Abortion-pill opponents faced a frosty reception at the Supreme Court
Anti-abortion activists were elated when Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016. Mr. Trump had pledged to appoint justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 case that safeguarded reproductive rights. Three appointments later, the Supreme Court did just that in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation. However, two years later, an oral argument on March 26th regarding mifepristone—a medication used in 63% of abortions in America—does not bode well for those hoping the court will help them continue to restrict access to abortion care. At least for now.
Food and Drug Administration v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine involves a challenge to mifepristone by a group of doctors who are against abortion. They convinced a lower-court judge to revoke the FDA’s approval of the drug in 2000 despite a safety record comparable to Tylenol (paracetamol) and penicillin. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals somewhat softened that blow to the agency last August. However, it blocked the FDA’s efforts in 2016 and 2021 to allow mifepristone to be used later in pregnancy (up to ten weeks) and to be sent through the mail with a remote prescription.
Erin Hawley, representing the plaintiffs, defended the pill restrictions in her first argument at the Supreme Court. With her husband, Senator Josh Hawley, watching from the public gallery, she told the justices that the FDA’s policy on mifepristone left her clients facing a “Hobson’s choice”. Ms. Hawley stated that forcing doctors to either adhere to their beliefs or care for a woman who took abortion pills and ended up in the emergency room is “intolerable”. Yet she faced deeply skeptical questioning from justices across the ideological spectrum as to whether her clients had suffered a concrete injury—a prerequisite for bringing a lawsuit in the first place.
2024-03-26 23:11:49
Source from www.economist.com