NRL News
202.626.8824
dadandrusk@aol.com

Supreme Court’s decision means that the FDA free to continue its “lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs”

by | Jun 14, 2024

By Dave Andrusko
On Thursday, National Right to Life News Today critiqued the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court that concluded that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine lacked the legal standing to challenge decisions made by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 that made mifepristone, the abortion pill, much more broadly available. These stories are here and here.
The Alliance Defending Freedom represented the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. Erin Hawley, vice president of the ADF Center for Life and Regulatory Practice, commented on U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine immediately after it was rendered:
“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the FDA’s lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs,” Hawley wrote. “Nothing in today’s decision changes the fact that the FDA’s own label says that roughly one in 25 women who take chemical abortion drugs will end up in the emergency room—a dangerous reality the doctors and medical associations we represent in this case know all too well. The FDA recklessly leaves women and girls to take these high-risk drugs all alone in their homes or dorm rooms, without requiring the ongoing, in-person care of a doctor. While we’re disappointed with the court’s decision, we will continue to advocate for women and work to restore commonsense safeguards for abortion drugs—like an initial office visit to screen for ectopic pregnancies. And we are grateful that three states stand ready to hold the FDA accountable for jeopardizing the health and safety of women and girls across this country.”

Hawley concluded.

“The court recognized that our doctors would have standing to protect their conscience rights. The government’s initial position was that federal law would not protect our doctors from being forced to participate in abortions. Yet at the Supreme Court, the government changed its position and said that federal conscience laws definitively protect doctors in these circumstances. This about-face explains why the Supreme Court parted ways with every other court to consider this case. And it resulted in the court recognizing that ‘[f]ederal law fully protects doctors against being required to provide abortions or other medical treatment against their consciences.’”

Categories: Supreme Court