A majority of the Supreme Court appeared inclined Tuesday to reject proposals that would significantly restrict access to abortion pills.
During nearly 90 minutes of arguments, most of the justices appeared to question whether the plaintiffs, who do not prescribe abortion pills or regularly treat abortion patients, even have standing to challenge the case. Ta. The justices, including several members of the conservative majority, questioned whether the plaintiffs could prove they faced the moral harm they claimed they would suffer from obtaining the pill mifepristone.
The lawsuit focuses on whether the Food and Drug Administration should reverse changes it made in 2016 and 2021 to expand access to the drug.
These changes have significantly increased the availability of medication abortion by allowing patients to receive prescriptions for mifepristone via telemedicine and abortion pills by mail.
Several justices ruled that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking would be the first time a court would reconsider an FDA expert's determination of a drug's safety and would have far-reaching implications. Roko's lawsuit questioned the remedy of applying nationwide restrictions to the drug.
Judge Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald J. This seems like a good example of how to bring it into the world.”
Here are some key points:
The plaintiffs' claim that they had a right to sue was met with great skepticism.
To obtain rights, plaintiffs must show that they face concrete harm from the policies or actions they are challenging in court. In this case, the plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors and organizations, claim moral damages because patients who take the abortion pill may subsequently be treated in the emergency departments of hospitals where some of those doctors work. claims to be facing.
Attorney General Elizabeth B. Preloger defended the government, saying the plaintiffs did not have a case because they did not come “within 100 miles of the types of conditions previously found by this court.” She cited the fact that her doctor does not prescribe abortion pills and is not forced to treat women who take abortion pills. More importantly, she says, serious complications from abortion pills are so rare that these doctors don't often come across women who experience serious complications that require treatment. pointed out the facts.
Plaintiffs' attorney Erin Hawley countered that the doctors were treating abortion pill patients in the emergency room. She cited written declarations in the cases of Dr. Christina Francis and Dr. Ingrid Schopf.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett questioned whether these doctors had provided examples of “actually participating in abortions to end the life of the fetus or fetus.” She added: “Neither Scope nor Francis wrote that they participated in it.”
The justices also questioned whether the anti-abortion group in the case had standing. These groups say they have been harmed because they have had to divert resources from other advocacy efforts to challenge abortion pills.
Justice Clarence Thomas seemed skeptical of this argument, saying that the need for organizations to prioritize how they spend their time and money is “applicable to anyone willing or wary of litigating.” ” he said. You now say that simply using your resources to argue your case in court causes injury. It seems easy to make. ”
There was much discussion about the protection of conscience.
Federal conscience protections allow doctors and other health care providers to opt out of providing care to which they object on moral or religious grounds. In many hospitals, doctors pre-register their conscience objections, so they are not asked to participate in the treatment they object to.
Lawyers for the government and Danko Laboratories, the company that makes mifepristone, believe that when anti-abortion doctors encounter abortion patients, they can easily invoke conscience protections and replace them with other doctors with whom they have no moral objections. He said the case could be handed over. Jessica Ellsworth, an attorney representing Danko, said the plaintiffs are “individuals who do not use this product, do not prescribe this product, and have a right of conscience not to treat anyone who takes this product.” said.
Hawley said that in emergency departments, plaintiffs do not have time to opt out and are sometimes forced to “choose between helping a woman whose life is in danger and violating her conscience.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there was a “dissonance” between what anti-abortion doctors say they have experienced and the remedies they are seeking. “The obvious common sense remedy would be to give them immunity from having to participate in this process,” Justice Jackson said.
Noting that such a remedy already exists in the form of conscience protection, she said: They say: “We are against being forced to participate in this procedure and are seeking an order to ensure that no one has access to these drugs.” ”
Judge Barrett ruled that the Emergency Medical Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospital emergency departments to treat patients with urgent medical problems, does not allow doctors to treat patients who have undergone abortions over the objections of their conscience. I asked about the plaintiff's argument that it was a coercive action. Pills anyway. Ms. Preloger said that won't happen because EMTALA applies to hospitals, not individual doctors, so doctors with moral objections can opt out.
This case could have implications for the government's role in regulating drugs, and by extension, the regulation of everything.
Many regulatory policy experts and pharmaceutical industry leaders believe that if the court decides to undermine the FDA's scientific expertise, it will hinder companies' ability to develop new drugs and ultimately make them less available to patients. states that it will cause damage. It also has the potential to undermine the regulatory authority of other government agencies.
Several judges asked questions about this issue. “Are you concerned about judges analyzing medical and scientific research?” Judge Jackson asked Ellsworth, the manufacturer's attorney. Ms. Ellsworth noted that two studies cited by the plaintiffs to show that mifepristone was unsafe had recently been retracted, which she said was concerning.
“That's why FDA keeps hundreds of pages of analysis as a record of what the scientific data shows,” Ms. Ellsworth said. “And the court is not in a position to parse that out and speculate.
In the 19th century came anti-vice laws.
The Comstock Act of 1873 prohibited the mailing of drugs that could be used to terminate a pregnancy.
Justices Alito and Thomas asked whether the law, which has not been applied in recent decades and has been rolled back by courts and Congress, applies, as the plaintiffs claim.
“The Comstock regulations are not within the purview of the FDA,” Preloger said, noting that the agency's responsibility is to determine and regulate the safety and effectiveness of drugs. He also noted that the Department of Justice has issued an opinion that the Comstock Act applies only when the sender intends the recipient to “unlawfully use” the material.
Ms Ellsworth warned of what would happen if the courts decided to apply the law. “I think this court should think hard about the negative consequences of allowing agencies to begin acting based on legal responsibilities that Congress has assigned to other agencies,” she said. said.