The future of access to abortion pills may hinge on a fundamental legal question: Who has the right to file a lawsuit?
Dr. Christina Francis, a pro-life doctor, is at the center of a lawsuit before the Supreme Court that seeks to limit the availability of mifepristone, an abortion pill. She heads one of the anti-abortion organizations that is suing the Food and Drug Administration to restrict the distribution of this drug. Dr. Francis claims that treating patients who have taken mifepristone has caused her moral injury.
However, it remains uncertain whether this moral injury meets the necessary threshold to bring a lawsuit in federal court, based on the concept of standing. The doctors involved in the lawsuit argue that the government is compelling them to violate their moral beliefs by prescribing this medication.
The government and many legal experts challenge these assertions, citing scientific evidence that shows complications from mifepristone are extremely rare. They argue that the doctors’ claims of moral harm are questionable and may not be sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.
A Supreme Court decision from 2009 set a precedent that statistical likelihood of harm is not enough to establish standing. If the justices find that the standing claim is insufficient, the case could be dismissed entirely.
The dispute is reflected in the briefs submitted to the Supreme Court, with the plaintiffs arguing that increased access to mifepristone could lead to more complications for women and cause distress for doctors who object to the drug. On the other hand, the federal government presents data that contradicts these claims, showing that complications have not increased and are rare.
The case to be heard on Tuesday revolves around changes made by the FDA since 2016, which have expanded access to mifepristone. Doctors argue that these decisions could lead to more complications from the drug.
While there are established conscience protection policies to allow doctors to opt out of providing care they disagree with, there is no evidence that the doctors involved in the lawsuit utilized these protections. The doctors allege that they have been forced to violate their consciences in emergency situations.
Although the anti-abortion doctors claim that mifepristone is unsafe for women, they do not object to its use in treating miscarriages. Dr. Francis and Dr. Skop, both pro-life doctors, have no moral objections to using mifepristone for miscarriage treatment.
