Key Takeaways From Supreme Court Arguments on Abortion Pill Access
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load. Several justices questioned the remedy of applying nationwide restrictions to mifepristone because it would be the first time a court had second-guessed the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority. A demonstration outside of […]
Tomas Kauer - News Moderator 
You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.
Several justices questioned the remedy of applying nationwide restrictions to mifepristone because it would be the first time a court had second-guessed the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority.
A majority of the Supreme Court seemed inclined on Tuesday to reject a bid to sharply limit access to abortion pills.
During about 90 minutes of argument, most of the justices seemed doubtful that the plaintiffs, who do not prescribe abortion pills or regularly treat abortion patients, even had standing to bring the challenge. The justices, including several in the conservative majority, questioned whether the plaintiffs could show that they faced the moral harm they claimed to suffer from the availability of the pill, mifepristone.
The case centers on whether changes the Food and Drug Administration made in 2016 and 2021, which broadened access to the drug, would have to be rolled back.
Those changes made it possible for patients to obtain prescriptions for mifepristone by telemedicine and receive abortion pills in the mail, which has greatly increased the availability of medication abortion.
Several justices questioned the remedy the plaintiffs seek: to apply nationwide restrictions to the drug in a case that would have very broad implications because it would be the first time a court had second-guessed the F.D.A.’s regulatory authority.
“This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch, an appointee of President Donald J. Trump.
