A federal judge appointed by former President Donald Trump could upend decades of policy on abortion medication, reversing the loosening of restrictions made in the past year and potentially outlawing the drug altogether.
Federal District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who is based in Texas, will soon decide on a lawsuit brought forward by the far right legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which alleges that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of mifepristone in 2000 was illegal and that the drug was not tested thoroughly enough. The ADF — which seeks to have the drug made illegal — claims in its lawsuit, filed in November, that the federal agency “failed America’s women and girls” by approving the drug too quickly.
Legal experts and medical professionals largely agree that this is incorrect. Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh who is an expert in FDA-related law, has noted that the abortion medication was “rigorously” reviewed before it was approved.
“In fact, many argue the FDA has actually been largely overprotective and restrictive when it comes to mifepristone, so it’s a bit ironic that these onerous regulations around the drug are being used as evidence of leniency,” Donley told The Guardian regarding the legal merits of the case.
Observers believe it’s unlikely that Kacsmaryk will leave in place Biden’s executive orders and the FDA’s recent actions loosening restrictions on abortion medication — and many fear he may go further, granting the ADF’s request to undo the FDA’s approval of mifepristone from decades ago.
Kacsmaryk, who was nominated by Trump in 2017, is a member of the far right Federalist Society, and has worked for First Liberty Institute, a far right group that promotes a conservative Christian agenda through legal actions. He has twice ruled that the Biden administration must keep in place the anti-immigrant “Remain in Mexico” policy that Trump implemented as president.
“At some point, Kacsmaryk will issue an order concerning the legality of a very common abortion drug,” wrote Vox senior correspondent Ian Millhiser. “And, if Kacsmaryk behaves as he has in past cases, the scope of that order will be limited only by his own desires and ambitions.”
The Biden administration has pledged to appeal any decision that further restricts abortion medication. But since the case is in the jurisdiction of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (deemed the most conservative in the country), it’s unlikely an appeal could be won in that arena, or that an injunction would be placed on Kacsmaryk’s eventual ruling. After the Fifth Circuit decides on the case, it can only be appealed to the Supreme Court, where conservative justices have handed down numerous anti-abortion rulings, most notably in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case last summer, which upended federal abortion protections that had been in place since 1973.
Abortion rights advocates have expressed concern about the case. At least two groups that help Americans obtain abortion medication from other countries — Aid Access and Plan C — have encouraged people in the U.S. to stockpile abortion medication before they become pregnant, in case they need it in the future.
Andrea Miller, president of the National Institute for Reproductive Health, has said that a ruling from Kacsmaryk could be “devastating for abortion care.”
“Cutting off critical access to abortion medication — which is the preferred method for more than half of abortion patients in the country — would cause significant harm, especially at a time when Dobbs has made it difficult or impossible for many to get care at clinics,” Miller said.
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.