June 13, 2024
The Supreme Court has upheld expanded access to the abortion pill — mifepristone – at least for now. Today’s ruling leaves the door open for new challenges over this pill in the future.
But for today — the justices issued this *unanimous* ruling saying the anti-abortion doctors who were fighting to stop the expanded of access to mifepristone did not have standing to even bring the case in the first place.
See one of the first hurdles you have to prove to get your case heard is whether you have standing – there are several factors to determine that – but one of them is –whether the issue you’re suing about is directly causing you actual or imminent harm. In the opinion written by justice Brett Kavanaugh today he said because the plaintiffs do not prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. He goes on to say because the plaintiffs do not use mifepristone, they obviously can suffer no physical injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone.
This issue isn’t whether mifepristone can be used or sold – the issue in this case was whether the FDA had the authority recently to relax the rules around access to mifepristone. Making it available through telehealth appointments or through the mail. The fifth circuit court of appeals ruled last year that that the FDA didn’t have the authority.
But in this ruling the justices are saying this group of anti-abortion doctors is trying to make a policy change when it comes to abortion medication through the courts. The ruling says that’s not how it’s done. If this group with no standing wants policy change, they need to do it like everybody else. Through the ballot box and through the legislative process.
Now – it’s important to understand – once the justices decided that the group did not have standing…the didn’t go any further. This ruling side-stepped actual argument. It said nothing about whether or not the FDA had the legal authority to expand access to mifepristone. So that means – while this case is essentially dead. The justices left the door open to another group or person that does have standing to bring the case again with the exact same complaint.
And there are already states chomping at the bit to revive their challenges to mifepristone access. The other thing to understand is since this expanded access to mifepristone was done administratively through the FDA – if another president is elected that president could administratively change that policy to make it more restrictive.
Read the mifepristone ruling here.
