In 2022, the US Supreme Court overturned the landmark case of Roe v Wade, which granted abortion rights to women and girls in the US. This ruling by the country’s apex court sparked a heated debate around reproductive health rights, with Democrats strongly supporting abortion rights and Republicans fighting for their restriction. However, the debate has recently shifted to access to abortion pills at both the federal and state levels.

Two years after the Supreme Court upended Roe v Wade, a group of medical practitioners and anti-abortion groups moved to court challenging the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the popular abortion pill, mifepristone, and its decision to ease access to the pill across the US.

The following two cases are critical to female reproductive rights.

Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation

In June 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the US Constitution does not grant a right to abortion, overturning the 50-year-old Roe v Wade in an unexpected reversal of the long-settled legal precedent. The ruling came 15 weeks after an abortion clinic in Mississippi challenged the state’s efforts to ban abortion.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated that Roe must be overruled because the Constitution does not make any reference to abortion, nor does it implicitly protect any such right. However, in his dissenting opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that he would have upheld Mississippi’s anti-abortion law rather than overrule Roe v Wade.

President Joe Biden termed the ruling a “tragic error” and expressed that the Republican’s celebration was “wrong, out of touch and extreme”. He added that the Court had pointed the country down a dangerous path.

The Abortion Pill Case: FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

In June 2024, the Supreme Court justices unanimously dismissed a case that sought to curtail access to medical abortion pills, breathing fresh air into the abortion rights debate in the US. The abortion pill case was dismissed on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue.

In making the ruling, the court maintained the status quo, allowing continued access to the widely used abortion pill. In the unanimous decision, the court held that the anti-abortion groups did not have a direct stake in the dispute, which was required to challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone.

“The plaintiffs do not use or prescribe mifepristone, and the FDA is not requiring them to refrain from or do anything… A plaintiff’s desire to make a medication less available for others does not amount to standing to sue,” noted Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh when writing the unanimous decision.

Initially, the plaintiffs challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. However, by the time the matter was getting to the Supreme Court, the issues for determination in the abortion pill case had been narrowed down to whether the FDA had acted legally in 2016 and 2021 when broadening the distribution of the abortion pill through telemedicine and mail deliveries.

The Impact of the Abortion Pill Supreme Court Ruling

The ruling was a victory for abortion rights groups, who have praised the justices’ decision, as it averted restrictions on the availability of mifepristone. However, pro-choice groups remain vigilant, warning that the outcome could be short-lived, since the ruling only maintained the status quo.

It is worth mentioning that the court did not look into the substance issues raised in the case, but instead focused on the issue of whether the plaintiffs had standing to sue. By dismissing the plaintiff’s case, the Supreme Court maintained access to the widely available abortion pill. This means patients can still access the pill in person and through mail.

That notwithstanding, the ruling did not affect restrictions on the distribution of the pill in states with legal bans on abortion.

What’s Next? Is the Fight Over?

Anti-abortion groups vowed to press on, promising that the fight is not over. Erin Hawley, senior counsel for the conservative legal organisation Alliance Defending Freedom, representing the plaintiffs, had earlier stated that the case could be revived by three Republican-led states – namely Missouri, Kansas and Idaho.

In November 2024, the coalition of doctors and anti-abortion groups that had initiated the case dropped their lawsuit, but the three above-mentioned states are seeking to press forward.

Five months after the Supreme Court ruling, the plaintiffs filed to dismiss their case in Amarillo, Texas, federal court. Senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, Julie Blake, said that the group commends the three states as they seek to hold the FDA accountable.

While the Supreme Court appeal was pending, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho joined the case, arguing that they suffered harm when their state Medicaid programmes were compelled to pay to treat women for complications arising from taking mifepristone. The three states sought to reimpose the pre-2016 restriction on its access.

The FDA argues that the states cannot pursue their case in a Texas court without the original plaintiffs because they do not have a direct connection to Texas. The agency has also argued that the restrictions on access to mifepristone were lifted through the proper lawmaking process.

The Texas 5th Circuit Court is yet to rule on whether the states can press forward with the case before it.

What Will Happen When Trump Takes Office?

How the incoming Republican administration led by president-elect Donald Trump will handle the abortion pill case remains uncertain. During his campaign, Trump said that he would not ban the pill, but it remains unclear whether his administration will support any restrictions on it, and whether it will actively defend against the lawsuit.

It is also worth mentioning that Trump appointed conservative judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas, where the three Republican-led states have their case pending hearing, during his first term in the White House.

While it remains to be seen how the above critical factors will play out, what’s certain is that the abortion rights debate is far from over.

Source: New York Times

References:

Reuters

The Guardian

For the latest updates on litigation law, check out the Global Law Experts News