE
TO USE.
WE KNOW THIS GROUP IS BRINGING
IT FORWARD AND IT SEEMS AS IF
THEY HAVE CHERRY PICKED WHICH
JUDGE THEY WOULD BRING THIS
CASE FORWARD IN AND IT'S REALLY
PART OF THIS EFFORT TO BAN
ABORTION, EVEN WITH ROW
OVERTURNED.
THEY ARE CONTINUING TO TARGET
ANYTHING PEOPLE MAY TRY TO
ACCESS.
>> WE KNOW THERE IS A SECOND
ABORTION DRUG THAT MIGHT
SUPPRESS.
I BELIEVE. PLEASE CORRECT ME.
PLEASE CORRECT ME.
IT CAN BE USED ON ITS OWN, BUT
WHY IS THE TWO DRUG REGIMEN
PREFERRED?
WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S AS
CRITICAL?
>> YES, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY
RIGHT.
IT CAN BE USED SAFELY ALONE AND
MANY PEOPLE CHOOSE THAT OPTION,
ESPECIALLY IN OTHER COUNTRIES.
WE ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN USED, IT
IS SAFER AND MORE EFFECTIVE AND
PEOPLE HAVE A BETTER
EXPERIENCE, WHICH IS EXACTLY
WHAT I WOULD WANT FOR MY
PATIENTS.
>> WHAT DO YOU MAKE OF THIS
CASE ABOUT TRYING TO BAN THIS
MEDICATION ABORTION AND WHAT
YOU THINK THE BROADER
IMPLICATIONS OF THIS MAY BE?
WILL IT HAVE A CHILLING EFFECT,
FOR EXAMPLE, ON DISTRIBUTORS
LIKE WALGREENS?
>> SO THIS LAWSUIT IS FILED IN
TEXAS, BUT IT IS A NATIONAL
LAWSUIT.
IT IS ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY
ACROSS THE ENTIRE COUNTRY.
CALIFORNIA, NEW YORK, RHODE
ISLAND AND SO ON.
SO IF THE PLAINTIFF WERE TO
PREVAIL HERE AND WIN WHAT THEY
WANT, WHICH IS TO HAVE THE FDA
SUSPEND OR WITHDRAW THEIR 20
YEAR LONG APPROVAL, WHAT WOULD
HAPPEN IS, IT IS LIKELY THAT
THE DRUG WOULD BECOME
UNAVAILABLE NATIONWIDE.
SOME VERY SERIOUS IMPACTS
ACROSS THE BOARD.
WALGREENS HAVE RECENTLY SAID
THAT THEY WILL PROVIDE
MEDICATION ABORTION WITHOUT A
PRESCRIPTION FOR A PHYSICIAN
BUT STEPPED BACK OUT OF CONCERN
FOR LETTER SENT FROM 20
ATTORNEY GENERALS SAYING THAT
WALGREENS COULD FACE CRIMINAL
CONSEQUENCES IF THEY WERE TO
DISTRIBUTE THE DRUG.
>> VERY QUICKLY, WHAT WAS THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TEST TO
APPEAL IF THE JUDGE DID APPROVE
THIS INJUNCTION?
>> IF THE JUDGE SIDED WITH THE
PLAINTIFF, THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT WOULD APPEAL AND
COULD GO ON FROM THERE TO THE SUPREME COURT.