On Wednesday, a federal judge in the case on the widely used abortion medication mifepristone indicated to courtroom observers that he was sympathetic to arguments for banning the drug, which is used in more than half of abortions nationwide.
A coalition of anti-abortion groups called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is seeking to have mifepristone deemed illegal for use on the grounds that it wasn’t properly vetted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decades ago. U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — who was appointed by Donald Trump after the former president promised to appoint anti-abortion judges — heard initial arguments on the case this week, and is currently considering whether to impose an injunction on use of the drug.
Data from 1988 and onward suggests that the drug is safe, and it has been used for decades without major incident. Though it was approved for use in France in 1988, mifepristone wasn’t approved for use in the United States until 2000, when the FDA used an accelerated approval process to allow the drug to be administered under strict regulations.
The FDA took more than four years to approve the drug, even with the accelerated process. When granting its approval, the agency stipulated that mifepristone could only be administered at hospitals, clinics and medical offices, and required that patients only use mifepristone under the supervision of a doctor. (Those conditions were relaxed this year, allowing patients to use the drug at home without supervision as long as it has been prescribed by a doctor.)
Several medical organizations have cited data showcasing that the drug is incredibly safe for use — safer than many other prescriptions and even over-the-counter medications, including Viagra, penicillin and Tylenol.
In deliberations on Wednesday, however, Kacsmaryk appeared to favor lawyers arguing for restrictions on the drug. Reporters for NBC News, for example, noted that Kacsmaryk seemed more willing to offer “windows” for plaintiffs to make their case than for the defense to clarify their arguments, “especially those related to the FDA’s approval process and the scope of a potential injunction.”
Washington Post reporter Caroline Kitchener, who covers stories relating to abortion and reproductive rights, noted that the Trump-appointed judge was more sympathetic to the plaintiffs’ cause.
“Kacsmaryk appeared to seriously entertain claims that mifepristone is unsafe — and asked plaintiffs for guidance on whether his court could order the FDA to withdraw approval,” Kitchener wrote on Twitter.
Federal government lawyers and lawyers representing the only drug manufacturing company listed in the lawsuit argued against the plaintiffs’ claims, noting that a ruling in their favor would be devastating for reproductive rights.
DOJ lawyer Julie Straus Harris argued that banning the drug, which has been used for more than 20 years, would be “unprecedented.” Jessica Ellsworth, a lawyer for drugmaker Danco Laboratories, argued against the notion that plaintiffs were trying to uphold FDA standards, saying that they instead intended to “upend the status quo” by making the drug unavailable for use.
At the end of the hearing on Wednesday, Kacsmaryk promised to make a decision “as soon as possible.”
Kacsmaryk’s decision is being watched across the country, as a temporary injunction would bar doctors from prescribing mifepristone in the U.S. Commentators have noted, however, that Kacsmaryk’s judicial powers are limited in this case — laws passed by Congress outline how the FDA can withdraw approval of a drug, and judicial precedent stands in the way of the judge ruling in the way that plaintiffs are requesting.
A ruling upending the distribution of the drug “would violate federal law,” according to Slate reporters David S. Cohen, Greer Donley and Rachel Rebouche. Further, a potential order from Kacsmaryk would only apply to the parties that are involved in the case — the FDA and Danco Laboratories. It would be an extreme judicial move, the reporters said, for him to ban all other manufacturers of mifepristone from being able to distribute the drug.
Such a ruling is still possible, however. During his confirmation hearings, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) recognized that Kacsmaryk had demonstrated a “disregard for Supreme Court precedents.”
Kacsmaryk has also “made statements in opposition to reproductive rights” prior to his nomination by former President Donald Trump, said Elizabeth Sepper, a law professor at the University of Texas-Austin.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.