Supreme Court to review mail-order abortion case
The Supreme Court to Consider Major Abortion Case Involving Availability of Abortion Pills
The Supreme Court made an exciting announcement on Wednesday, revealing that it will be taking on a significant case concerning the availability of abortion pills. This marks the court’s first major abortion case since overturning Roe vs. Wade last year.
The case revolves around the question of whether mifepristone, the most commonly used medication for abortion, can be prescribed through telemedicine and delivered to women via mail.
The high court will be hearing two consolidated cases that pit the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of doctors and individuals who oppose abortion, against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of mifepristone.
While a date for oral arguments has yet to be announced, it is expected that the court will issue a ruling on the case next summer.
The Biden administration requested the Supreme Court to consider the abortion pill case after a federal appeals court panel issued a ruling that restricted access to mifepristone.
The case originated when the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine filed a lawsuit claiming that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 was unlawful.
The case eventually made its way to the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in favor of the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. However, the court reintroduced certain restrictions on the abortion pill that had been eliminated in 2016.
Prior to 2016, mifepristone could only be prescribed by a doctor and obtained in person, requiring patients to visit a doctor three times for the medication abortion.
If the Fifth Circuit’s ruling were to take effect, women would no longer have the option to receive a prescription for abortion pills through telemedicine or have mifepristone delivered by mail.
Early on, the Justice Department intervened in the case, urging the Supreme Court to maintain the availability of mifepristone while the case is ongoing, a request that the high court granted.
The court also declined a request from the anti-abortion group to review the merits of the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone. This indicates that the court will likely focus solely on whether the additional restrictions should remain in place.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP
The Alliance Defending Freedom represents the anti-abortion group in this case.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion, medication abortions account for over half of all abortions in the U.S.
In 2020, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported over 620,000 abortions across 47 states and the District of Columbia. However, the Guttmacher Institute estimates the national total to be significantly higher, surpassing 930,000 abortions for the same year.
According to a June Associated Press poll, only half of Americans support legal abortion after 15 weeks, which is around the beginning of the second trimester.
What are the arguments made by proponents of remote access to mifepristone, and why do they believe it is a matter of reproductive rights and healthcare equity?
Mifepristone, stating that it was a reasonable interpretation of the law. However, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit later issued a preliminary injunction blocking the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Now, the Supreme Court will have the final say on this matter. The central issue at hand is whether mifepristone can be prescribed and dispensed via telemedicine and mail, without the need for an in-person visit to a healthcare provider. Proponents argue that this remote access would greatly increase the availability of abortion services, particularly in rural areas where access to clinics is limited. They believe that it is a matter of reproductive rights and healthcare equity.
Opponents, on the other hand, argue that there are significant safety concerns associated with remote prescribing and mailing of abortion pills. They believe that the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement ensures proper screening and monitoring of the patient’s health during the abortion process. They also argue that relaxing these requirements could increase the risk of complications and adverse effects.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will have far-reaching implications for reproductive rights and access to abortion services in the United States. If the court upholds the FDA’s in-person dispensing requirement, it could severely limit the availability of mifepristone and make it more difficult for women to access abortion services. On the other hand, if the court rules in favor of remote prescribing and mailing of abortion pills, it could significantly expand access to abortion services and empower women to make informed choices about their reproductive health.
It is worth noting that this case comes at a time when several states have passed restrictive abortion laws, with the intention of challenging the landmark Roe v. Wade decision. These laws, known as “heartbeat bills,” ban most abortions after a fetal heartbeat is detected, which can be as early as six weeks into pregnancy. If the Supreme Court were to uphold these laws while also restricting access to abortion pills, it could effectively undermine the right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade.
The Supreme Court’s decision in this case will undoubtedly be closely watched and highly anticipated by both supporters and opponents of abortion rights. It has the potential to shape the future of reproductive healthcare in the United States and will have lasting consequences for women across the country. As the court prepares to hear oral arguments and issue a ruling, the nation waits in anticipation, eager to see how this pivotal case will unfold.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
