[ad_1]
CNN
—
The Supreme Court said on Wednesday that it will consider whether to limit access to a large-scale use of abortion pills – even in states that still allow the practice.
The case is about the drug mifepristone which – when combined with another drug – is one of the most common methods of abortion in the United States.
The decision means the abortion court will once again be in the abortion debate after overturning Roe v . Wade last year, changing the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and prompting more than half of the states to legalize or very limited system.
The new case could be decided in July, putting the Supreme Court in the middle of the presidential election, where the possibility of abortion has become a key issue.
For now, mifepristone is still available and is not subject to the restrictions that the lower court said should be used. The high court’s decision in April will maintain access to the drug pending an appeal.
The Biden administration and a drug manufacturer are asking the court to reverse a federal appeals court decision that, if allowed to be enforced, would limit access to the drug. At the same time, anti-abortion groups and doctors want the judges to go beyond a federal appeals court ruling that the original 2000 approval of the drug was unconstitutional. the law.
The White House said the administration will continue to support the US Food and Drug Administration’s “safe and effective” drug approval and regulation.
“As the Justice Department continues to defend the FDA’s actions before the Supreme Court, President Biden and Vice President Harris remain steadfast in protecting women’s access to childcare, ” White House press secretary Karine Jean Pierre said in a statement.
Erin Hawley, an attorney at the Conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents abortion opponents, urged the court to agree with the lower court’s rulings to restrict access to the drug. when they decide the case.
“Every court to date has agreed that the FDA acted illegally in removing basic protections for women and allowing dangerous abortions.” We urge the Supreme Court to do the same,” Hawley said.
At the center of the controversy is the extent to which the US Food and Drug Administration regulates mifepristone, a drug that doctors consider safe and effective. It has been used by millions of women around the country in the more than twenty years since it has been on the market.
The drug was first approved by the FDA in 2000, but in 2016, 2019 and 2021, the FDA made changes to make the drug easier to obtain. Those changes were related to issues like supply and demand. The changes also made it possible to take the drug later in pregnancy.
Challengers – including doctors and anti-abortion groups – argue that the FDA did not do enough to study the safety effects of the drug when it was approved for use and made available years later.
See this linked article on CNN.com
The legal battle began this spring, when the US District Judge took office Matthew Kacsmarykan appointee of former President Donald Trump, issued a decision to suspend FDA approval in 2000 of the drug.
The judge said that the FDA failed to consider “the severe psychological and post-traumatic stress that women often experience from abortion.” The term “abortionist,” which is a favorite of the anti-abortionists, was repeatedly mentioned by the judge in his decision, such as “abortionist” and “unborn person.” ”
Kacsmaryk also suggested that FDA records underestimate the number of times the drug is given to someone who has had an ectopic pregnancy, meaning a pregnancy outside the uterus. He reiterated the allegations of the challengers that the FDA’s approval process became the subject of political impropriety.
In the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals, the conservative court backed down, saying it was too late for the challengers to make a case against the original approval of the drug in 2000 and put it in place. the 2019 approval of a general version of the drug, will block the changes made in 2016 and 2021 which made the drug easier to obtain.
“Because it is not safe to allow the drug without restrictions, the agency placed its approval on several safeguards,” said Erin Hawley, of the Conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, to judges in court papers. “But in 2016, the FDA removed many of the protections, unable to explain why they should be eliminated without research to demonstrate their additional safety.”
While the justices on Wednesday agreed to review an appeals court decision to block access to the drug, they rejected another request by abortion opponents to review whether the 2000 approval of the FDA is illegal.
“The rejection of the request may seem arbitrary, but it is a strong sign that the Court is focused on what is being challenged by the Biden administration and Danco – the decision of the lower court that the plaintiff can to bring this case to the fore. ,” said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law.
“That makes it less likely that the lawsuit will reach a battle over whether the FDA acted legally in first approving and then expanding access to mifepristone, and it’s more likely to resolve the issues on fundamental grounds have no direct impact on access to mifepristone going forward,” he added.
See this linked article on CNN.com
In September, Attorney General Elizabeth Prelogar appealed the decision to the Supreme Court, arguing in legal cases that “more than half of American women choose to terminate their pregnancies based on mifepristone does” and that “study after study has shown that when mifepristone is used according to its approved conditions of use, serious complications rarely occur.”
Prelogar said that if the lower court’s decision is approved it would “end the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with negative consequences for women seeking legal abortions and a health system that depends on the availability of the drug under current situation. use.”
He said the “unprecedented decision” would “threaten to seriously disrupt the industry and prevent the FDA from fulfilling his legal obligations according to his scientific judgment.
Jessica L. Ellsworth, an attorney for Danco Laboratories, a drug manufacturer and an intervenor in the case, told jurors in court documents that “for women and girls” “Young people, health care providers and States depend on the FDA’s actions to ensure that safe and effective health care is available. This issue is very important.”
He said that the court should do the dispute because it “affects the availability of a drug that can be used legally in States across the country” and “raises the question of whether a single federal court can restricting abortion in the United States is protecting it.”
The decision of the 5th Circuit “destroys” the medical and biotechnology industry “by questioning when scientific research – accepted by the FDA – is sufficient to support the conditions of use,” it added. Ellsworth.
This article has been updated with additional information.