CDC says abortions decreased in 2022, but research reveals the opposite
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released its first major report on abortion since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. Researchers found the number of abortions dropped 2% in 2022, making it not much different from the years before. Preliminary data shows abortions actually went up in 2023.
The CDC found U.S. providers performed more than 613,000 abortions in 2022, only slightly down from the nearly 626,000 abortions performed in 2021. But in 2023, more than a million abortions were recorded in the U.S., according to a new report from the Guttmacher Institute. It’s the highest number the research and policy organization has recorded in a decade.
There are some caveats to this data. The CDC’s report offers an incomplete look at abortion in the United States because not every state reports abortion data to the CDC. The Guttmacher Institute does include all 50 states in its report.
Overall, though, reports show the vast majority of abortions took place before nine weeks of pregnancy.
Research also shows that expanded access to the abortion pill has played a big role in these numbers. A pandemic-era change made by the Food and Drug Administration allowed for the pills to be dispensed via telemedicine. In the wake of the ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, eight states passed laws protecting providers from being sued for prescribing abortion pills virtually to people from other states.
Despite the overall national picture, however, both the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute found abortion rates dramatically declined in states that enacted near-total bans after Roe v. Wade was overturned. Meanwhile, states that have become known as “abortion havens” have seen numbers rise significantly.
More women ‘self-managing’ abortions post-Dobbs decision: Study
Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, access to abortion facilities has become more restricted in several states. That’s leading more women to self-manage abortions.
According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a “self-managed abortion involves any action that is taken to end a pregnancy outside of the formal healthcare system.” That includes things like self-sourcing medications — like buying the abortion pill mifepristone online — using herbs, plants, vitamins or supplements; consuming drugs, alcohol or toxic substances; and using physical methods, such as punching oneself in the stomach.
A new study shows the use of these methods is increasing. The number of reproductive-age women who say they’ve self-managed an abortion jumped by about 40% since the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, according to the study published Tuesday, July 30, in the medical journal JAMA.
The study’s authors said at the end of 2021, a few months before that decision, 2.4% of women said they had tried to self-manage an abortion. By the summer of 2023, about a year after the Dobbs decision, that had jumped to 3.4%.
Researchers said that number is likely far too low, since many people don’t talk about their abortions. They said it is probably closer to 10%, in reality.
Of those who self-managed an abortion, nearly 15% said they ended up having to see a doctor or nurse because of complications. Nearly 5% said they had to go to the hospital or urgent care for treatment.
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends medication abortion as the safest way to end a pregnancy, however, this study found only about 25% of women went that route. About 3 out of 4 women used less safe and effective methods of self-managing abortion, with the most common being emergency contraception, like the Plan B pill.
Emergency contraception can be used to prevent pregnancy, but the FDA said it won’t make a difference once someone is already pregnant.
The study’s authors said the number of people self-managing abortion is likely to increase as barriers to facility-based abortion grow.
Since the Dobbs decision, nearly half of U.S. states have severely restricted abortions, with 14 banning it altogether. The study also said evidence shows more people are traveling to states where abortion is still legally protected.
Supreme Court says abortion pill can stay on the market; IVF debate continues
Reproductive rights are once again center stage in public discourse. While questions persist regarding access to the abortion pill mifepristone and in vitro fertilization (IVF), recent developments indicate that little has changed.
Here’s a comprehensive look at the current landscape:
Mifepristone access upheld
In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that mifepristone — the pill used in 60% of U.S. abortions — can remain accessible.
In the court’s opinion, Justice Brett Kavanaugh emphasized that doctors and advocacy groups lacked standing to sue because they were not directly impacted by mifepristone’s availability for others.
The opinion acknowledged the plaintiff’s concerns but maintained that citizens and doctors cannot sue merely due to others’ engagement in certain activities.
IVF challenges and responses
While access to abortion pills remains intact, IVF is facing ongoing debate. Earlier this year, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are legally considered children. The ruling temporarily halted IVF treatments while the state clarified reproductive laws to protect patients and doctors.
Democrats at both state and federal levels are advocating for laws to guarantee protections for IVF patients. However, these measures have encountered obstacles, sparking intense political messaging ahead of the upcoming election.
Differing perspectives
Senate Democrats argue that, given the overturning of Roe v. Wade two years ago, more must be done to enshrine IVF rights preemptively.
On the other hand, Republicans contend there are no restrictions on IVF, rendering new legislation unnecessary.
Notably, Southern Baptists, the country’s largest Protestant denomination, recently voted that women undergoing IVF should produce embryos only in line with their intended family size, contrary to common IVF practice.
Public opinion
According to the latest Gallup poll, 61% of Americans support access to mifepristone.
In the same poll, 82% of respondents believe there is nothing morally wrong with IVF. Across party lines, acceptance rates remain high with 89% of Democrats, 84% of independents and 72% of Republicans favoring IVF.
Both President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump advocate for continued accessibility to IVF procedures.
About 1 in every 8 Americans said abortion is the most important issue for them ahead of the presidential election.
Views of SCOTUS’ credibility remain polarized ahead of major June rulings
As June progresses, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to deliver decisions on several landmark cases that could have significant implications across various sectors. These cases include issues of presidential immunity potentially affecting former President Donald Trump, limitations on access to the abortion pill Mifepristone and the regulation of social media companies’ content moderation practices.
The court, which currently holds a conservative majority, finds itself under intense scrutiny as it approaches these pivotal decisions.
Public opinion on the Supreme Court is deeply divided. Democrats have raised concerns about the ethical conduct of the justices, while many Republicans view these concerns as politically motivated attempts to undermine the court ahead of crucial rulings. The ethical controversies primarily revolve around financial disclosures and the acceptance of gifts by the justices, which have drawn nationwide attention.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas recently amended his financial disclosures to include vacations funded by Republican billionaire Harlan Crow. These trips sparked debate over Thomas’ impartiality. Similarly, Justice Samuel Alito faced scrutiny for accepting gifts from billionaire Paul Singer. Both justices’ connections to wealthy benefactors fueled questions about the influence of outside interests on the court.
Justice Alito was further scrutinized for allegedly flying flags associated with the Jan. 6 riots and Republican movements outside his homes, leading to calls from some Democrats for his recusal from certain politically charged cases. Republicans dismissed these calls as attacks on the court’s reputation.
Conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch also reported significant earnings from book royalties. Despite these revelations, there are no current rules explicitly prohibiting such activities since the Supreme Court lacks a formal code of conduct.
The heightened scrutiny of the justices’ personal lives has led to an investigation by the Senate Judiciary Committee into whether judicial ethics reform is necessary. The committee invited Chief Justice John Roberts to testify, but he declined, and Democrats have so far refrained from issuing a subpoena.
As the Supreme Court’s term draws to a close with a series of high-stakes decisions, the integrity of the court remains a contentious issue. The outcomes of these cases are expected to generate widespread reactions and underscore the ongoing debate over the ethical standards governing the nation’s highest judicial body.
Senators ‘fear mongering’ about contraception bill
Senators accused each other of fear mongering as they prepared to vote on the Right to Contraception Act. In a statement, 22 Republicans said Democrats are “fear mongering” to “score cheap political points.”
“To suggest this bill expands abortion is vulgar fear mongering, plain and simple,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said.
“There is no threat to access to contraception, which is legal in every state and required by law to be offered at no cost by health insurers, and it's disgusting that Democrats are fearmongering on this important issue to score cheap political points.” pic.twitter.com/ctDtbF1FvI
— Senator Katie Boyd Britt (@SenKatieBritt) June 5, 2024
“An individual has a statutory right under this Act to obtain contraceptives and to voluntarily engage in contraception, free from coercion, and a health care provider has a corresponding right to provide contraceptives, contraception, and information, referrals, and services related to contraception,” the Right to Contraception Act states.
Schumer is bringing the bill up for a vote in hopes of getting Republicans on the record, knowing it will not pass his chamber nor be voted on in the Republican-controlled House.
“I hope they’re not destined to fail,” Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., said. “The issues are extremely serious. We know what happened with the Dobbs decision. We are fearful what could happen in the courts, it’s important for Congress to express his views.”
Republicans privately debated whether they should vote “yes” on the bill which would allow them to bring forward amendments. Voting for the bill will also allow Republicans to bring forward an alternative bill proposed by Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, which they said has stronger religious exemption provisions.
“When Republicans vote ‘no,’ he basically gets what he wants,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas said. “So the question was, should we vote ‘yes’ to get on the bill and demonstrate that we do have a position that we can explain to the American people.”
Republicans are also pointing to specific sections of the bill they oppose that are hidden in legalese.
“The problem with the statute is it would force states to have sex change drugs, sterilization drugs, available for minor children, and my state, we banned those,” Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., said. “My legislature just did that, this legislation would override that. I strongly, strongly disagree with that.”
For instance, the bill defines contraception as “an action taken to prevent pregnancy, including the use of contraceptives or fertility-awareness-based methods and sterilization procedures.”
It also states a contraceptive means “any drug…approved… under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.” The abortion medication Mifepristone was approved under an amended version of that bill.
Republicans contend if this bill were only about contraception, it wouldn’t be necessary.
“There’s no state in the union that is trying to ban contraception. Nor could they because constitutionally, contraception is protected, which is as it should be,” Hawley said.
This isn’t the only bill without a future that Schumer has brought forward to get Republicans on the record. He brought forward a border bill that Republicans had already said they weren’t going to support, and he may bring forward a similar measure on IVF next week.
Congress wants to curtail ‘judge shopping.’ Can it act before the election?
There are two competing bills in the Senate to curtail “judge shopping,” which consists of efforts by plaintiffs to file lawsuits with judges who are likely to rule in their favor. Democrats and Republicans both want to address the practice, but they view the root of the problem differently and have presented differing solutions.
If an organization or individual wants to challenge a new law or agency regulation, they can file a lawsuit in federal district court. Their attorneys will first research judges around the country to see which one may be most likely to rule in their favor based on previous cases. The plaintiffs then file in that judge’s district, within their division, so there’s a strong chance their preferred judge will hear the case.
“I think it should shock the conscience of Americans that people can, in effect, choose justice by shopping for judges and do injustice by simply picking their judges according to what’s best for their individual causes,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said.
The Republican bill would put new limits on judge shopping in all cases and it has added parameters for bankruptcy and patent cases. However, the bill also bans what Republicans see as another problem: nationwide injunctions. The bill limits injunctive relief to the parties involved or people in a similar position within that district.
“Now that nationwide injunctions are being used against the Biden administration, liberal allies in the academy and in the media have started to target single-judge divisions where they think conservative plaintiffs are likely to get favorable ratings from sympathetic judges,” Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in March.
The Democratic bill would codify a rule the Judicial Conference created in March. The federal courts’ national policy-making body said in cases involving civil actions meant to bar or mandate state or federal action, judges would be assigned through a district-wide, random selection process.
“Any civil action brought … to challenge the constitutionality or lawfulness of … any provision of a Federal law on a nationwide basis, or any provision of a State law on a statewide basis … shall be randomly assigned to a judge of the district court in which the civil action is filed,” the two-page Democratic bill said.
McConnell called the rule “half baked” and wrote letters to chief judges in districts around the country, informing them that Congress decides how cases should be assigned, not the Judicial Conference.
Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also wrote letters but instead urged the Judicial Conference to stand by its rule.
“People like to feel that justice is fair and justice is blind,” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., told Straight Arrow News. “But if you have one judge who is developing a national reputation for being the go-to judge on a given political issue, it’s pretty obvious that this system of justice is broken.”
One of the most recent and well known examples of judge shopping came in the challenge to the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill, Mifepristone.
That case was filed in the Northern District of Texas at the Amarillo division, even though the organization that filed the case — the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine — is based in Tennessee. The only judge in that office is Matthew Kacsmaryk, who previously worked for the conservative First Liberty Institute and challenged the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate.
Many instances of judge shopping aren’t political. Judge Alan Albright, based in Waco, Texas, is the busiest patent judge in the country. In 2020, the Western District of Texas heard 22% of the patent cases filed nationwide, of which Albright heard nearly all.
According to Temple’s Business Law Magazine, cases are filed with Albright because he has a fast-track scheduling order that’s advantageous to patentees, and he had up until that point never invalidated a patent on eligibility grounds.
Although there’s bipartisan agreement that something should be done to end judge shopping, one of the sponsors of the Republican-led bill has serious doubts about getting something done this late in an election year.
“I’m very skeptical about any big stuff getting done for the rest of this Congress,” Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said. “If they’ve got a consensus bill, I’ll take a look at it. But there’s a you know, there’s a lot of activity, but there’s not a lot of productivity going on right now that I can see.”
SCOTUS casts doubt on plaintiff’s ability to sue FDA over mifepristone approval
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case that could not only impact access to an abortion pill used by millions of women, but also change the way the Federal Drug Administration approves medicine. However, the justices raised serious questions about challenging the FDA’s approval process and about the plaintiffs standing to sue in the first place.
The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an organization that says it believes in the sanctity of life from fertilization to natural death, sued over the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, an abortion pill women can take at home to terminate early-stage pregnancies.
“Rolling back FDA changes would unnecessarily restrict access to mifepristone with no safety justification,” Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar told the justices. “Some women could be forced to undergo more invasive surgical abortions, others might not be able to access the drug at all.”
The FDA approved the drug in 2000. In 2016, the FDA expanded access by only requiring one in-person visit to get a prescription and allowing it to be used through the 10th week of pregnancy. In 2021, during the coronavirus pandemic, the FDA allowed the drug to be prescribed via telemedicine and sent through the mail.
The original approval and access changes in 2016 and 2021 are at the heart of the case. The justices were presented with multiple questions, including whether a lower court erred when it placed an injunction last year on the 2016 and 2021 FDA actions.
“In 2021, it eliminated the initial in-person visit based on data it says elsewhere is unreliable. And in 2016, it failed to consider or explain the cumulative effects of its wholesale removal of safeguards,” said Erin Morrow Hawley, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom who represented Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.
The justices are also deciding whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue in the first place and they cast serious doubt on that, including conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.
“Counsel, you assert the, an injury on the part of the Alliance of diverted time and resources,” Justice Thomas asked. “Isn’t it just the cost of litigating, of pursuing this litigation?”
“If you look at how our organizations have been harmed, they’ve been forced to divert resources from speaking and advocating for their pro-life mission generally to explaining the dangers of the harm from abortion drugs,” Hawley responded.
“But that would be anyone who is aggressive or vigilant about bringing lawsuits,” Thomas said. “Just simply by using resources to advocate their position in court, you say now, causes an injury. That seems easily — easy to manufacture.”
Gorsuch raised concern about a universal injunction, something that was echoed by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“I went back and looked, and there are exactly zero universal injunctions that were issued during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 12 years in office, pretty consequential ones,” Gorsuch said. “And over the last four years or so, the number is something like 60 and — maybe more than that, and they’re a relatively new thing. And you’re asking us to extend and pursue this relatively new remedial course.”
A decision in the case should be released by June.
Major bridge collapses in Baltimore after ship collision; search and rescue underway
A major bridge collapses in Baltimore after being struck by a ship — sending multiple people into the water. And, Homeland Security raids the homes of hip-hop mogul Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs as part of an ongoing investigation. These stories and more highlight The Morning Rundown for Tuesday, March 26, 2024.
Major bridge collapses in Baltimore, Maryland after ship collision
Officials reported that a Singapore-flagged cargo ship struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge just before 1:30 a.m., resulting in part of the bridge falling into the Patapsco River.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JDeBPuFQS0
The Baltimore City Fire Department has confirmed that multiple people fell into the water, with rescue efforts underway for at least seven and potentially as many as twenty individuals. In a morning press conference, authorities confirmed two people had been rescued, with one in very serious condition.
Maryland Gov. Wes Moore has declared a state of emergency, and Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott announced on social media that emergency personnel were responding to the incident.
The Maryland Transportation Authority has issued a “major traffic alert,” advising drivers to avoid the area.
The 1.6-mile-long bridge, named after the author of the national anthem, first opened in 1977.
Supreme Court to hear arguments in mifepristone case
The abortion debate will return to the Supreme Court today as justices hear arguments in a case involving the abortion pill mifepristone. This marks the high court’s first abortion-related case since it overturned Roe v. Wade nearly two years ago.
The Supreme Court will review whether the Food and Drug Administration overlooked safety issues when it initially approved the medication and later made it more accessible, including permitting the pill to be sent by mail.
The group suing the FDA alleges the drug has led to “tens of thousands” of “emergency complications.” However, the FDA counters those claims, arguing the pill has a lower complication rate than Tylenol.
Medication abortions, primarily using mifepristone, represent nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S., with over 5 million women having used the drug since its approval in 2000.
A decision in the case is expected by the end of June.
Truth Social starts publicly trading under ‘DJT’ ticker
Former President Donald Trump’s venture into social media is set to go public. The platform, Truth Social, will begin trading under the ticker DJT Tuesday, March 26.
Truth Social is entering the stock market by merging with Digital World Acquisition Corp. The merger, approved last week, allows Truth Social to become a publicly traded company without the traditional initial public offering process. The former president will own at least 58% of the combined company.
Following the announcement, Digital World Acquisition’s stock price surged 23%. Investors are optimistic, valuing Trump Media & Technology Group at more than $5 billion.
On Monday, Trump commended Truth Social’s performance, stating, “Truth Social is doing very well. It’s hot as a pistol and doing great.”
Homeland Security raids homes of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs
Homeland Security agents raided multiple homes owned by hip-hop mogul Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs on Monday, March 25. Several news outlets have reported that the searches are part of a sex-trafficking investigation.
Three separate lawsuits filed in recent months have accused the rapper of sex trafficking, allegations he has previously denied. Back in December, Combs released a statement on social media saying he did not do any of the “awful things being alleged.”
Armed Homeland Security agents conducted raids at homes in Los Angeles and Miami.
Several outlets also reported seeing individuals in handcuffs outside his California property, but there was no sign of Combs himself. He has yet to comment on the raids.
Florida Governor signs bill restricting social media for kids
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill on Monday that sets age limits for social media use in the state. Under the new law, children under 14 are prohibited from creating social media accounts, and those aged 14 and 15 will need parental consent to join platforms.
The law requires social media companies to delete accounts belonging to users under 14. If they fail to comply, they can be sued, and children may receive up to $10,000 in damages.
Companies could also face fines of $50,000 for each violation.
The bill, expected to face legal challenges, is set to take effect in 2025.
Auction of iconic movie props collects more than $15.6 million
Film enthusiasts had the opportunity to own a piece of Hollywood history during a recent auction of movie props. Heritage Auctions announced that its “Treasures from Planet Hollywood” auction garnered over $15 million.
Highlights of the auction included the whip from “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” which sold for $500,000, and the axe used by Jack Nicholson in “The Shining,” fetching $125,000.
The top-selling item was a wood panel from the movie “Titanic,” often referred to as the “floating door,” which sold for more than $700,000. Additionally, a prototype of the “floating door” sold for $125,000.
Birth control to be sold over the counter, no prescription or age requirement
The first over-the-counter birth control pill will be sold in stores in all 50 states starting in March. One month’s supply of Opill will cost $20. The hormone-based contraceptive received FDA approval for over-the-counter sales last year but the pill itself has been prescribed to patients for more than 50 years.
However, patients will no longer need a prescription or an ID since there’s no age restriction to purchase Opill.
The expanded access to birth control is being considered a victory by reproductive rights group like Youth Reproductive Equity.
“This is historic and transformative for reproductive rights without having to go to a physician, which presents a barrier to many people,” Julie Maslowsky, founder of Youth Reproductive Equity, told The Washington Post.
Mifepristone, the abortion pill at the center of a high-profile contraceptive controversy, is also hitting pharmacies.
This month, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments and make a ruling in June determining how accessible mifepristone can be. Until that ruling, CVS and Walgreens will start filling prescriptions for the abortion pill inline with current FDA guidelines, which could change depending on how the Supreme Court rules.
Both CVS and Walgreens said Mifepristone will only be sold at select pharmacies in states where abortion laws allow it, which currently amount to half of the U.S.
Coming up on two years since Roe v. Wade was overturned, there have been many court battles over abortion pills and procedures.
Since the power to regulate abortion was returned to the states, the current landscape is 21 states have some sort of abortion restrictions through at least 18 weeks and 26 states have legally protected abortions through at least 22 weeks. The other three states have abortion bans that have been blocked in courts.
Since the power to regulate abortion was returned to the states, the current landscape is as follows: 21 states have some form of abortion restrictions in place through at least 18 weeks, while 26 states legally protect abortions up to at least 22 weeks. The remaining three states have abortion bans that have been blocked by courts.
Wyoming is one of those states with a trigger ban that has been blocked by a judge, but the state Legislature is passing legislation to still regulate the procedure at Wyoming’s one remaining legal abortion clinic.
A bill that recently passed the state House and Senate is likely to be signed into law this month. The Regulation of Surgical Abortions Bill requires abortion clinics to be licensed as surgical centers.
The bill also requires that doctors performing the abortion must be licensed and have admitting privileges at a hospital within a 10 mile radius of the surgical center. It also requires the woman to have an ultrasound 48 hours before the abortion. An ultrasound would give the woman her safest options to proceed with the abortion, whether by pill or procedure, according to proponents of the bill.
Wyoming is the latest example of how abortion laws are still being worked through in a post-Roe presidential election year where stances on the issue widely vary.
“The only effect of all this legislation, as I see, is really trying to terrorize women that are interested in having abortions and make it very challenging for any doctors to provide those abortions at the risk of potentially violating laws and ending up in prison,” Wyoming Sen. Chris Rothfuss, D, said regarding the new bill.
State House Rep. Martha Lawley, R, the bill’s sponsor, said her motivations for the legislation came from a place of “regulatory concern.”
“I was focusing on the fact that we really weren’t regulating surgical abortions in particular, or even chemical abortions,” Lawley said. “While [abortion] is legal in Wyoming, we need to look at the safety of women that are choosing abortions.”
Supreme Court to hear oral arguments in abortion pill case
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear its first abortion case since the controversial Dobbs decision that overturned Roe v. Wade. The high court announced it will hear oral arguments in the case on access to abortion drug, mifepristone, in March.
Mifepristone is one of two abortion drugs used to end a pregnancy.
“It works by stopping the supply of hormones that maintains the interior of the uterus,” a Mayo Clinic drug information sheet stated. “Without these hormones, the uterus cannot support the pregnancy and the contents of the uterus are expelled.”
Medication abortions account for half of abortions in the United States, according to the CDC. Mifepristone has been used in 5 million abortion cases, and the FDA said adverse events associated with its use are low. The FDA approved mifepristone for use back in 2000.
In June 2022, the Supreme Court overturned Roe, ruling the Constitution does not confer a right to abortion. Later that year in November, a group of physicians with the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which opposes abortion, brought a challenge against the FDA’s mifepristone approval.
The group argued the FDA did not adequately consider the safety of mifepristone before approving the drug.
The plaintiffs argued to reverse FDA measures implemented since 2016 that made mifepristone easier to obtain and more unsafe for patient use. Those measures included:
Allowing the pill to be taken later in pregnancy at 10 weeks, as opposed to 7 weeks.
Creating a generic version of the drug.
Allowing doctors to prescribe it and distribute it by mail.
In April 2023, a U.S. District Court judge in Texas put a hold on the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone. The Biden administration then appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
If a judge decides to substitute his preferences, his personal opinion, for that of scientists and medical professionals, what drug isn’t subject to some kind of legal challenge?
Xavier Becerra, HHS secretary
“First and foremost, when you turn upside down the entire FDA approval process, you’re not talking about just mifepristone, you’re talking about every kind of drug,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. “You’re talking about our vaccines, you’re talking about insulin, you’re talking about the new Alzheimer’s drugs that may come on. If a judge decides to substitute his preferences, his personal opinion, for that of scientists and medical professionals, what drug isn’t subject to some kind of legal challenge?”
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone. However, the three-judge panel nullified the changes put in place by the FDA that made mifepristone easier to access in 2016.
The FDA argued if those restrictions are allowed to take place, it would cause widespread chaos. So, the Supreme Court then intervened and blocked that ruling, allowing mifepristone to stay on the market with no changes to how it’s prescribed while the case plays out in the lower courts.
Mifepristone’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, and the Department of Justice asked the Supreme Court to review the 5th Circuit Court’s ruling, which the high court agreed to in December.
Oral arguments are set for March 26 and a decision is expected to come down in June.
