The court ruled unanimously that medical professionals from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine — the lead plaintiff in the case — did not have legal standing to request the reversal of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s long-standing approval of the drug or call for additional restrictions on its usage.
The decision will keep the medication available in states where abortion is legal. Notably, per Texas’s near-total ban on abortion, it will not be available in state Texas to residents.
Mifepristone will remain accessible via telehealth services, can continue to be distributed by mail and it will not be illegal to take the two-step regimen — misoprostol is the accompanying drug — after the seventh week of pregnancy. The regulated usage protocol will stay the same.
However, the case will be sent back to the district court, and litigation is likely to continue. U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk initially ruled to revoke the FDA’s approval of Mifepristone and place additional restrictions on the pill.
“They are sending this decision back to the lower courts,” Dr. Bhavik Kumar, medical director of primary and trans care at Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, said. “So, it remains unknown exactly what that means and what that outcome will be.”
Kumar referred to Thursday’s decision as a “frustrating win.” He said medical professionals, abortion advocates and legal experts have known from the start of this case that the plaintiffs had no legal standing.
According to Kumar, the group of physicians were able to “cherry-pick” their way through the lower courts to get the matter before the country’s highest court, “We shouldn’t even be here right now,” he said.
Legal experts questioned what the decision could also mean for other medications on the market. Protect Our Care, a health care advocacy group, noted that the choice could have thrown the entire U.S. drug approval process into chaos.
Amy O’Donnell, communications director with Texas Alliance For Life, said the pro-life organization expected Thursday’s ruling after the justices discussed legal standing during a March hearing.
Despite not being surprised by it, O’Donnell noted that it was disappointing and put the health, lives and future fertility of women and girls in the country at risk.
“This is not the end of the conversation. There are other avenues for us to seek a reversal of those lax guidelines,” O’Donnell said. “We — the pro-life community — can petition to the executive branch. We can seek other ways to go about what the physicians and organizations, in this case, were trying to achieve.”
O’Donnell and other pro-life advocates take issue with what they refer to as an increased risk of complications linked to medical abortions compared to those associated with surgical abortions.
Medical professionals often reject this claim and cite the FDA’s 24-year-old approval of Mifepristone.
“It has been proven safe and effective,” Kumar said. “Over 5 million people have used it, and medical abortions account for 63 percent of all abortions in the United States.”
Although some in the reproductive rights community view Thursday’s decision as a small reprieve from the ongoing attacks on reproductive health care, many are awaiting the highest court’s next ruling on a case out of Idaho.
The case challenges whether a federal law — the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor — that requires emergency stabilizing care, including abortions, overrides Idaho state mandate that only permits these procedures if, without them, a person could die.
Justices heard oral arguments in the case in late April, and a ruling on the matter is pending.
Faith Bugenhagen
Source link
