Pro-life groups called the Supreme Court’s Thursday ruling on the abortion pill “deeply disappointing” but vowed to continue their fight against the Biden administration’s deregulation of mifepristone, the first drug used in a two-drug abortion regimen.
The Supreme Court ruled unanimously 9-0. decision Pro-life doctors found to have no standing to challenge The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took actions to relax regulated access to mifepristone in 2016 and 2021, but this decision did not determine whether the FDA’s actions were unlawful.Missouri, Kansas and Idaho, which have filed lawsuits in lower courts over the FDA’s actions, may launch their own challenges to the abortion pill mandate, as the Supreme Court’s decision leaves open the possibility for other states — and possibly others — to sue.
“We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not hear the truth about the FDA’s unlawful rollback of commonsense safety standards for abortion pills,” said Erin Hawley, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom.[But] We are grateful that three states are prepared to hold the FDA accountable for endangering the health and safety of women and girls across this nation.”
BREAKING: The Supreme Court’s decision in our lawsuit against the FDA means the FDA can continue to put women’s health at risk, for now.
While it is unfortunate that the Court did not hear the full extent of FDA’s misconduct, today’s ruling does not change the facts. Women and girls…
— Alliance for Freedom (@ADFLegal) June 13, 2024
Ingrid Skopf, a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist who serves as vice president and medical director of the Charlotte Lozier Institute, called the decision “deeply disappointing.”
It is disappointing that the FDA was not held accountable today for its reckless decision. As an obstetrician-gynecologist with over 30 years of experience, I have witnessed the harm that mail-order abortion pills cause to both the mother and the unborn child. Pro-life advocates and corporate media shamelessly promote the sale of dangerous mail-order pills without ever meeting a doctor in person, while ignoring their stories. The tragic result will be that we will see our emergency medical system overwhelmed as more women require blood transfusions, emergency surgery, and other drastic measures. This is not medical care, it is abandonment, and the pro-life community will never stop advocating for patients.
“The fight to stop the distribution of unsafe mail-order abortion pills is not over,” Katie Daniel, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, said in a statement.
According to the FDA label, the abortion pill sends roughly 1 in 25 women to the emergency room, yet the abortion lobby gaslights women about the risks. Block states It’s impossible to even collect safety data. Planned Parenthood brags about distributing these high-risk drugs through an app.No face-to-face interaction with a doctor requireddistributing the “abortion pill” to anyone with a mailing address, including traffickers and abusers. Ordering abortion pills by mail is prohibited. Promoting domestic violence Abortion is not legal for women like Katherine Herring and her daughter Josephine, but the abortion industry doesn’t care. The old claim that abortion is “the woman’s and her doctor’s choice” has been exposed as a lie. We join our allies Attorney General Raul Labrador, Kris Kobach and Andrew Bailey in fighting to hold government officials accountable who have failed women and children.
“The Supreme Court denied justice to this woman today,” said Joe El Ghodsy, president of Heartbeat International.
““Women are more vulnerable than ever to poor research, predatory abortion practices, and extreme political ideologies,” Godsey said. “The FDA has been rewarded for its bad behavior by expanding abortion while rolling back even common-sense protections.”
Christian Hawkins, president of the Student Life Federation of America (SFLA), said the decision was “disappointing but not surprising”.
“While the Supreme Court’s decision to dismiss this case on ‘standing capacity’ was expected, we expect the litigation to continue as there are many people harmed by chemical abortions,” Hawkins said. “The Biden Administration has condoned abortion water pollution, which affects us all. We have also noted that several states want to join this lawsuit to help cover the costs of increased emergency room visits as women are harmed by the deadly drugs. We believe this will continue.”
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the plaintiff doctors’ claim that they had standing to sue under Article 3.
Historically, liberal justices have been happy to accept far less robust standing theories, so hopefully they will continue to abide by this precedent…
— Carrie Severino (@JCNSeverino) June 13, 2024
Carrie Severino, Chairman of JCN, Reply to X In opposition to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the court said the case was The vast administrative state gives unelected bureaucrats the power to write regulations that affect the lives of ordinary Americans but are extremely difficult or impossible to challenge in court.”
She said:
Today, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected the finding that the plaintiff doctors had standing to sue under Article 3. Historically, liberal justices have been willing to accept much weaker standing theories for litigants who agree with their position, so we expect them to continue to abide by this precedent. Only time will tell.
It is worth noting that the Court emphasized the importance of conscience rights and stated that existing federal law protects, rather than coerces, pro-life doctors. This is significant, given that records show that these doctors have had to perform at least a dozen abortions. Hospitals can no longer coerce doctors against their consciences under the guise of spurious legal arguments.
This case shows that the vast administrative state gives unelected bureaucrats the power to write regulations that affect the lives of ordinary Americans but that are extremely difficult, if not impossible, to challenge in court. That’s why it’s so important that laws are passed by elected representatives, not at the dictate of agency bureaucrats.
The integrated case is FDA v. Hippocratic Medical Association and Danko vs. the Hippocratic Medical LeagueU.S. Supreme Court Case Nos. 23-235 and 23-236.
Katherine Hamilton is a political reporter for Breitbart News. You can follow her on X. Follow.
