On March 26, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments for the federal case FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM). As we’ve previously discussed, this hearing centered on the question of whether the Court should require the FDA to reinstate basic safeguards on the abortion drug mifepristone that had been in place for 16 years but have been completely eroded starting in 2016. These safeguards include a 7-week gestational limit, a requirement that only physicians can prescribe the drug, a requirement that women have 3 in-person visits with a medical professional (one prior to receiving the drugs to rule out any contraindications such as an ectopic pregnancy and to accurately date her pregnancy and two follow-up visits to screen for any complications and completion of the abortion), and the reporting of all serious adverse events – all of which are crucial to reduce the risk of these high risk drugs for women.
The FDA and Danco focused their critique on the standing of the plaintiffs to bring the case – that is, whether AHM, AAPLOG, ACPeds, CMDA, and the individual physicians are sufficiently harmed by the FDA’s actions to bring this lawsuit. As Erin Hawley of the Alliance Defending Freedom, the law firm representing AAPLOG, argued in court, the FDA’s negligence harmed these physicians not only because it forces them and their hospitals to utilize resources to treat women facing complications that could have easily been prevented, but also because as pro-life physicians, they are regularly put in the position to participate in and complete induced abortions, which violates their conscience.
Two big takeaways from oral arguments: the government’s lawyer stated that the FDA is essentially above the law and that no one has standing to challenge its decisions and Danco (the manufacturer of mifepristone) stated on the record they oppose safeguards meant to protect women taking their high-risk drug solely because those safeguards hurt their profit margin.
At a press conference on the courthouse steps directly following oral arguments, I stated,
As physicians who care deeply about our patients, it is appalling that the FDA no longer requires doctors to provide in-person, ongoing care to women using these high-risk drugs. These in-person doctor visits are vital to check women for ectopic pregnancies, severe bleeding, and life-threatening infections. No woman should ever be left to perform her own chemical abortion at home alone without even one in-person exam with a doctor. Yet that is precisely what the FDA has left women to face despite its own label stating that roughly one in 25 women who take these drugs will end up in the ER.
The Court is predicted to make a ruling on this hearing by the end of June. You can stay up to date on the latest developments in this landmark case by visiting the Alliance Defending Freedom’s webpage. AAPLOG is grateful for ADF’s strong defense of both you, our members, and our patients in this case. We will continue to stand strong to defend you.
Also, watch your inboxes later this week for a special report from Dr.’s Donna Harrison and Christina Francis, who were inside the Court for oral arguments.
