Abortion Pill Verdict: The Supreme Court on Friday upheld women’s access to a drug used in the most common method of abortion, overturning lower court restrictions while the trial continues.
The justices approved emergency requests from the Biden administration and New York-based Danko Laboratories, maker of the drug mifepristone. They are appealing against a lower court’s decision that would withdraw the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone.
This drug has been approved for use in the US since 2000 and more than 5 million people have used it. Mifepristone is used in combination with another drug, misoprostol, in more than half of abortions in the US.
The court’s Friday action will almost certainly leave access to mifepristone unchanged for at least the next year as appeals go on, including a possible appeal to the High Court.
The court fixed the next date for the debate
The next stop in the case is the New Orleans-based U.K. The Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit has set arguments in the case for May 17.
Two of the nine justices — Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, author of last year’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade — voted to allow the restrictions to take effect, and Alito issued a four-page protest. No other justices commented on the court’s one-paragraph order, and the court did not issue a full division opinion.
Biden praised the court’s move
President Joe Biden praised the high court for keeping mifepristone available while the court battle continues. “The stakes couldn’t be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight against the politically driven attacks on women’s health. But let’s be clear – the American people must continue to use their vote as their voice.” , and must elect a Congress that will pass legislation restoring the protections of Roe v. Wade,” Biden said in a statement.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, representing abortion opponents challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, downplayed the court’s action. ADF attorney Eric said, “As is common practice, the Supreme Court has decided to maintain the status quo that existed before our trial, while declaring the FDA’s illegal approval of chemical abortion drugs and the removal of important safeguards for those drugs.” That our challenge goes on.” Baptiste said in a statement.
The justices weighed arguments that allowing the restrictions contained in the lower court rulings to take effect would seriously impede the availability of mifepristone.
The Supreme Court initially said it would decide by Wednesday whether the restrictions could take effect while the case continued. The one-sentence order signed by Alito on Wednesday gave the justices two additional days without explanation.
role of mifepristone
The challenge to mifepristone is the first abortion dispute to reach the nation’s Supreme Court since its conservative majority 10 months ago in Roe v. Wade was overturned and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion.
In his majority opinion last June, Alito said one reason to overturn Roe was to remove the federal courts from the abortion fight. “It is time to follow the Constitution and return the issue of abortion to the elected representatives of the people,” he wrote.
But even with their court victory, abortion opponents have returned to federal court with a new target: medication abortions, which account for more than half of all abortions in the United States. Women wishing to end their pregnancy in the first 10 weeks without a more invasive surgical abortion can take mifepristone along with misoprostol. The FDA has eased conditions for mifepristone’s use over the years, including allowing it to be shipped through the mail in states that allow access.
Abortion opponents filed a lawsuit in Texas in November, saying the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone 23 years ago and subsequent changes were flawed.
He won an April 7 decision by US District Judge Matthew Kaczmarik, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, to revoke the FDA approval of mifepristone. The judge gave the Biden administration and Danko Laboratories one week to appeal and put on hold his ruling.
Responding to an expedited appeal, two more Trump appointees to the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals said the FDA’s original approval would remain in place for now. But Judges Andrew Oldham and Kurt Engelhardt said most of the rest of Kaczmarik’s ruling could take effect while the case moves through the federal courts. Their decision would have effectively repealed changes made by the FDA starting in 2016, including expanding seven to 10 weeks of pregnancy, when mifepristone can be used safely.
The court also would have stopped sending the drug in the mail or distributing it as a generic, and patients taking it would have had to visit the doctor three times in person. Women may also need to take higher doses of the drug than is necessary according to the FDA.
confusion
The administration and Danko have said that chaos would ensue if those restrictions were implemented as the case progressed. Potentially adding to the confusion, a federal judge in Washington has ordered the FDA to preserve access to mifepristone under existing rules in 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia, which filed a separate lawsuit.
The Biden administration has said the rules conflict and create an untenable position for the FDA.
Alito questioned the argument that chaos would result, saying the administration “has not dispelled the doubt that it will follow an adversarial order in these matters.” And a new legal wrinkle threatens to complicate matters even more. GenBioPro, which makes a generic version of mifepristone, filed a lawsuit on Wednesday to prevent the FDA from removing its drug from the market unless the Supreme Court intervenes.
The Supreme Court was asked to stay the lower court’s decisions only through the end of the legal case. The appeals court has expedited its review, but there is no timetable for a decision. Any appeal to the Supreme Court will follow within three months of a decision, but there is no time limit for justices to review the matter.
(with inputs from AP)