RFK Jr. signals willingness to restrict abortion, despite prior stance

RFK Jr. signals willingness to restrict abortion, despite prior stance


This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said Wednesday he would support policies from President Donald Trump that would restrict abortion, if confirmed as secretary of the HHS.

As HHS head, Kennedy would have broad power over agencies that oversee abortion access in the U.S., including the Food and Drug Administration, which regulates abortion medications like mifepristone, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which collects data on reproductive health.

“I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy,” Kennedy said during a confirmation hearing before the Senate Finance Committee. “I agree with him that the states should control abortion.”

His comments are a reversal from past statements, where Kennedy identified as pro-choice. Prior to suspending his U.S. presidential run, Kennedy said on his campaign website he would support legislation to reinstate Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that gave women the federal right to an abortion.

Trump has enacted broad policies impacting abortion, including an executive order last week restricting federal funding for health programs abroad that promote or provide the procedure. Kennedy also said during Wednesday’s hearing that Trump wants him to further scrutinize the safety of mifepristone, the first medication in a two-drug regimen that can be used to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks gestation.

“I serve at the pleasure of the President. I’m going to implement his policies,” Kennedy said.

Nominated in November to lead the HHS, Trump has promised to let Kennedy “go wild” in healthcare. The Senate is expected to vote to confirm Kennedy next week.

Here are Kennedy’s key comments about abortion from the hearing:

Kennedy expresses uncertainty about emergency care for abortions

Kennedy appeared uncertain Wednesday about a major federal law overseen by the HHS that clarifies emergency care.

The decades-old law, called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act, or EMTALA, requires hospitals to provide stabilizing emergency services to patients regardless of their ability to pay.

Those emergency services could include abortion, according to federal guidance issued in July 2022. Compliance with the law, which is overseen by the CMS and the HHS, became contentious after Roe v. Wade was overturned. 

Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nev., asked Kennedy whether a woman could receive an abortion in a state where the procedure is banned if she were suffering from life-threatening bleeding due to an incomplete miscarriage.

“You would agree, as an attorney, that federal law protects her right to that emergency care, correct?” Cortez Masto said.

“I don’t know,” Kennedy replied after a pause. However, in the morning of Thursday’s hearing in front of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, he said women should be permitted to get emergency abortions in life-threatening scenarios. Kennedy did not specify if he thinks they should be required in states with abortion bans.

Cortez Masto also questioned what authority Kennedy would have as HHS secretary over EMTALA. Kennedy said he would have “budgetary power, and that it’s pretty limited to that.” 

“CMS actually investigates complaints of EMTALA violations, as well as the Health and Human Services Inspector General, who, by the way, was just recently fired by Donald Trump,” Cortez Masto said. 

Although federal law mandates abortions be performed in emergencies, the HHS has significant oversight into whether and how the agency penalizes states for complying with the law.

Under the Biden administration, the HHS threatened to sue states that denied emergency abortions after some women reported hospitals violated EMTALA by turning them away or failing to treat them. 

The agency ultimately sued Idaho after its near-total abortion ban went into effect, arguing the restriction conflicted with EMTALA’s mandate. The Supreme Court eventually ruled doctors were allowed to perform abortions to stabilize a patient’s life and health, but it sidestepped the broader question about whether EMTALA superseded state abortion bans. The ruling has since created confusion about how state abortion bans and federal law conflict.



Source link