The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments on Tuesday regarding the legality of the approval process for the abortion medication mifepristone, in a case that could result in further abortion regulations just two years after the Court upended federal protections for the procedure.
The case, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, centers around dubious arguments from a right-wing anti-abortion group regarding the FDA’s approval process for mifepristone more than two decades ago, as well as the agency’s decision to loosen regulations for the medication in 2016 and 2021.
Far right petitioners “shopped” for a judge who would listen to their qualms about the drug’s initial approval. They found the person they were looking for in U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee who ruled last year that access to mifepristone should be blocked completely. Kacsmaryk readily accepted the petitioners’ arguments despite them being riddled with falsehoods and dubious scientific claims.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) appealed that ruling to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned parts of Kacsmaryk’s ruling but allowed some aspects to remain in place, keeping the drug’s approval from 2000 legal but reverting regulatory rules on the drug back to pre-2016 standards. That meant that the use of mifepristone would be limited to seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10 weeks, and that telemedicine prescription and use of the postal service for delivering the drug would be barred completely.
The feds appealed the case further to the U.S. Supreme Court, which placed a hold on the Fifth Circuit’s ruling last year, pending the outcome of the case. The hold means access to mifepristone remains unchanged for the time being, keeping in place the standards that existed before Kacsmaryk’s ruling.
As millions of Americans live in parts of the country that have curtailed abortion rights or even banned the procedure entirely, abortion medication has become an invaluable option for those seeking to terminate their pregnancies. Nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year involved the use of mifepristone.
Arguments from anti-abortion activists in the case against the drug have centered on flawed science, as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) noted in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court earlier this year.
“The lower courts uncritically relied at every stage on patently unreliable witnesses and studies,” the ACLU said in its brief.
The civil rights organization pointed out that Kacsmaryk cited a study in his ruling that purported that the drug resulted in negative mental health impacts for those who used it. That “study,” however, was based on 98 anonymous blog posts to an anti-abortion website — hardly a critically sound or scientific examination.
The Fifth Circuit, too, relied on unsound “experts” to form its opinion. The court cited Ingrid Skop, a senior fellow at the Charlotte-based Lozier Institute, an anti-abortion “research” center, more than a dozen times in its ruling. But as the ACLU noted in its brief, “Dr. Skop admitted in 2020 that she is ‘not a really good researcher,’ and that she routinely ‘lift[s]’ language from other authors without attribution, claiming she ‘didn’t realize that, you know, using wording from a paper that you agreed with qualified as plagiarism.'”
The Fifth Circuit Court also relied on allegations from Donna Harrison, also from the Lozier Institute, whose testimony in other court cases has been proven inaccurate and “at odds with solid medical evidence,” the ACLU said.
Despite the hold placed on the lower court rulings, there is worry that the Supreme Court, which has undergone a hard right shift in the past decade, could implement restrictions in this case that wouldn’t just affect abortion medication but also the approval process of other drugs the FDA has greenlit in the past.
Nourbese Flint, President of All* Above All, a pro-abortion access organization, told Truthout in January that the case was never about ensuring safety, but about denying people health care.
“Let’s be clear what this case is about — it’s about banning access to the most common method of abortion that people increasingly rely on for care,” Flint said.
Physicians for Reproductive Health, a group of medical providers who advocate for expanded access to reproductive health care, also submitted an amicus brief to the case, decrying the possible outcome if any of the lower courts’ standards are allowed to stand.
“The rulings of the lower courts would jeopardize patient health rather than protect it. … Restricting access to mifepristone impedes patient autonomy and places providers in untenable positions,” their brief read.
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.
Last week, 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 are presently looking for 98 new monthly donors before midnight tonight.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy