Implications of the Supreme Court’s Decision on the Future of Mifepristone
The Supreme Court recently declined to review a case challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s expedited approval and mail distribution of mifepristone, a drug that accounts for over half of all U.S. abortions. The Court’s unanimous procedural decision dismissed the challenge from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a coalition of medical professionals, on the grounds of lack of standing, without commenting on the morality or legality of the drug’s use.
Corporate media and abortion advocates have interpreted the decision as a victory in expanding access to abortion even in states with restrictive abortion laws. Meanwhile, states like Kansas, Idaho, and Missouri were prepared to further legal challenges, potentially setting the stage for future Supreme Court involvement.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s ruling left open the possibility for future actions both to challenge and solidify the availability of mifepristone. Following the decision, President Joe Biden’s administration reaffirmed its commitment to promoting reproductive rights and access to abortion, particularly emphasizing the continued need to combat legislative and ideological opposition to medication-induced abortion.
The narrative around mifepristone is contentious, with critics highlighting its associated risks, such as significant increases in abortion-related ER visits, and potential severe side effects. In contrast, proponents argue for its crucial role in reproductive healthcare and emphasize the safety and efficacy of treatments such as abortion pill reversals, which have been deemed safe by several studies despite political controversies.
Image CreditFDRLST/Canva
The Supreme Court ruled last week that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine et al., a coalition of medical professionals sworn to “protecting the vulnerable at the beginning and end of life,” did not have adequate legal standing to challenge the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s rushed approval and mail-order expansion of the drug regimen responsible for more than half of the nation’s abortions.
Corporate media gladly used the unanimous decision, which was largely procedural and did not offer a moral or legal judgment on the actual use of abortion pills, as ammo to fuel their abortion allies’ attempts to expand baby-killing even in the dozens of pro-life states that have restricted or banned it.
Only a few were willing to admit that the true nature of the opinion penned by Justice Brett Kavanaugh leaves the door wide open for a stronger challenge to make its way to the high court. Kansas, Idaho, and Missouri, whose attempts to join the SCOTUS case were declined, already appear teed up for more viable legal action over the abortion pill.
SCOTUS’s refusal to rule on the merits of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s case, however, also leaves the door open for abortion activists and their elected allies to do everything in their power to solidify mifepristone’s presence in their post-Dobbs v. Jackson baby-killing schemes. Especially because the court’s instruction for those worried about the pill to take it up with the administrative state will likely fall on the FDA’s deliberately deaf ears.
Shortly after the court’s ruling last week, President Joe Biden’s White House issued an official statement signaling its continued commitment to advancing its abortion-for-all agenda.
“Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues,” the comment begins.
The four-paragraph statement frames criticism of the pill responsible for a 500 percent increase in abortion-related emergency room visits as “attacks on medication abortion” that are “part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide.”
The Biden administration’s quest to keep promoting abortion pills that can cause hemorrhage, “fast, weak pulse,” “shortness of breath,” diarrhea, dizziness, headache, vomiting, “pain” across the back, arms, neck, and abdomen, and myriad other risks to both mothers and babies is joined by states that not only entertain deceptive abortion ballot measures but also abuse their power to squash pro-lifers.
New York Attorney General Letitia James, for example, is using lawfare to target pregnancy centers in her state that promote lifesaving abortion pill reversals, which several studies have determined are “safe and effective” and resulted in “no apparent increased risk of birth defects.”
Mifepristone, on the other hand, cuts off the hormones babies in utero require to grow and flourish, essentially killing the child via starvation. Then, the pill induces a form of labor that causes the likely deceased baby to exit the body amid profuse bleeding that may last weeks or even months. In some cases, the chemical abortion drug has led to the deaths of mothers.
The people behind the popular yet dangerous abortion pill have since raked in tens of millions of dollars for selling a drug designed to kill unborn babies. The Biden administration and abortion activists’ efforts to expand means for abortion through all nine months of pregnancy regardless of pro-life prohibitions on the practice have only made the tangled web of investors and shell accounts that manage mifepristone’s market presence more profitable.
If one thing is certain after Thursday’s ruling, it’s that the fight over chemical abortion via mifepristone is far from over.
Jordan Boyd is a staff writer at The Federalist and producer of The Federalist Radio Hour. Her work has also been featured in The Daily Wire, Fox News, and RealClearPolitics. Jordan graduated from Baylor University where she majored in political science and minored in journalism. Follow her on X @jordanboydtx.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...