During oral arguments on Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court seemed unwilling to entertain notions from anti-abortion litigants regarding the safety and approval process of the abortion drug mifepristone, due to those individuals having no legal standing to make such challenges.
In a rare showing of bipartisanship across the bench, both liberal and conservative justices said that doctors and other challengers of the drug — many of whom have pushed unfounded claims of it being unsafe — simply couldn’t make the case that they had legal standing.
Those doctors, their lawyers claimed during arguments, were forced to treat patients who were purportedly adversely affected by mifepristone. But as the justices pointed out, those claims were dubious at best, due to health care providers being allowed to express conscientious objections to the medication and treating such individuals.
“Under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion, correct?” Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out.
Other justices of the Court, including Justice Elena Kagan, said that, outside of emergency situations — which the anti-abortion side didn’t seem to have any examples of — doctors and other medical personnel are allowed to voice their objections to treating patients.
The questions from various justices on the bench seemed to suggest that they would not render a verdict, likely set for June, that would regulate or even disallow the dispensing of mifepristone. The drug was approved in 2000, and was deregulated in 2016 and 2021, expanding how many weeks into pregnancy a person who wants an abortion can use it and allowing doctors to prescribe it and send it to patients through the mail via telemedicine.
Justices also bristled at the idea that the drug was unsafe. Directing her question toward lawyer Jessica Ellsworth, who represented the pharmaceutical company that produces mifepristone, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that it wasn’t the place of judges or justices to determine whether or not certain drugs were legal.
“Do you have concerns about judges, parsing medical and scientific studies?” Brown Jackson said to Ellsworth, who indicated that she did have such concerns and that there were other ways for people to object to the availability of purportedly unsafe drugs.
Claims by the anti-abortion side in the argument about the drug’s safety were indeed deeply flawed, and included citing anonymous blog posts on an anti-abortion website as “studies” and relying on “experts” with questionable claims regarding the abortion medication.
Only two justices seemed to indicate that they had qualms about the drug. Justice Samuel Alito focused on claims about the drug’s safety, in spite of those claims having problematic backgrounds, and both he and Justice Clarence Thomas asked questions about the Comstock Act, an 1873 statute that is no longer enforced but that once barred sending abortion medication and birth control through mail.
Still, observers of the case seemed to agree that the Supreme Court wouldn’t rule favorably for the anti-abortion side.
“I think the Supreme Court will side with the FDA and reject the challenge to mifepristone on standing grounds, probably 8–1, with Alito dissenting,” said Slate senior writer Mark Joseph Stern on X.
Stern noted, however, that discussion of the Comstock Act seemed to indicate that conservative justices were providing anti-abortion voices with a blueprint for how to challenge the drug.
Regardless of how the Court rules on this case, “it isn’t over,” Stern added.
Truthout reporter Mike Ludwig agreed, noting that, if the drug is successfully challenged in the future, access to birth control will likely be curtailed in addition to abortion.
A ruling from the Court limiting mifepristone “could invite further legal challenges to other medications that are used by millions of people but remain controversial on the right, including Plan B emergency contraception, birth control pills, vaccines and gender-affirming hormone therapy,” Ludwig said in his reporting on Tuesday.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy