Supreme Court keeps freeze on abortion pill restrictions
Add Axios as your preferred source to
see more of our stories on Google.
Photo: Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images
A divided Supreme Court on Thursday indefinitely extended a freeze on strict new restrictions for dispensing the widely used abortion pill mifepristone while an underlying legal fight over the drug plays out.
Why it matters: The widely expected order provides legal certainty for pharmacies, telehealth companies and clinicians caught up in the latest battle over accessing the pill.
- Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented.
- Teleprescribing and mailing of abortion drugs now account for more than 60% of all abortions in the health system.
Driving the news: Alito had issued two earlier stays temporarily freezing a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that would have required patients to see a provider in person before getting the drug.
- Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro had asked the high court to restore access to mifepristone through telehealth prescriptions and mail delivery.
- The case drew a flurry of briefs from Congress, state attorneys general and local governments on both sides of the abortion debate.
- A group of former Food and Drug Administration commissioners and the drug industry lobby PhRMA have also argued the 5th Circuit decision creates serious consequences for the entire drug approval system and opens the door for any state to challenge any FDA decision.
Zoom in: Abortion rights advocates cheered the stay, but cautioned that long-term access isn't secured yet.
- "The Supreme Court just did the bare minimum, but this ruling is a relief for patients who can continue to get the care they need," Alexis McGill Johnson, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.
- Still, "we know this is just one in a long line of attacks on our rights and our care," she added.
- Danco said in a statement Thursday that it remains confident in mifepristone's safety and that Louisiana's complaints should be dismissed.
Louisiana brought the underlying case challenging Biden administration rules that expanded access to mifepristone, arguing they undermined its laws protecting unborn human life and caused it to spend Medicaid funds on emergency care for women harmed by mifepristone.
- The FDA is conducting a safety review of the drug and previously asked a judge to hold off on ruling in Louisiana's lawsuit until the agency completed the review.
- Anti-abortion voices accused then-FDA Commissioner Marty Makary of dragging his feet on the review before he resigned from his post earlier this week. His temporary replacement has already been more vocally anti-abortion.
- "The FDA will press forward to complete its science-based safety review of the mifepristone REMS and, in an effort to provide greater transparency, will provide updates as key milestones are reached," the agency wrote in a post on X following Thursday's decision.
The other side: In his dissent, Alito said the expanded access to mifepristone undermines the court's previous decision that abortion policy should be left up to individual states.
- He also said the medication manufacturers have not shown irreparable harm to their businesses.
- "If the FDA were to execute an abrupt about-face and commence enforcement of the in-person-dispensing requirement, the manufacturers could promptly reapply for stays at that time," Alito wrote.
- Thomas added in a separate dissent that he agreed with Louisiana's argument that mail-order mifepristone violates the Comstock Act, a long-dormant law that prohibits mailing "obscene" materials.
What we're watching: The court did not agree to immediately hear the underlying legal arguments in the case, instead sending it back to the 5th Circuit. But the case will likely end up at the Supreme Court again soon.
Editor's note: This story has been updated with more details and Alito and Thomas's dissents.
