NRL News

Supreme Court to Consider Case Challenging Use of Abortion Pill

by | Dec 13, 2023

By Kim Schwartz

The Supreme Court of the United States announced today it would review whether the FDA followed proper protocol in loosening safeguards on the abortion pill mifepristone.

Four national medical associations, four doctors, and Alliance Defending Freedom sued the FDA last year, asserting the agency overstepped its authority, first in approving the abortion drug, and again in waiving safety guidelines on the procedure.

Most recently, a lower court partially upheld and partially denied the Pro-Life group’s case. While the Pro-Life lawsuit aimed to take the drug entirely off the market for elective abortions due to the FDA’s neglect, the Supreme Court justices decided they would only consider recent changes that allowed abortion pills to be used later in pregnancy and to be mailed without an in-person visit.

The Supreme Court will consolidate and hear two cases over the same subject matter sometime next year: F.D.A. v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and Danco Laboratories v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

A favorable ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court in this case could reduce abortions even in pro-abortion states by limiting the drug’s use to earlier in pregnancy and requiring an in-person visit to a physician. These federal safeguards had been waived by pro-abortion presidential administrations. The court cannot change the status quo in Pro-Life states like Texas where the Right to Life of all preborn children is legally recognized.

Chemical abortions involve two drugs: the first, mifepristone, kills the preborn child by starving him or her to death, and the second, misoprostol, causes the woman to deliver the deceased baby. This has become the primary procedure for abortion nationally.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved the use of mifepristone and misoprostol in 2000 to cause chemical abortions with special treatment from President Clinton. Under President Obama in 2016, the FDA approved the abortion pills for use later in pregnancy, from seven weeks to 10 weeks, despite the increased risk of complications. In 2021, the Biden-led FDA removed the requirement for pregnant women to visit a doctor in person, a step that is necessary to determine the age of the preborn child and examine the mother for ectopic pregnancy, Rh incompatibility, or other conditions that contraindicate the abortion pill regimen.

By 10 weeks in pregnancy, the preborn baby has her own unique DNA; her heart starts beating; her eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop; she has detectable brain waves; and every major organ system is in place.

Every abortion ends the life of an innocent preborn child, and chemical abortion is additionally dangerous for the pregnant mother. Studies show that 1 in 5 women experience an adverse event following a chemical abortion, the rate of complications for chemical abortions is four times higher than surgical abortions, and they require follow-up surgical abortion in 3-8% of cases. This type of abortion takes much longer and involves more bleeding and pain, and complications skyrocket with the baby’s increasing gestational age.

Texas Right to Life President Dr. John Seago added:

“The FDA exists to protect Americans from dangerous drugs, yet numerous pro-abortion presidents used the agency as a political tool to promote elective abortion at the expense of pregnant women and their preborn children. We hope the Supreme Court will fairly examine the agency’s negligent and politically-motivated rule changes for this deadly abortion drug over the last 23 years.”

Doctors, however, should not be concerned about changing their protocol for treating miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies. This lawsuit does not ask the court to take mifepristone off the market for all purposes. Thus, the ruling can only apply to chemical abortions. While miscarriage treatment can indeed involve similar drugs and procedures as elective abortion, removing a deceased child who passed away by spontaneous miscarriage is legally and morally different than intentionally ending that child’s life, and it is therefore not defined as an abortion.

Mail-order abortions essentially turn every cell phone into an abortion clinic. Texas Right to Life continues to call on our elected officials to prioritize policies that will stop dangerous new trends like anti-Life groups sending abortion drugs illegally through the mail or trafficking them over our southern border. Women in unexpected pregnancies can find free help in their communities at