The Quiet Play to Cripple a Pill: How RFK Jr. Is Coming After Mifepristone

What cannot be banned outright is slowly strangled by regulation and delay: Behind the euphemism of “safety” lies a calculated attempt to roll back freedom of choice.

The Quiet Play to Cripple a Pill: How RFK Jr. Is Coming After Mifepristone

What cannot be banned outright is slowly strangled by regulation and delay: Behind the euphemism of “safety” lies a calculated attempt to roll back freedom of choice

The Jack Hopkins Now Newsletter: #571: Tuesday, September 30th, 2025.

When “Review” Masks the Real Intent

In a republic worth defending, words matter. “Review.” “Study.” “Reassess.” They sound neutral…even responsible. But in the wrong hands…they become weapons…stealthier than bans…sharper than proclamations.

That is where we find ourselves. Robert F. Kennedy Jr., now Secretary of Health and Human Services…has ordered the FDA to “study” the abortion pill Mifepristone.

To the casual observer…it is due diligence. In truth…it is a crowbar slipped under the hinges of access. The words are soft. The consequences are not.

I. The Play

This move is not novel. It is calculated. To restrict a pill without saying “ban,” you follow a well-trod path:

Seed doubt.

A think tank drops a report warning of harms. Its numbers are inflated by creative accounting. Its conclusion is political…not medical. But it gives headlines something scary to print.

Order a “review.”

The Secretary directs the FDA to “take a fresh look.” This creates a public impression: maybe something is wrong.

Tighten the REMS.

The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy can be tweaked. Require in-person visits again. Bar telehealth. Make mailing the pill illegal. Access collapses…not by law…but by regulation.

Let litigation do the rest.

States sue. Courts pause. Delays stretch. In practice…delay equals denial.

What looks like prudence is in fact pressure applied at the weakest point. And that pressure will reshape access nationwide.

II. The Evidence-What Decades Already Show

The record on Mifepristone is long…deep…and clear.

Approved in 2000. Millions of uses. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies. The consensus: serious complications are exceedingly rare.

The rate of major adverse events hovers below one percent. Most “emergencies” cited in alarmist papers are nothing more than expected follow-up visits.

Contrast this with the “new” report driving the review. Analysts found it riddled with flaws…double-counted outcomes…misclassified events…context stripped away. Advocacy dressed as science.

The weight of evidence is not on the side of suspicion. It is on the side of safety. The “review” does not arise because science demanded it. It arises because politics desired it.

III. Why Kennedy Moves This Way

No statesman acts in a vacuum. Incentives shape decisions.

Political alignment.

An FDA review gives anti-abortion allies what they want without triggering the backlash of a ban. If access shrinks…Kennedy can claim the science required it. If courts intervene…he can say the process was fair.

Coordination with states.

Letters to Republican attorneys general are signals: “We’re moving. You move too.” Together, federal “study” and state litigation form pincer pressure.

Narrative continuity.

Kennedy has built his career on questioning institutions. Vaccines…public health agencies…now acetaminophen and autism. Casting doubt on Mifepristone fits the story his followers expect: the system cannot be trusted.

This is not about uncovering truth. It is about creating cover.

IV. What “Safety” Will Mean in Practice

The word “safety” will be repeated endlessly. But measure it not by what it claims, but by what it does.

End of telehealth.

If patients must appear in person…vast regions lose access overnight. Rural communities suffer most.

Narrower provider lists.

If only certain clinicians can prescribe…waits grow longer…costs higher.

Burdensome documentation.

More paperwork means fewer providers willing to take the risk.

Legal gray zones.

Pharmacies may over-comply…refusing to dispense at all.

The result is predictable:

Fewer options…longer delays…higher risks. That is not safety. That is suffocation.

V. The Illusion of Prudence

Supporters will say, “Isn’t more safety always good?”

The answer is simple: only if safety rules actually make people safer.

If “safety” drives women later into pregnancy before they can access care…the risk rises.
If “safety” forces a surgical procedure on someone who preferred medication…the risk rises.
If “safety” pushes care out of reach entirely…the risk soars.

Safety cannot be judged by rhetoric. It must be judged by outcome. And here…the outcome is less access…less timeliness…and more danger.

VI. The Media’s Role in the Ruse

Watch the words.

• “We’re just studying.” Translation: buying time and laying groundwork.

• “We’re just asking questions.” Translation: seeding doubt into headlines.

• “We’ll follow the science.” Translation: we will cherry-pick the science we need.

The move from “review” to “formal study,” documented in the press…is not a small step. It is escalation. It is preparation for restriction. And the coverage…even when skeptical…risks repeating the frame the architects need.

VII. The Kennedy Question

At its heart, the matter is not medical. It is moral. Who do we serve: science and liberty, or ideology and control?

Mifepristone is not new. It is not untested. It is not unsafe. It is simply inconvenient to those who believe abortion should be inaccessible. And so it is targeted…not with honesty…but with euphemism.

A republic built on trust in evidence must reject governance built on pretext. Otherwise…the precedent is set: any medicine can be relitigated…any right throttled…so long as someone can gin up a “study.”

The Country We Choose

President Kennedy once said, “For in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all cherish our children’s future. And we are all mortal.”

The lesson is humility in the face of truth.

The truth here is plain: Mifepristone is safe…effective…and essential.

To pretend otherwise is not humility. It is manipulation.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. can call it a review. He can call it a study. But history will call it what it is: an attempt to constrict freedom under the guise of safety.

And the question left for America is this: will we recognize the play before the door slams shut?

BONUS: What Comes Next from RFK Jr.?

If RFK Jr.’s move is the opening gambit…here’s how the game might unfold in the coming months. These are not speculative fantasy…they’re logical steps rooted in his incentives…the machinery now in motion…and lessons from prior regulatory battles.

1. Public Comment and Murmurs of Findings

In due course, the FDA will open public comment periods on any proposed changes to mifepristone’s REMS (Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy).

Expect a deluge: patient advocacy groups…reproductive-rights organizations…doctors…and state attorneys submitting responses.

But in the interim…RFK Jr. will tease “initial internal findings,” pointing to ambiguous data, “emerging concerns,” or “gaps in safety monitoring.” Those narratives will shape public perception well before final rules land.

Why it matters:

The framing before the final decision often becomes the line courts and states rely on later. If the narrative is “the FDA is responding to serious new risks,” even modest changes gain legitimacy.

2. Targeting Telehealth and Mail Dispensing

The telehealth/mail prescription channel is the most vulnerable front…and likely the first target.

Proposals may emerge to:

• Require in-person dispensing again

• Restrict which pharmacies can mail the drug

• Require extra in-person follow-ups or physical exams

By decapitating the convenience model…the policy will force patients back to bricks-and-mortar constraints…making access regionally unequal.

3. Narrowing the Prescriber and Pharmacy Network

Next, RFK Jr. could tighten who is allowed to be in the prescribing or dispensing network. Fewer clinics…fewer pharmacies…more centralization. That concentrates power…and risk.

If access becomes dependent on specific approved sites…local care deserts deepen.

Simultaneously…he may press for expanded liability protections or legal cues that allow providers to opt out…or to refuse to handle the drug in certain circumstances. That draws in backup suppression.

4. Incremental Pilot Programs & Geographic Rollouts

Rather than a national rollout…changes may begin as pilot programs in certain states or regions. “We’ll test in rural areas first,” the argument goes…ostensibly to manage risk.

Or…rules might be trialed only in states with certain regulatory climates. If damage is limited early…it builds cover for expansion.

5. Enforcement, Audits & Threats

Once new rules are in place…regulatory machinery can shift into enforcement mode: audits…compliance reviews…inspections.

Clinics might be threatened with penalties…license reviews…or revocation if paperwork is imperfect. Even small deviations from strict new protocols may invite discipline.

The purpose is not merely compliance…it’s a chilling effect. Providers may withdraw or decline participation out of fear.

6. Legal Challenges & Defensive Posturing

As restrictions proliferate…expect immediate lawsuits: reproductive-rights groups.. state attorneys general, clinics.

RFK Jr.’s team will likely lean on procedural defense (“we followed rule-making steps”) and frame any judicial pushback as stalling health safety. He may embed appeals in defense of “science” and “public health vigilance.”

The legal battles will center on whether changes imposed by administrative discretion exceed statutory authority or violate constitutional access rights.

7. State-Level Parallels & Synergies

Meanwhile, states will weigh their own roles. Some red states…already hostile to abortion…may jump on the “new safety” narrative to tighten their own rules.

Others (blue states) may launch counterefforts…licensing shields…telehealth protections…or funding to offset access losses. We’re likely to see battles not just in Washington…but in state capitols.

8. Messaging, Political Leverage & Precedent

Throughout this, expect RFK Jr. to wield the narrative aggressively: “I followed the data.” “We’re protecting health.” “Allies urged this review.” Each regulatory move will come wrapped in language of caution…responsibility…science…and duty.

But inside those frames lies leverage: once precedent is established that even long-standing approved medicines can be revisited or restricted…the power of regulation becomes a political tool. Future medicines…future rights…subject to the same “study” regime.

9. Adjustment, Pushback & Recalibration

If public backlash is loud…or courts strike down overreach…RFK Jr. may bargain: scale back rules in some jurisdictions…delay implementation…or soften provisions. But enough will stick to weaken access materially…so his “adjustment” becomes a partitioned retreat…not a full reversal.

10. The Shadow Legacy

Years from now…health policy historians may trace a turning point here: the day a popular…long-standing drug became vulnerable again.

Whether the outcome is a new equilibrium of restricted but legal access…or a more robust defense of medication abortion…depends on how fiercely the public..states..and courts resist the encroachment.

What begins as a “study” ends as a precedent.

Final Thought…For Now

In the Kennedy tradition…one should demand more than spectacle. One should demand clarity…accountability…and fidelity to evidence.

And when a Secretary of Health launches a study on a drug 25 years approved…the first question must always be: To what end?

Because behind every review is a premise. And behind every premise is a choice…about who holds power…who bears cost…and what kind of country we choose to be.

Enjoy your day…because no matter what is happening in our country…you still need to make that…a priority.

Standing with you,

-Jack