Just months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, a ProLife medical group is suing the Food and Drug Administration to reverse approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, which was approved 20 years ago.
The Hippocratic Medical Alliance (AHP) first filed a lawsuit in Texas last November, alleging that hippocratic drugs were unfairly expedited by classifying pregnancy as a “disease” in 2000. caused
Legal experts now believe the case could go to the Supreme Court, so given the Biden administration’s decision to continue to allow drugs to be shipped via email. Opinions are divided as to whether the laws of the 1800s apply. .
“They really went ahead with the approval of mifepristone very quickly,” Sarah Parshall Perry, Senior Legal Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Fox News Digital.
“And the most concerning factual basis here is that they pushed through the approval process without following the approved science and performing the type of testing and data analysis required for these types of emergency approvals. That’s right,” Perry said. He said.
Doctors urge North Carolina legislators to vote against new abortion restrictions
Since the June 2022 ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade, states across the country have pushed for numerous abortion laws, including outright abortion bans and broader access to abortion.
Recently, Republicans took steps to prevent President Biden from declaring a federal health emergency as a means to expand abortion rights, a move the Biden administration has been working on since Roe was overthrown. I’m here.
A box of the drug mifepristone sits on a shelf at the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, March 16, 2022. The Texas lawsuit seeks to revoke the drug’s approval by the Food and Drug Administration. (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File)
Irwin Chemelinski, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, believes the case could end up in the U.S. Supreme Court regardless of who the court favors. .
20 democratic governors launch network aimed at boosting access to abortion
“I think the plaintiffs have a very weak basis for challenging the law,” Kemerinski told Fox News Digital. “But they took the case to stand before a very conservative and perhaps sympathetic judge.”
The Point of Controversy Turns Out to be the Department of Justice’s Authorization for the U.S. Postal Service to Continue Delivering Mifepristone in the Mail, Experts Claim DOJ Violated the Comstock Act of 1873 there’s a possibility that. An article designed to make abortion illegal,” said Partial Perry.
Plaintiffs in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA allege that the FDA improperly accelerated approval of mifepristone in 2000. (iStock)
“The FDA would have been aware that these particular devices could not be shipped across state lines, so that would undoubtedly act as a factor,” Parshall Perry said. The swift approval of the law was a government agency that knew enough about what the law was about, and it got everyone’s attention.”
Democratic Senators Call on Biden Administration to Ignore Court Orders That May Ban Abortion Drugs
Chemerinsky, on the other hand, does not believe that the Comstock Act would play such an important role if it were to go to court, and instead the court would consider “whether the FDA followed proper procedures in approving drugs. ‘, he said.
Critics say the Justice Department violated federal law by authorizing the U.S. Postal Service to continue distributing mifepristone in the mail. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)
When asked for comment, the FDA said it does not comment on pending lawsuits.
Kentucky Supreme Court leaves state’s near-total abortion ban in place
“We, and many of the people who support medical associations and physicians across the country, believe that the FDA did not have the authority to approve these dangerous drugs and deny their marketing and distribution. agrees,” Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Attorney Erik Baptist said in a statement.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
AHP filed a brief letter on February 10 supporting the motion for preliminary injunction.
