The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the abortion pill mifepristone would remain widely available while a legal challenge to the drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration 23 years ago is challenged in the lower courts. Both the Biden administration and the company that makes the drug, Danco Laboratories, asked for a stay of two lower court rulings barring or restricting access to the pill. The ruling disappointed pro-life groups including the U.S. bishops.
“The interim order by the Supreme Court is a tremendous disappointment, both for the loss of innocent preborn life from chemical abortion, and for the danger that chemical abortion poses to women,” said Bishop Michael Burbidge, chair of the Pro-Life Activities Committee of the U.S. bishops’ conference. “It is wrong to allow the FDA’s greatly diminished health and safety standards for mifepristone to remain in place. The FDA acted unlawfully when it first approved, and later relaxed safety requirements for prescribing and dispensing the drug. It is our hope and prayer that the Court will eventually overturn the FDA’s improper actions.”
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas ruled on April 7 that access to the abortion pill could be banned while the legal challenge to the FDA’s approval went forward. That same day, in a different case, Judge Thomas Rice in Washington state issued a ruling requiring the FDA to keep the drug available. On April 12, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals allowed part of Kacsmaryk’s ruling to stand, restricting access to the pill, but overturning the total ban he ordered while the case proceeds. The Supreme Court’s decision restores the legal status quo ante, allowing unrestricted access to the abortion pill.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision arguing that Danco Laboratories nor the Biden administration “are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim”.
The lower courts will continue to debate the underlying legal issue of whether the FDA ignored relevant information when it originally granted approval to the drug in 2000.
Loading ...
