The use of abortion pills for women who now have to deal with state limit’s for abortions has risen….
The justices on the court are well aware that their pushing abortion policy to the states was NOT popular with a majority of Americans….
The questions poised by the justices seem to point to them pursuing a view that a “a handful of individuals,” is NOT what they want to use as a decision maker and knock the FDA out of making policy….
A majority of the Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical on Tuesday over efforts to curtail access to a widely used abortion pill, calling into question whether a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had a right to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication.
Describing the case as an effort by “a handful of individuals,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch raised whether it would stand as “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action.”
His pointed questioning over nearly two hours of argument was echoed by other justices, who asked whether any of the doctors involved in the lawsuit could show an actual injury from the federal government’s approval and regulation of mifepristone, a medication used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the country.
At one point, Justice Elena Kagan asked the lawyer for the anti-abortion groups who they were relying on to show an actual injury from the drug.
“You need a person,” Justice Kagan said. “So who’s your person?”
The case put the issue of abortion once again before the court, less than two years after a conservative majority eliminated the constitutional right to abortion and said it would cede the question of access “to the people and their elected representatives.”
A decision by the justices, expected by late June, could cut off prescriptions by telemedicine and pills sent by mail, two changes in recent years that broadened distribution. It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, potentially calling into question the agency’s ability to approve and distribute other drugs.
The current challenge involves mifepristone, a drug approved by the F.D.A. more than two decades ago. At issue is whether the agency acted appropriately in expanding access to the drug in 2016 and again in 2021.
But much of the argument focused not on the recent changes by the F.D.A. or the broader implications for the pharmaceutical industry but rather on the underlying statements by anti-abortion doctors and whether their claims were enough to bring the case in the first place.
To bring the legal challenge, the anti-abortion doctors and groups must show that they will suffer concrete harm if the pill remains widely available. Lawyers call this requirement standing…..