Doctors Opposing Abortion Call on Supreme Court to Maintain Mifepristone Restrictions

A group of doctors opposed to abortion has urged the Supreme Court to limit access to mifepristone, a key medication used in medical abortions, as the legal battle surrounding the drug intensifies. Their request comes as the court faces a deadline to make a ruling, with the Justice Department expected to respond soon.

The Supreme Court’s decision is anticipated following a temporary hold granted last week by Justice Samuel Alito, which allows time for further review of the case. This pause was issued after a federal judge in Texas ruled that mifepristone should not have been approved for use in 2000, igniting significant legal contention. The court is expected to finalize its ruling by 11:59 p.m. ET on Wednesday.

In their filing, the doctors criticized the Biden administration and the drug’s manufacturer for allegedly ignoring legal and safety regulations surrounding mifepristone for nearly 25 years. They argue that the government has consistently prioritized political considerations over women’s health and safety, claiming that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has failed to conduct adequate studies on the drug’s safety.

Erik C. Baptist, representing the doctors, stated that the FDA has removed essential safeguards related to chemical abortions and has shown a lack of concern for both women’s health and unborn life. He described the government’s defense of mifepristone as alarmist, comparing the drug’s safety to that of common medications like ibuprofen. Baptist contended that the lower court’s decisions to restrict access to mifepristone were based on careful legal reasoning that simply required the FDA to adhere to existing laws.

As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling could significantly impact access to medication abortions across the country, particularly in the wake of the Dobbs decision, which has already altered the landscape of reproductive rights in the U.S. The outcome of this case may set a precedent for future regulations and access to abortion medications.