In a pivotal turn of events, the U.S. Supreme Court, having previously revoked its acknowledgment of a constitutional right to abortion in 2022, is now poised to weigh in on the Biden administration’s plea to safeguard expansive access to the abortion pill. This development sets the stage for a significant ruling on reproductive rights, adding intrigue to an already charged presidential election year.
The high court has taken up the administration’s appeal following an August verdict by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This decision aimed to restrict the delivery and distribution of the pill, known as mifepristone, by prohibiting telemedicine prescriptions and mail shipments of the drug. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court has also agreed to hear an appeal lodged by Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the contentious medication.
At present, the 5th Circuit’s decision is temporarily on hold, awaiting the Supreme Court’s verdict, as part of a challenge to the pill initiated in Texas by anti-abortion groups and doctors. Anticipated to unfold in the coming months, the court’s decision is slated for release by the end of June, adding a layer of complexity to an already intense presidential race.
Mifepristone, when combined with misoprostol, constitutes the medication abortion method, representing over half of all abortions in the United States. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), endorsing mifepristone in 2000, deems the drug safe and effective, based on decades of use by millions of American women, with adverse effects being exceedingly rare.
The White House, through Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre, asserts its commitment to defending women’s access to reproductive healthcare. Pierre condemns the “extreme and dangerous abortion bans” imposed by various states, emphasizing the threat to women’s health and the potential criminalization of doctors.
The Justice Department, in its submission to the Supreme Court, contends that enforcing the 5th Circuit’s restrictions would have “damaging consequences for women seeking lawful abortions and a healthcare system reliant on the drug under the current conditions of use.”
This case not only puts the FDA’s authority at risk but also raises questions about the agency’s role in approving the safety of food products, drugs, and medical devices.
Erin Hawley, a representative of the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative religious rights group, urges the court to uphold the 5th Circuit’s decision, accusing the FDA of compromising women’s health.
The 5th Circuit’s decision, while not as extreme as a prior ruling by U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, aligns with the plaintiffs’ concerns. Kacsmaryk’s decision, had it stood, would have suspended FDA approval of mifepristone, effectively removing it from the market. The Supreme Court, in April, intervened to halt Kacsmaryk’s order temporarily.
President Biden’s administration is staunchly defending mifepristone against a backdrop of increasing abortion bans and restrictions enacted by Republican-led states post the Supreme Court’s 2022 overturning of the Roe v. Wade decision.
As the abortion debate takes center stage in the 2024 presidential race, President Biden, a Democrat and advocate for abortion rights, faces off against former President Donald Trump, a leading contender for the Republican nomination. Trump appointed three conservative justices, all of whom contributed to the 2022 decision overturning Roe.
Beyond its role in medication abortion, mifepristone serves other purposes, including the management of miscarriages.
In 2022, anti-abortion groups, led by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four anti-abortion doctors, sued the FDA. The 5th Circuit’s decision rolled back FDA measures that had facilitated increased access to the drug in recent years, including actions in 2021 allowing remote prescriptions and mail delivery, and in 2016 extending the use of mifepristone up to 10 weeks of pregnancy.
Since the 2022 Supreme Court decision, at least 14 U.S. states have implemented outright abortion bans, while others restrict abortion after a specified duration of pregnancy. The outcome of this case holds profound implications for the future landscape of reproductive rights in the United States.
