The majority of the Supreme Court appeared inclined to reject a bid to restrict access to abortion pills during arguments on Tuesday. Most justices seemed skeptical that the plaintiffs had standing to bring the challenge, as they do not prescribe abortion pills or treat abortion patients regularly. There was doubt about whether the plaintiffs faced the moral harm they claimed due to the availability of the pill, mifepristone.
The case revolves around changes made by the FDA in 2016 and 2021 that expanded access to the drug. Justices questioned whether these changes would need to be rolled back, as they allowed patients to obtain prescriptions for mifepristone through telemedicine and receive abortion pills in the mail, significantly increasing availability. Some justices raised concerns about the far-reaching implications of applying nationwide restrictions to the drug, as it would be the first time a court had challenged the FDA’s regulatory authority.
The plaintiffs’ arguments for standing were met with skepticism, as they failed to show concrete harm from the policy they were challenging. The court questioned whether anti-abortion organizations in the case had standing, as they claimed harm from diverting resources to challenge the abortion pill.
There was also discussion about conscience protections, with lawyers noting that doctors could opt out of providing care that went against their beliefs. The case could impact the government’s role in drug regulation and may have broader implications for regulatory policy. The Comstock Act, a 19th-century anti-vice law, also made an appearance in the arguments, with questions about its applicability to the case.
