The three-judge panel of Louisiana’s 5th Circuit Court of Appeal grilled the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during Wednesday’s oral arguments, pressing for details on how it arrived at its recent decision to expand access to the abortion pill, mifepristone. The judges sought to determine whether the FDA had taken sufficient steps to investigate the issue.
In April, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the FDA’s application for a stay, keeping access to mifepristone as the case goes through the appeals process. The landmark ruling allows women to continue to make an informed and safe choice when it comes to reproductive health solutions. This promising decision marks an important step forward in the defense of reproductive rights.
In November 2022, anti-abortion groups launched a legal challenge against the FDA, contesting the agency’s approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its subsequent changes in its usage due to a lack of solid scientific evidence.
At Wednesday’s hearing, a three-judge panel composed of Jennifer Walker Elrod, James C. Ho, and Cory T. Wilson posed questions about the FDA’s responsibilities in the process of researching, authorizing, and providing medications. The trio showcased their diverse opinions while inquiring about the extent of the agency’s involvement in pharmaceuticals.
Judge James Ho seemed perplexed by the notion that ‘the FDA can do no wrong’, a stance which was being implied in the narrative. He questioned whether anyone should ever challenge the decisions of the FDA.
At Wednesday’s hearing, Sarah Harrington, U.S. Deputy Assistant Attorney General, blasted the ruling of U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who overturned the approval of mifepristone. Harrington described the decision as a “cruel disregard of FDA’s scientific knowledge,” highlighting the injustice of the decision.
Harrington challenged the physicians who filed the lawsuit, stating that they could not show the imminent danger of being forced to perform a medical procedure in contradiction to their moral beliefs as a result of mifepristone side effects.
As Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the brand-name version of mifepristone called Mifeprex, faced a lawsuit launched by anti-abortion physicians, their lawyer, Attorney Jessica Ellsworth, challenged the opposition’s claims with cases of patients taking non-FDA-approved drugs, or consuming mifepristone in medical conditions that seemed to contradict their accusations of the drug’s safety.
Harrington and Ellsworth demonstrated two unique points-of-view on the matter of doctors’ prescribing decisions. Harrington proposed that physicians probe their patients further, drilling down to the finer details which justify a certain prescription. On the other hand, Ellsworth highlighted the FDA’s role, and the need for them to ensure the safety and efficacy of medications they have approved for use.
Erin Morrow Hawley, the senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-abortion organization, contested the idea of continuing to make mifepristone available for miscarriage care, citing the fact that not all physicians may choose to prescribe it for this purpose. She further argued that the fact some may use it “off-label” should not be a determining factor in allowing it to stay on the market.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine spoke out strongly against the district court’s ruling, which attempted to outlaw the drug mifepristone.
These major medical organizations argued that the ruling was based on false science and the claims of a small fraction of pro-life individuals, in stark contrast to the vast majority of medical experts and the United States Food and Drug Administration.
The outcome of the oral arguments held before the three-judge panel remains to be seen, with no set deadline for a ruling on the residency restriction case. While a decision is pending, the Supreme Court granted a temporary order that ensures continued access to mifepristone, the drug commonly used in medication abortions. As the case progresses, the implications of this ruling will be carefully watched by those affected by the outcome.
In a bold move, U.S. House Republicans have proposed a new bill that seeks to undermine a January FDA decision that increased access to medication abortions through mail-order pharmacies. The bill, if passed, would end the practice of dispensing chemical abortion drugs through mail order and is proposed as part of the annual agriculture appropriations bill.
The fate of abortion rights nationwide is at stake as the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals takes on an important case that could drastically affect access to the procedure. Whatever their decision may be, it will likely be withheld until the Supreme Court decides whether to review the case. The outcome will shape the future of women’s reproductive choices, making it a highly anticipated and momentous occasion.
If the Supreme Court opted to consider the contentious issue of mifepristone’s approval and usage, their ruling would be binding on states across the country, even those which have long offered protection for abortion access up to 10 weeks.