SUE: TONIGHT ON GREATER BOSTON THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE FOUND SEVERAL POLICY VIOLATIONS IN THEIR ETHICS INVESTIGATION INTO EXHW -- RACHAEL ROLLINS.

FDA ADVISES RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE FIRST OVER-THE-COUNTER BIRTH CONTROL PILL.

HOW SOON COULD WE SEE IT ON THE SHELVES?

RACHAEL ROLLINS WHO IS SET TO RESIGN AS THE U.S. ATTORNEY OF MASSACHUSETTS BY THE END OF THE WEEK TRIED TO INFLUENCE THE OUTCOME OF THE RACE TO REPLACE HER AS SUFFOLK DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND LEAKED DOJ INFORMATION.

ACCORDING TO TWO FEDERAL WATCHDOG AGENCIES.

THE DOJ INSPECTOR RELEASED FINDINGS FROM AMONGST LONG ETHICS PROBE INTO ROLLINS, WHICH FOUND SHE DISCLOSED, NONPUBLIC SENSITIVE DOJ INFORMATION, TO THE PRESS.

IN AN EFFORT TO DAMAGE THE CAMPAIGN OF NOW D.A.

KEVIN HAYDEN, WHO WAS RUNNING AGAINST HER ALLY RICARDO ARROYO.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT FOUND SHE GAVE FALSE TESTIMONY DURING THE INVESTIGATION AND ACCEPTED PAYMENT FOR TRAVEL IN VIOLATION OF DEPARTMENT POLICIES.

ANOTHER FEDERAL WATCHDOG, THE OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, SHARE SIMILAR FINDINGS AND CALLED ROLLINS'’ ACTIONS AMONG THE MOST EGREGIOUS TRANSGRESSIONS OF THE HATCH ACT THEY HAVE EVER INVESTIGATED.

THE ACT BARS FEDERAL EMPLOYEES FROM ENGAGING IN PARTISAN POLITICAL ACTIVITIES WHILE ON THE JOB.

THE INVESTIGATION FIRST BEGAN JUST SIX MONTHS AFTER SHE TOOK OFFICE, FOLLOWING A CONTENTIOUS CONFIRMATION PROCESS, WHEN ONE OF HER CHIEF DETRACTORS AND CONGRESS, REPUBLICAN SENATOR TOM COTTON, ASKED THE IG TO LOOK INTO A DNC FUNDRAISER IN ANDOVER WITH FIRST LADY JILL BIDEN.

WE NOW KNOW BOTH INVESTIGATIONS ENDED UP FOCUSING ON MUCH MORE THAN JUST ONE POLITICAL EVENT.

ROLLINS IS SET TO LEAVE THE OFFICE AFTER LESS THAN A YEAR AND HALF ON THE JOB.

AND AFTER A DECADES LONG CAREER PUNCTUATED BY CONTROVERSY, PRAISE AND HISTORIC FIRST.

JOINING ME TO DISCUSS IS THE FORMER U.S. ATTORNEY MICHAEL SULLIVAN WHO WAS APPOINTED BY GEORGE W. BUSH, HE IS NOW A PARTNER WITH THE ASHCROFT GROUP, AND GBH NEWS REPORTER PHILIP MARTIN.

IF YOU CAN GIVE US A SENSE, I FEEL SO OVERWHELMED WITH INVESTIGATIONS RIGHT NOW ON THE NATIONAL LEVEL, THROUGH THE TRUMP FAMILIES, THE ACCUSATIONS OF THE BIDEN FAMILY.

HOW SERIOUS IS THIS, FROM A LAYMAN'’S PERSPECTIVE?

MICHAEL: THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME THIS AFTERNOON.

I HAVE NOT READ THE IG REPORT.

I THINK, NOBODY WELCOMES BEING THE TARGET OF AN IG REPORT.

THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL WHAT IT TRIES TO DO, A THOROUGH JOB, IT TRIES TO DO A COMPLETE JOB, IT TYPICALLY OUTLINES THE VARIOUS STEPS THE OFFICE HAS TAKEN.

BUT MAY NOT FULLY CAPTURE ALL THE DEFENSES AND/OR EXPLANATIONS BY THE TARGET.

IN THIS CASE, I DON'’T THINK WE'’VE HEARD MUCH FROM THE U.S. ATTORNEY RACHAEL ROLLINS UP UNTIL THIS POINT IN TIME.

IN THE REPORT, IT'’S PRETTY SCATHING BECAUSE OF THE BREATH OF IT.

YOU MIGHT LOOK AT SOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL ACCUSATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN REPORTED, THUS FAR, IN OF ITSELF, IT WOULD PROBABLY NOT LEAD A RESIGNATION OR REQUEST BY THE PRESIDENT FOR THE PERSON TO LEAVE OFFICE.

IT MIGHT BE THE ACCUMULATION OF ALL OF THESE VARIOUS EVENTS THAT LED HER TO DECIDE, IT IS BEST FOR HER TO RESIGN AT THIS POINT IN TIME AS OPPOSED TO BEING A FURTHER DISTRACTION.

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ONLY PERSON THAT CAN REMOVE RACHAEL ROLLINS FROM OFFICE IS THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

HE IS THE ONE WHO PUT HER THERE.

IT WOULD BE UP TO HIM TO ASK FOR HER RESIGNATION, IF IT GOT TO THAT POINT.

CERTAINLY, LONG BEFORE THAT HAPPENED, IT LOOKED LIKE SHE HAS DECIDED ON HER OWN, IT IS BEST FOR THE WORK OF THE APARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND U.S. ATTORNEY'’S OFFICE.

SUE: I WANT TO STAY WITH YOU FOR ONE MORE SECOND.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK FOLKS HAVE A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING, WHEN YOU ARE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, AND YOU ARE IN POLITICS, SOMETIMES YOUR ELECTED, SOMETIMES YOU ARE AN ELECTED JUDGE OR ATTORNEY GENERAL, OR APPOINTED AS AN ATTORNEY, WHY CAN'’T YOU PARTICIPATE IN THE POLITICS THAT PUT YOU WHERE YOU GOT TO BE?

SHE WAS AN APPOINTED PERSON BY THE PRESIDENT.

WHAT'’S WRONG WITH GOING TO A FUNDRAISER?

WHAT IS WRONG WITH PARTICIPATING IN WHO YOU WOULD LIKE TO TAKE OVER THE JOB THAT YOU JUST LEFT?

MICHAEL: THAT IS A TERRIFIC QUESTION.

I'’M -- I HAVEN'’T LOOKED AT THE HATCH ACT RECENTLY.

I THINK THERE'’S A FAIR AMOUNT OF GRAY AREA IN THE HATCH ACT.

THERE IS SOME HARD LINES, AS A APPOINTED POLITICAL OR NONPOLITICAL PERSON IN GOVERNMENT, YOU CANNOT SOLICIT FUNDS FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

THAT IS AN OBVIOUS ONE.

THE IDEA OF NOT BEING ABLE TO ATTEND A POLITICAL EVENT, UNLESS THAT IS A NEW INTERPRETATION OF THE HATCH ACT, I NEVER UNDERSTOOD THAT TO BE AN ABSOLUTE BAR FOR PEOPLE IN POLITICALLY APPOINTED POSITIONS, FROM ATTENDING.

I DO RECALL, WHEN I WAS U.S. ATTORNEY, THEN PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH, INSTRUCTED THE U.S. ATTORNEY'’S OFFICE -- U.S.

ATTORNEYS NOT TO PARTICIPATE IN POLITICAL EVENTS.

I THOUGHT THAT WENT BEYOND WHAT THE HATCH ACT REQUIRED.

WE DID NOT.

WE DID NOT BECAUSE WE DO NOT WANT TO HAVE ANY APPEARANCE OF A POTENTIAL CONFLICT, THE JOB ITSELF SHOULD BE NONPARTISAN, NONPOLITICAL, NON-INFLUENCED BY OUR THEIR POLITICAL PARTY.

PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU ARE DOING THE WORK OF YOUR OFFICE, WITHOUT ANY ILL LEANINGS.

SUE: I WANT TO TURN TO THE ALLEGATIONS REGARDING ARROYO AND HAYDEN.

THIS IS FROM THE DOJ REPORT.

WHEN ASKED IF SHE HAD ANY CONCERNS THAT HER COMMUNICATIONS WITH ARROYO MIGHT VIOLATE HER LEGAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS, I STATED I DID NOT, BECAUSE I BELIEVED I WAS HAVING THEM IN MY INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY.

THESE ARE NOT SECRETS I AM TELLING.

I DID NOT GIVE ANY CONFIDENTIAL TOP-SECRET PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.

I WAS TALKING WITH A FRIEND AFTER HOURS ABOUT QUESTIONS YOU HAVE REGARDING THE OFFICE THAT I USED TO LEAD AND POLICIES THAT I HAD IMPLEMENTED.

PHILIP, THE REACTION IN THE COMMUNITY OF FOLKS I'’VE BEEN TALKING TO IS SHOCK AND CONCERN.

THEY HAVE BEEN HEARING SOME OF THE RUMORS, ESPECIALLY AROUND THE HAYDEN SITUATION, SINCE IT HAPPENED.

CAN YOU REFRESH OUR MEMORY, WHY IT WAS SO NEWSWORTHY WHEN IT HAPPENED?

PHILLIP: BECAUSE IT WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF NOT JUST THE HATCH ACT, BUT IT WAS SEEN AS PROBLEMATIC IN THE CONTEXT OF RACHAEL ROLLINS'’ DUTIES AS A U.S. ATTORNEY.

ONCE YOU BECOME A U.S. ATTORNEY, WHATEVER JURISPRUDENCE PHILOSOPHY YOU MAY HAVE HAD AS DISTRICT ATTORNEY, OR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY, SUCH AS PROGRESSIVE POLITICS, WELL, THAT BECAME IRRELEVANT.

NOW, EVERYTHING SHE DID WAS UNDER THE GUARD, UNDER THE DICTATE OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

THIS WAS SEEN AS FLAGRANTLY POLITICAL, ASSISTING ARROYO IN THIS CAPACITY.

I THINK WHAT IS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW, I THINK WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS SHOCK.

NO ONE WOULD HAVE BEEN SURPRISED HAD THE VIOLATION OF THE HATCH ACT BEEN CONFINED TO ATTENDING THE FUNDRAISER FOR JOE BIDEN IN ANDOVER.

THAT WAS EXPECTED.

THE INSPECTOR GENERAL LOOKING AT THAT.

THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL IS LOOKING AT THAT.

YOU EXPECTED A SLAP ON THE WRIST.

THE ADDITIONAL REVELATION ABOUT ARROYO, IT IS OVERWHELMING FOR PEOPLE BECAUSE IT SEEMS, FOR MANY PEOPLE, FLAGRANTLY POLITICAL.

LET ME MENTION AS AN ASIDE, THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS VIOLATIONS OF THE HATCH ARE OVER THE YEARS, MOST NOTABLY UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

AT LEAST 13 VIOLATIONS.

SOME, ABSOLUTELY FLAGRANT, SUCH AS THAT ASSOCIATED WITH KELLYANNE CONWAY.

WHAT THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS ATTEMPTED TO DO IS CREATE AN ESTABLISHED DRAMA FREE JUSTICE FREE DEPARTMENT.

WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANY SCANDALS.

TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT BIDEN, I THINK SHE RESIGNED OR IS RESIGNING ON FRIDAY, SO THAT, AS NOT TO CREATE A CRISIS WITHIN THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION, THAT SO FAR, HAS BEEN CRISIS FREE.

NOT COUNTING THE PHONE CRISIS OVER HUNTER BIDEN, WHICH SO FAR, THERE HAS NOT BEEN A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO IMPLICATE WHATEVER HUNTER BIDEN WAS UP TO WITH THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION.

SUE: THERE WAS A RESPONSE FROM RACHAEL ROLLINS LAST FRIDAY, MAY 12 IN RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT SPECIAL COUNSEL REPORT, WHERE SHE SAID, TO BOTH YOUR POINTS, WE FEEL COMPELLED TO NOTE THAT THE IRONY THAT THE INVESTIGATION INTO THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION OF THE HATCH ACT BY MS. ROLLINS WAS PUBLICLY DEMANDED BY SENATOR TOM COTTON, A STRONG SUPPORTER OF FORMER PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP.

THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WAS POPULATED BY SEVERAL HIGH-RANKING OFFICIALS WHO OPENLY, ROUTINELY, AND DEFIANTLY VIOLATED THE HATCH ACT WITH NO CONSEQUENCES.

AT THE SAME TIME, I HEARD PEOPLE SAY WHEN THE INVESTIGATION WAS ANNOUNCED, THAT THEY KNEW, AND SHE KNEW, THAT SHE HAD A TARGET ON HER BACK, BECAUSE OF HER PROGRESSIVE POLITICS, BECAUSE OF HER PROGRESSIVE IDEAS REGARDING THE OFFICE, WHETHER YOU AGREE OR NOT, AND NOT ADHERING TO THE HIGHEST, ETHICAL STANDARDS IN THEIR BEHAVIOR.

IT'’S SELF SABOTAGE.

WHAT IS YOUR REACTION?

PHILLIP: THAT PROBABLY REPRESENTS THE GREATEST LEVEL OF DISAPPOINTMENT FOR HER SUPPORTERS, BECAUSE, FOR THE VERY REASONS YOU JUST STATED.

IF YOU KNOW THAT YOU ARE ALREADY DEEMED IN THE WORDS OF ARKANSAS A REPUBLICAN SENATOR, TOM COTTON, AS PRO-CRIMINAL, A TERM LIKE THAT, WHICH MAKES NO SENSE, THEN YOU ARE ALREADY REALIZING THAT YOU ARE IN FOR A WORLD OF HURT IF YOU VIOLATE YOUR OATH OF OFFICE IN ANY WAY SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION OR PROCEED TO VIOLATE IT.

FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE OR EMBRACE OF PROGRESSIVE -- A PROGRESSIVE PHILOSOPHY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE OR REFORM, IF RACHAEL ROLLINS IS SEEN AS A STANDARDBEARER OF THE JURISPRUDENCE PHILOSOPHY, TO HAVE COMMITTED ANY TYPE OF ERROR, OF COURSE IT FEEDS INTO THE NARRATIVE PROBABLY GATED BY SENATOR COTTON AND OTHERS, WHETHER IT IS TRUE OR NOT.

IT IS SEEN AS PROBLEMATIC.

AND A CONTRADICTION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE AND GIVING AMMUNITION TO YOUR DETRACTORS.

SUE: WHAT DOES JOE BIDEN DO?

DOES HE TRY TO REPLACE -- WE HAVE THE DIANE FEINSTEIN ISSUE, WHETHER OR NOT ON THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, WHETHER SHE IS GOING TO BE THERE OR NOT, HOW SHE IS FEELING, DOES SHE APPOINT THE SECOND IN COMMAND?

WHAT HAPPENS?

DOES THIS HALT EVERYTHING IN THE OFFICE?

MICHAEL: NOTHING OF THE OFFICE WILL HELP.

WE TRANSITIONS FROM U.S. ATTORNEY AFTER EVERY PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

THE OFFICE CONTINUES TO DO THE IMPORTANT WORK OF THE OFFICE, THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICES WILL CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE ASSISTANCE THROUGHOUT THE OFFICE.

MANY ARE CAREER, MANY SPEND A NUMBER OF YEARS -- THAT WORK WILL CONTINUE.

THERE'’S A TERRIFIC FIRST ASSISTANT IN THE JUST LADY THERE TODAY.

HE WILL BECOME THE ACTING U.S. ATTORNEY.

THAT IS THE STANDARD PRACTICE, WHEN A U.S. ATTORNEY VACATES THE OFFICE.

I WOULD IMAGINE THERE WOULD BE SOME EFFORT TO PUT IN A PRESIDENTIALLY NOMINATED, SENATE CONFIRMED U.S. ATTORNEY, AS SOON AS PRACTICAL ON THE TWO DEMOCRATIC SENATOR PERSPECTIVES, THEY WILL WEIGH IN, AND TRY TO GET A REPLACEMENT.

SUE: RACHAEL ROLLINS HAD A LOT OF DEMOCRATIC SUPPORTERS IN THE STATE.

THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORS, A MEMBER OF OTHER PEOPLE, JOE BIDEN, OBVIOUSLY.

DOES THIS IMPACT THEM IN ANY KIND OF NEGATIVE WAY?

PHILLIP: TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY WILL BE CONSIDERED HAVING COMMITTED AN ERROR IN NOMINATING.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE TWO SENATORS, MARKY AND WARREN, OF HAVING NOMINATED RACHAEL ROLLINS TO HER POSITION.

BUT NOT REALLY.

IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, SHE WILL STILL BE SEEN, I THINK BY MANY, AS SOMEONE WHO STOOD BY THEIR CONVICTIONS, WHO MADE A GRIEVANCE ERROR.

I DON'’T THINK -- I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING CLOSE TO AN APOLOGY FROM OUR TWO SENATORS.

AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT SHE WILL MAINTAIN SUPPORT AMONG THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OPERATIVES.

SO, I THINK THAT THIS WILL HAVE REPERCUSSIONS, YES.

IT WILL FEED INTO A NARRATIVE ADVANCED BY HER DETRACTORS, NOTABLY TOM COTTON OF ARKANSAS AND OTHER STAUNCH RIGHT-WING REPUBLICANS.

BUT I DON'’T THINK IT WILL, IN THE LONG RUN, EVISCERATE HER STANDING WITHIN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

AS FAR AS ADVANCING POLITICALLY, THAT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT, WITHOUT QUESTION.

IN TERMS OF HER RUNNING FOR ANOTHER OFFICE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SUE: DO YOU HAVE ANY ADVICE FOR HER REPLACEMENT?

MICHAEL: THE WORK IN THE OFFICE IS IMPORTANT.

RACHAEL ROLLINS UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED THAT.

THE PERSON WHO GETS MOST OF THIS IS RACHAEL ROLLINS HERSELF.

DEEP DOWN SHE IS A GOOD, DECENT, CARING PERSON.

SHE HAS HAD SEVERAL SERIOUS LAPSES IN JUDGMENT.

SUE: I THINK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PERSPECTIVE -- THANK YOU BOTH FOR YOUR PERSPECTIVE, THANK YOU BOTH FOR JOINING US.

NEXT UP AS MORE STATES MOVE TO BAN ABORTION AND A FEDERAL CASE BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT SEEKS TO TAKE ABORTION PILL OFF THE MARKET, THE FDA IS TAKING STEPS TO INCREASE ACCESS TO ANOTHER DRUG, CENTRAL TO REPRODUCTIVE HEALTH CARE.

THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL.

EARLIER THIS MONTH ADVISORS VOTED UNANIMOUS IN SUPPORT OF MAKING THE BIRTH CONTROL PILL DRUG KNOWN AS OPILL AVAILABLE OVER-THE-COUNTER, SAYING BENEFITS OF GREATER ACCESS OUTWEIGH ANY RISKS.

THE ADVISORS VOTE IS NONBINDING.

BUT THE FDA OFTEN FOLLOWS THEIR ADVICE AND IS EXPECTED TO MAKE THE FINAL CALL IN THE COMING MONTHS.

WHAT KIND OF IMPACT WITH THIS DECISION HAVE.

ARE THERE LEGAL CHALLENGES AHEAD.

I AM JOINED BY DR. ELIZABETH JANIAK, A PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHER AND ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF OB/GYN AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY AT BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'’S HOSPITAL, AND RENÉE LANDERS - A PROFESSOR OF LAW AT SUFFOLK UNIVERSITY AND VICE CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD LEAGUE OF MASSACHUSETTS.

WELCOME TO YOU BOTH.

THANK YOU FOR COMING IN.

BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS PILL, JUST FOR HISTORY'’S SAKE, HOW REVOLUTIONARY WAS THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CONTROL PILL, ARE WE STILL SEEING THE BENEFITS OF THAT BEING INTRODUCED INTO OUR LIVES?

ELIZABETH: THE ORIGINAL PILL WAS REVOLUTIONARY.

WE CAN SEE ITS INFLUENCE THROUGHOUT POP CULTURE AND SONGS, LIKE, I'’VE GOT THE PILL, WHICH I ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO LOOK UP.

IT'’S BEEN LIBERATING FOR PEOPLE TO HAVE SEX WITHOUT DOING SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROCREATION.

SO, ABSOLUTELY, IT HAD A WIDE IMPACT.

THE PILL HAS BECOME MORE REFINED OVER THE YEARS, SAFER, IT EXISTS IN DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS, AS WELL IS HAVING LED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF SHORTER ACTIVE REVERSAL METHODS, SUCH AS THE RING, THE PATCH, THE CONTRACEPTIVE SHOT.

SUE: WHEN WE LOOK AT THE HEALTH IMPACT, THE PILL ALSO TREATS OTHER THINGS THAT WOMEN SUFFER THROUGH, OR SYMPTOMS THAT THEY HAVE, AND HELP CONTROL IT.

WHAT WOULD THIS NEW PILL DO?

ELIZABETH: THIS NEW PILL IS A PROGESTIN ONLY PILL, WHICH MEANS IT IS SIMILAR TO THE TWO FORMULAS INTRODUCED FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER USE IN ENGLAND A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT PROGESTIN ONLY PILLS TO KEEP IN MIND IS THEY HAVE VERY FEW INDICATIONS.

THE VAST MAJORITY.

OF PEOPLE CAN USE IT SAFELY.

THERE'’S ONLY ONE MEDICAL CONDITION THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL SAYS IT COUNTER USES THE PILL WHICH IS CURRENTLY HAVING BREAST CANCER.

THEY'’RE USEFUL TO A WIDE RANGE OF PEOPLE UNHELPFUL FOR PREVENTING PREGNANCY, AS WELL AS REGULATING SYMPTOMS RELATED TO MINISTRATION, THAT PEOPLE USE -- MENSTRUATION, THAT PEOPLE USE IT FOR.

SUE: WE THOUGHT THE PILL WOULD BE CELEBRATED AND BARRING ANY CHALLENGES WITH HOW IT WAS GOING TO BE RELEASED OR ANY OF THE TECHNICAL STUFF WOULD BE -- WE WOULD BE THROWING A PARADE.

BUT THERE HAVE BEEN LEGAL CHALLENGES THAT ARE SWIRLING AROUND, ACCESS TO ABORTION CARE, BIRTH CONTROL IN GENERAL.

WHAT IS YOUR TAKE?

RENEE: RIGHT NOW, I WOULD SAY THAT THE ANTIABORTION ACTIVISTS HAVE HELD THEIR FIRE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL AUTHORIZATION, OR APPROVAL OF OVER-THE-COUNTER USE OF OPILL.

THIS IS JUST THE QUIET BEFORE THE STORM.

IF THERE'’S ANYTHING WE CAN LEARN FROM THE LITIGATION CHALLENGING THE FDA'’S APPROVAL OF MIFEPRISTONE, WE DON'’T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT RABBIT HOLE TODAY, BUT IF THE COURTS UPHOLD THAT CHALLENGE, THEN ALL BETS ARE OFF, ABOUT WHETHER THE COURTS WILL UPHOLD ANY FUTURE DRUG OR ANY APPROVAL THAT THE FDA MAKES OF ANY FUTURE DRUG OR ANY KIND OF MEDICAL DEVICE.

THAT IS REALLY WHAT THE RISK IS HERE.

IN ADDITION, JUST TO GET ONE OTHER SET OF LEGAL CHALLENGES OUT ON THE TABLE, RIGHT NOW, PRESCRIPTION CONTRACEPTION IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, WITHOUT CO-PAY.

SO, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES COMING UP FOR OPILL, IF IT IS OVER-THE-COUNTER, PEOPLE WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, UNLESS THERE'’S A MODIFICATION IN THE REGULATIONS ABOUT COVERAGE FOR THE NONPRESCRIPTION VERSION.

THEN, SECOND, THERE IS ANOTHER CHALLENGE GOING ON IN TEXAS TO THE HARMON'’S, UNDER THE AFFORDABLE -- TO THE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THAT MEASURES BE MADE AVAILABLE ON INSURANCE POLICIES.

PEOPLE ARE CHALLENGING THOSE PROVISIONS ON A WHOLE VARIETY OF LEGAL GROUNDS, BUT INCLUDING RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO SOME OF THE COVERAGES.

CONTRACEPTION HAS BEEN LITIGATED NOW.

THEY ARE GOING AFTER MEDICATIONS TOO TO TREAT AND PREVENT HIV INFECTIONS.

IT'’S A VERY FRAUGHT AREA.

YOU CANNOT BE CONFIDENT THAT ONCE THE FDA APPROVES IT, THAT ALL WILL BE WELL, AND IT WILL BE AVAILABLE.

SUE: I DID NOT WANT TO GO DOWN THAT RABBIT HOLE, BUT I FEEL COMPELLED TO POINT OUT, CORRECT ME AND ADD TO THIS, PUT THE IDEA THAT LAWMAKERS WOULD KNOW MEDICAL TRAINING, WOULD BE STAYING WITH THE FDA SHOULD AND SHOULD NOT APPROVE, REGARDING MEDICAL DEVICES, NOT JUST FOR BIRTH CONTROL, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING THE FDA IS INVOLVED WITH, IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT, RIGHT?

RENEE: THEY ARE.

THE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO WORK IN REGULATORY LAW WOULD BE THE LAST PEOPLE TO SAY THAT EVERYTHING THE FDA DOES IS PERFECT.

THERE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE MEANS TO CHALLENGE SOME OF THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE.

BUT THE BASIS ON WHICH THE DECISION ABOUT METHYL PRESTO -- MIFEPRISTONE WERE MADE WERE CONCERNING ABOUT FUTURE DRUG APPROVALS.

ELIZABETH: I HAVE -- SUE: I HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH PEOPLE WHEN THEY'’RE TALKING ABOUT THE ABORTION ISSUE I'’M ALWAYS SHOCKED ABOUT HOW THEY DON'’T REALLY GET HOW THE UNPLANNED PREGNANCY NUMBER HAS DROPPED SO DRAMATICALLY, ALMOST EVERY DECADE SINCE THE INTRODUCTION OF THE ORIGINAL BIRTH CONTROL PILL.

THE NUMBER OF ABORTIONS HAS DROPPED.

IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE FEWER ABORTIONS, WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE MORE ACCESS TO BIRTH CONTROL.

THIS WOULD SEEM TO BE SOMETHING FOLKS WOULD GET BEHIND.

ELIZABETH: THAT MAKES SENSE FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH ASPECT OF -- PUBLIC HEALTH PERSPECTIVE.

POLITICALLY, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IS THAT MANY PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE ABORTION, ALSO OPPOSE THE USE OF CONTRACEPTION FOR RELATED REASONS.

THEY MAY HAVE A WORLDVIEW GROUNDED IN THEOLOGY THAT PROMPTS THEM TO OPPOSE ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY THAT IS NOT FOR PROCREATIVE PURPOSES.

ALONG WITH THAT, OPPOSING ANY SEXUAL ACTIVITY OUTSIDE OF A HETEROSEXUAL MARRIAGE.

THERE RELATED CONCEPTUALLY FOR A LOT OF FOLKS WHO ARE OPPOSED TO ABORTION, THEY OPPOSE CONTRACEPTION BECAUSE IT IS LESS ABOUT OPPOSING ABORTION FROM A PUBLIC HEALTH INFORMED THE LENS, AND MORE ABOUT A VISION OF OUR SOCIETY IN WHICH EVERYONE SHOULD BE IN A MARRIED, MONOGAMOUS RELATIONSHIP.

A A CERTAIN REGION -- A CERTAIN VISION OF WHAT SOCIETY SHOULD BE.

THE PILL REVOLUTIONIZED SEXUAL POLITICS AND WOMEN'’S ARTISTIC PATIENT IN THE WORKFORCE -- PARTICIPATION IN THE WORKFORCE.

THAT IS THE SAME DYNAMIC THAT PEOPLE WHO OPPOSE THOSE METHODS ARE RESPONDING TO.

THEY DO NOT WANT TO SEE THAT CHANGE.

THAT MAKES SENSE TO OPPOSE BOTH.

I WILL SAY THAT WHERE I SEE A REAL DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF SOME OF THE MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS AND THE POTENTIAL USE OF TACTICS, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE SEEN AGAINST MIFEPRISTONE, IS THAT ONE OF THE TACTICS WHO OPPOSE ABORTION IS TO UNDERMINE THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS OF THE SAFETY OF ABORTION.

THEY CAN SOMETIMES GET AWAY WITH THAT BECAUSE ABORTIONS ARE SICK TIES -- ARE STIGMATIZED IN OUR SOCIETY.

WE DON'’T TALK ABOUT IT WITH OUR FRIENDS AND FAMILY, BUT CONTRACEPTION IS NOT AS A STIGMATIZED.

IT WILL BE HARDER TO SELL THE PUBLIC THE LIE THAT CONTRACEPTION IS NOT SAFE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPROVED BY THE FDA, BECAUSE SO MANY PEOPLE HAVE USED THE PILL.

ONE IN FIVE PILL WHO ARE USING CONTRACEPTION IN THE COUNTRY ARE USING THE PILL.

EVERYONE HAS USED IT THEMSELVES OR HAS A FRIEND OR PARTNER WHO WAS ON SO.

SUE: PEOPLE USE IT FOR CONTROLLING OTHER SYMPTOMS.

ELIZABETH: WITH 63 YEARS POSTAPPROVAL USE IN THE U.S., IT WILL BE HARD TO SELL THE LIE TO THE PUBLIC THAT BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT SAFE.

IT IS EASIER TO SELL THE LIE ABOUT ABORTION, EVEN THOUGH BOTH ARE COMPLETELY FALSE.

RENEE: I WOULD SAY IN ADDITION TO THAT, IS THE PROBLEM THAT THE OPPONENTS OF ABORTION AND THE USE OF CONTRACEPTION ALSO DISCOUNT THE RISK OF PREGNANCY.

WHEN I TEACH THESE CASES IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, I ALWAYS START WITH THE STATISTICS ABOUT PREGNANCY AND PREGNANCY OUTCOMES ON THE RISKS OF PREGNANCY.

THAT IS THE COMPARATIVE.

IT'’S NOT ANY OF THESE RISKS BECAUSE THE DRUGS ARE VERY SAFE, BUT IT IS BECAUSE, IF PEOPLE MAY BE WANTING TO AVOID THE RISK OF PREGNANCY.

THE U.S. HAS SOME OF THE WORST PREGNANCY OUTCOMES IN THE DEVELOPED WORLD, WHICH IS QUITE SHOCKING, BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF MONEY WE INVEST IN HEALTH CARE.

SUE: ARE YOU OPTIMISTIC THAT THIS WILL MOVE FORWARD?

ELIZABETH: I AM NOT A PROFESSIONAL FDA PROGNOSTICATOR.

I DO THINK IT IS EXTRAORDINARILY RARE FOR THE FDA NOT TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION.

AS I ALLUDED TO EARLIER, THE ORAL CONTRACEPTIVES WERE OVER-THE-COUNTER IN HUNDREDS OF COUNTRIES INCLUDING IN PLACES LIKE ENGLAND, WHICH APPROVED A SIMILAR PILL.

THE EVIDENCE IS STRONG THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE TO APPROVE THIS FOR OVER-THE-COUNTER USE.

I AM HOPEFUL THE FDA WILL FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.

RENEE: I COMPLETELY AGREE.

SUE: IT WAS GREAT TO MEET YOU.

THANKS FOR COMING IN.

THAT'’S IT FOR TONIGHT.

WE WILL BE BACK TOMORROW.

THANKS FOR WATCHING.

I'’M SUE O'’CONNELL.

GOOD NIGHT.

♪