Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill
Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to preserve access to the abortion pill mifepristone, a pill used in the most common way to end a pregnancy.
What to know:
- What is mifepristone?: The pill is part of a two-drug regimen has been used to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks gestation. More than 6 million people have used mifepristoen since 2000.
- What was the case about? The central dispute was whether the Food and Drug Administration overlooked serious safety problems when it made mifepristone easier to obtain.
- Today’s other opinions: The Court made it harder for the federal government to win court orders when it suspects a company of interfering in unionization campaigns in a case that stemmed from a labor dispute with Starbucks. In a seperate case, the Court ruled against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.”
Access to the abortion pill mifepristone will not change after the Supreme Court unanimously rejected an effort by anti-abortion groups to roll back its availability, a win for abortion rights supporters and millions of women in states where abortion is legal.
Despite the ruling, women’s access to mifepristone still largely depends on a patchwork of state laws, with only about half of states allowing full access under terms approved by the federal government.
“It doesn’t change anything anywhere,” said David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University. “Tomorrow’s the same as today, which is the same as yesterday, which is the same as before this case was filed.”
Survey: 8,000 women a month got abortion pills despite their states’ bans or restrictions
Thousands of women in states with abortion bans and restrictions are receiving abortion pills in the mail from states that have laws protecting prescribers, a new report showed.
The release of the #WeCount survey shows about 8,000 women a month in states that severely restrict abortion or place limits on having one through telehealth were getting the pills by mail by the end of 2023, the first time a number has been put on how often the medical system workaround is being used. The research was conducted for the Society of Family Planning, which supports abortion rights.
How do state laws impact access to mifepristone?
Access largely depends on the laws in the state where a patient lives and, in the case of states banning or restricting mifepristone, what steps they are willing to take to circumvent them.
About half of U.S. states allows online prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone, conforming to FDA’s label for the drug.
Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy. Another dozen or so states have laws specifically limiting how mifepristone can be prescribed, such as requiring an in-person visit with a physician or separate counseling about the potential risks and downsides of the drug.
Those steps are not supported by major medical societies, including the American Medical Association.
Republicans remain largely silent following today’s decision
As anti-abortion groups quickly released statements expressing dismay over Thursday’s ruling, Republican lawmakers were largely quiet — marking a stark contrast to the flood of Democrats praising the ruling.
Rep. Mike Lawler, a moderate-leaning Republican running for reelection in New York City’s northern suburbs, was one of the few GOP members to not only comment on the decision but praise the court’s ruling.
“As I said when running for Congress, I do not support any efforts to establish a national ban on abortion, whether it be through Congress or through the judicial system,” Lawler said in a statement. “The Supreme Court’s decision today to preserve access to mifepristone is an important one and I am thankful that they heeded my call earlier this year to stand down on this issue.”
The fight over mifepristone won’t end with this ruling
Three states previously joined the case seeking to restrict access to the drug, putting them in a position to revive legal claims against it.
One of those states was Kansas, where state Attorney General Kris Kobach said in a statement Thursday that the states are better positioned to challenge access to the drug.
“It is essential that this case continue in order to ensure that the FDA operates within the law,” he said in a statement.
The shadow of election day hangs over the Court’s decision
Dozens of Democrats and abortion rights groups that celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision warned people of other ways abortion access is threatened around the country.
Millions of individuals will also still be unable to access mifepristone for abortions in more than a dozen states that have nearly banned abortion.
Republicans stayed largely quiet on the issue as Democrats released an onslaught of statements.
“Let’s be clear: women’s health remains under attack,” said Secretary Xavier Becerra, the nation’s top health official. “The overturning of Roe v. Wade paved the way for attacks on reproductive rights and women’s ability to make their own decisions about abortion, birth control, and IVF.”
Democrats are hoping that the current state of abortion will give them a boost at the polls in this year’s election, especially with women voters.
Louisiana has classified mifepristone as a controlled dangerous substance
At least one state has gone further to restrict access to abortion pills, with an action that’s not expected to be affected by Thursday’s ruling.
Louisiana last month adopted a law classifying mifepristone and also misoprostol, a drug it’s usually used in combination with, as controlled and dangerous substances, which could make it harder to prescribe and obtain them.
The law, which is to take effect Oct. 1, would exempt from prosecution pregnant women who obtain the drugs without a prescription for their own use.
Dr. Grace Ferguson, an OB-GYN and abortion provider in Pittsburgh, called Thursday’s decision “a victory for science.”
She said in a text that the plaintiffs “were questioning the authority of the (Food and Drug Administration), and if we strike down their authority for approval of medicine safety then we are questioning everything.”
She pointed out that more than six in 10 abortions were done with medication last year, up from 53% in 2020, new research shows.
Pharmaceutical manufacturers react to the ruling
The New York-based Danco Laboratories, which makes mifepristone, said the decision “safeguards access to a drug that has decades of safe and effective use.” The drugmaker also said the ruling maintains “the stability of the FDA drug approval process, which is based on the agency’s expertise and on which patients, healthcare providers and the US pharmaceutical industry rely.”
The decision by a U.S. district court judge out of Texas last year that catapulted this case to the Supreme Court marked the first time a court had issued a decision to revoke approval of a drug FDA had deemed safe.
An open letter signed by nearly 300 biotech and pharmaceutical company leaders last year slammed the Texas ruling as undermining Congress’ delegated authority to the FDA to approve and regulate drugs. If justices can unilaterally overturn drug approvals, they said “any medicine is at risk.”
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a lobbying group representing U.S. pharmaceutical companies, applauded the ruling, saying, “We are pleased to see today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court which helps provide innovative biopharmaceutical companies the certainty needed to bring future medicines to patients.”
How ‘judge shopping’ may have shaped the mifepristone case
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has been at the center of the battle over mifepristone since he sparked a legal firestorm last year by ruling to halt the FDA approval of the pill. This set off a chain of events that brought the case before the Supreme Court.
An appointee of former President Donald Trump, Kacsmaryk is also the only district court judge in the Texas panhandle city of Amarillo, which means all cases filed there land in front of him. The number of lawsuits by conservative groups that have been filed in Amarillo have led to accusations of “judge shopping,” or purposefully seeking out a judge who’s likely to rule in your favor.
Kacsmaryk was confirmed in 2019 amid fierce opposition by progressive groups for his record opposing LGBTQ+ groups. Since then, his decisions have restricted birth control access, and he has ruled against the Biden administration on issues including LGBTQ+ protections and immigration.
He is also a former federal prosecutor and lawyer for the conservative First Liberty Institute.
Vice President Harris points the finger at Trump
In a statement, Vice President Kamala Harris used the decision to try to draw a contrast between President Joe Biden and his presumptive Republican opponent in the presidential election, former President Donald Trump.
“This ruling does not change the fact that millions of American women are today living under cruel abortion bans because of Donald Trump,” Harris said.
“Nor does this ruling change the threat to medication abortion. We know the Trump team has a plan to try to end access to medication abortion and carry out a Trump Abortion Ban in all 50 states, with or without Congress, if they get the chance. We cannot and will not let that happen.”
Democrats react to the Court’s ruling
Democratic lawmakers celebrated the ruling as a major win for reproductive rights but warned of continuing attacks on abortion rights from their conservative counterparts.
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer expressed relief on the decision, but said, “We are not out of the woods,” acknowledging that it was “based not on the merits, but on the lack of standing.
Former House minority leader Nancy Pelosi said it was “the right decision for millions of women nationwide.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts said the challenge to mifepristone “was meritless from the start.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal of Washington said, “This is a massive victory for abortion access, but there is no question — we must codify access to reproductive care nationwide.”
Democratic Attorney General William Tong of Connecticut, one of 24 states that filed an amicus brief for the case, warned that anti-abortion advocates “have already started the process of coming back with new plaintiffs.”