The Supreme Court seemed skeptical Tuesday of a challenge brought by doctors and medical associations to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's decision to roll back safety regulations for the abortion pill.
During oral arguments in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the justices questioned whether doctors' claims to harm were sufficient to justify their challenge to the agency's removal of regulations on the abortion drug mifepristone in 2016 and 2021.
The OB/GYNs and emergency room doctors who brought the case argue that women are more likely to require medical treatment as a result of removing safety standards, putting them in a position where they may have to surgically finish an incomplete chemical abortion in violation of their conscience to address complications.
"This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule, or any other federal government action," said Justice Neil Gorsuch, pointing to a recent "Rash of universal injunctions" that run contrary to how the court has historically granted relief.
The Fifth Circuit narrowed in August a district court's earlier injunction requiring the FDA to reverse its initial approval of the pill.
The appeals court held that the doctors' initial challenge to the FDA's 2000 approval of the drug was untimely, but agreed that the agency "Failed to address several important concerns" when it loosened restrictions on mifepristone after 2016.
"Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erin Hawley, who argued for the doctors, pointed to Dr. Ingrid Skop and Dr. Christina Francis as the best examples. Skop wrote in her declaration filed with the court that the FDA's actions may force her to"end the life of a human being in the womb for no medical reason," noting she has "cared for at least a dozen women who have required surgery to remove retained pregnancy tissue after a chemical abortion.
No comments:
Post a Comment