The U.S. Supreme Court has declined further consideration of a challenge to initial approvals from the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mifepristone, which is a prescription drug used in abortions conducted via medication.
“The justices declined to take up an appeal by the challengers in the case, a group of doctors and medical groups opposed to abortion who had asked them to also weigh in on the validity of the FDA’s initial approval of the drug, known as mifepristone, in 2000,” Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog wrote. The court’s decision effectively leaves alone that early 21st Century approval by the federal health agency and seemingly limits the potential reach of the disputes it will consider, which instead focus on later, specific parameters for the drug’s availability.
Such parameters under dispute included a weeks-long extension in the period of pregnancy during which the medication can be used and an expansion of the medical personnel who can prescribe it, Howe also explained.
The Supreme Court’s consideration will come after an already partial loss at the appeals court level for the challengers seeking what would amount to restrictions on mifepristone, with that mid-level court deciding that their attempted undercut to the initial, federal approvals for mifepristone was brought too late to move forward.
The eventual decisions on access to mifepristone will be the first major moves on abortion from the Supreme Court since undoing the national protections for the procedure established in the earlier case Roe v. Wade. The U.S. continues to deal with this change allowing GOP-led states to pursue their own abortion restrictions anew, with substantial populations now needing potentially to travel to another state — possibly at great expense — to access the health care opportunities that were previously available broadly. And exceptions to such bans are not models of compassion, since in cases like situations that might fall under exceptions for the life of the pregnant individual, the time up until the medical team concludes the case is serious enough to allow action could be dangerous.
