By The Supreme Court unanimously rejected a lawsuit on Thursday challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone, allowing the drug to stay on the market.
The court ruled that the doctors and anti-abortion groups that had challenged access to the drug did not have standing to sue. Though technical, the court’s reasoning is important because it might encourage other mifepristone challenges in the future.
Medication abortion accounts for nearly two-thirds of all US abortions, according to some estimates. The FDA approved mifepristone in 2000 as part of a two-drug regimen to end a pregnancy, and it has been shown to be safe and effective. The pill is also often prescribed for miscarriage treatment.
Here’s what to know about the ruling:
Plaintiffs had no standing
The court ruled that the doctors and anti-abortion groups that had challenged access to the drug did not have standing to sue.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the opinion, said the parties do not have standing “simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities — at least without the plaintiffs demonstrating how they would be injured by the government’s alleged under-regulation of others.”
Biden blames GOP for allowing challenge to abortion access
President Joe Biden cast blame on Republicans for the very existence of the case, taking aim at GOP elected officials’ “extreme and dangerous agenda” on reproductive rights. Biden has worked to make protecting abortion rights a centerpiece of his reelection bid.
Meantime, former President Donald Trump cautioned Republicans not to go too far on abortion in a meeting with the House GOP conference.
The big picture
Access to mifepristone has become particularly important after the court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago and many states banned the procedure in clinical settings. The ruling is a significant setback for the anti-abortion movement.
But the court’s technical reasoning is important because it might encourage other mifepristone challenges in the future. Much of the opinion covered the various legal thresholds a plaintiff must reach to make it appropriate for courts to intervene in a dispute.
In addition, the Supreme Court is yet to release a decision on a case related to abortions in health emergencies. The justices will decide what happens when pregnant women show up to the hospital with medical emergencies in states that have strict bans on abortion.
