US: Supreme Court restores access to abortion pill mifepristone
What's the story
The United States Supreme Court has temporarily restored access to the abortion pill, mifepristone, allowing it to be obtained by mail and through telehealth prescriptions. The decision comes as part of an ongoing legal battle over restrictions imposed by a federal appeals court. The court's order ensures that women seeking abortions can continue to obtain mifepristone without an in-person visit to a doctor at least until next year.
Legal challenge
Justices Thomas, Alito dissent
The Supreme Court's intervention came after mifepristone manufacturers appealed against a ruling by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeals court had ruled that women must see a doctor in person and banned mail delivery of mifepristone. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented, with Thomas arguing that drug manufacturers shouldn't be protected from "lost profits from their criminal enterprise."
Regulatory dispute
Louisiana's challenge to FDA's policy
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved mifepristone for abortion use in 2000. In 2023, it removed the requirement for in-person visits to obtain the drug. However, Louisiana challenged this policy, claiming it undermines its abortion ban and questioning the drug's safety. The state argued that nationwide mail delivery of mifepristone violates its abortion ban, a long-unenforced law prohibiting mailing items intended for abortion.
Drug importance
Mifepristone's role in US abortions
Mifepristone is usually used with another drug, misoprostol, for abortions. Medication abortions accounted for nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the US in 2023. Despite its safety being repeatedly confirmed by FDA scientists, anti-abortion groups continue to challenge its availability through legal petitions and lawsuits against the agency.
Reactions
Abortion-rights advocates welcome decision, anti-abortion groups criticize it
The Supreme Court's decision has been welcomed by abortion-rights advocates but criticized by anti-abortion groups. Serra Sippel of The Brigid Alliance called it a relief but added that "Patients and providers should not be forced to wait on court rulings to know whether people can access critical health care." Gavin Oxley of Americans United for Life termed the decision "extremely disappointing" but not a defeat, noting that the Supreme Court could still hear the case in full.