CNN
—
Four months after the Supreme Court rejected a high-profile challenge to the abortion drug mifepristone, three conservative states are revisiting the issue as abortion access becomes a major presidential election flashpoint. We are keeping our promise to bring it to the forefront. New lawsuit.
Missouri, Kansas and Idaho filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Texas, asking U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmalik to make the Food and Drug Administration’s access to the drug easier over the past eight years. They called for the withdrawal of efforts (for example, permits) that had been made for this purpose. It will be shipped by mail.
The case could put the issue of access to mifepristone back on track for Supreme Court review in the next presidential administration, at a time when abortion is legal and about half of states have imposed strict regulations. , the drug’s widespread availability will once again be threatened. Restrictions on in-clinic abortions.
“These dangerous drugs are now flooding states like Missouri and Idaho, sending women in those states to emergency rooms,” the states claim in the new lawsuit.
Claims that mifepristone is unsafe are widely refuted by mainstream medical institutions. Medication abortions account for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States.
The new lawsuit was filed Friday. States are objecting to the drug’s ability to be dispensed by mail, as well as the approval of generic versions of the drug, the removal of follow-up examination requirements, and the requirement that the prescriber be a physician.
The new lawsuit comes in a conservative federal court as abortion becomes a central issue in next month’s presidential campaign between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris. During a CNN presidential debate in late June, President Trump pointed to the Supreme Court’s ruling and said he agreed with it.
“The Supreme Court just approved the abortion pill, and I agree with that decision and I’m not going to block it,” President Trump said at the time. But in a press conference this summer, President Trump refused to rule out restricting access to the drug. How the FDA regulates mifepristone will impact abortion access across the country, including in states where abortion is legal.
Harris has made it clearer that she supports FDA approval and subsequent actions to ease access to the drug. And she has repeatedly accused her opponent of plotting to reduce access to drugs.
“This ruling does not change the fact that President Trump’s allies plan to eliminate medical abortion through presidential action if all else fails. “We must remain vigilant and vigilant about threats to our freedoms,” she said in brief remarks after this year’s Supreme Court ruling and before becoming a presidential candidate.
The final ruling in this case could have far-reaching implications as the nation still grapples with the fallout from the 2022 Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that established a constitutional right to abortion. There is sex. The high court’s controversial ruling has led many red states to impose abortion bans or restrictions, making access to abortion pills a target for conservatives and a major concern for reproductive rights groups. It became.
struggle over position
The legal redo attempt is the result of a technical ruling handed down by the Supreme Court earlier this year. In June, the court unanimously ruled that the doctors and anti-abortion groups that filed the original lawsuit were not harmed by the expanded access to medicines granted by the FDA changes and had no standing to sue. handed down the verdict.
States that intervened early in the case were barred from doing so by the Supreme Court. They vowed at the time to amend and retry the original lawsuit. It’s not at all clear whether the state will even be allowed to sue Kachmarik, given that the Supreme Court reversed the lower court on the underlying case.
The states, led by Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R), filed a lawsuit alleging that the FDA’s actions facilitate violations of state abortion laws “by enabling out-of-state abortion drug distribution networks.” He claims that he is in a position to cause States also argued that the FDA’s action supersedes state laws regulating abortions for girls in foster care.
CNN’s Joan Biskupic and Jake Tapper talk.
” class=”image__dam-img image__dam-img–loading” onload=”this.classList.remove(‘image__dam-img–loading’)” onerror=”imageLoadError(this)” height=”1080″ width=”1920 “/>
Breaking down the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on abortion pills
States are making the same arguments that anti-abortion groups have previously tried, including that sending drugs through the mail violates a 150-year-old federal law that prohibits shipping contraceptives and obscene material through the U.S. Postal Service. Many of the issues were raised.
Anti-abortion doctors and medical groups who challenged the FDA’s rules initially tried to remove mifepristone from the market completely. The ruling takes effect after Mr. Kaczmalik, a Trump appointee, had previously moved to overturn the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a sweeping decision that would have removed the drug from the market entirely. That never happened.
The conservative U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals granted fundamental approval of the drug over a 20-year period. However, the Court of Appeal sided with doctors who challenged subsequent decisions by the authorities that expanded access to the drug, including the possibility of dispensing it by mail. These lower court decisions did not take effect because the Supreme Court intervened and ordered the status quo until the justices reconsidered the case.
President Trump’s nominee, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, wrote a letter to support the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision against anti-abortion groups.
“We recognize that many members of the public, including Plaintiff’s physicians, have genuine concerns and opposition to others using mifepristone to obtain abortions,” Kavanaugh wrote. “However, citizens and physicians do not have standing to sue simply because others are allowed to participate in certain activities. At the very least, the plaintiffs have no right to sue because of the government’s alleged underregulation of others. Unless they demonstrate what kind of damage they will suffer.”
