The US Supreme Court recently held oral arguments for the case of Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM). This case revolves around whether the FDA’s action to amend guidelines in 2016 and 2021 for the authorization of the abortion drug mifepristone was lawful. Oral arguments were attended by many in the courtroom, amidst increased security measures and the presence of hundreds of protesters outside the court.
The court heard arguments from the FDA, mifepristone manufacturer Danco, and AHM, with questions centrally focusing on whether the latter had legal standing to bring the case to court. Article 3 of the US Constitution requires a party to demonstrate a concrete injury, remediable by a court decision, directly linked to the conduct of the other party.
Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, representing the FDA, stated that as the doctors represented by AHM do not prescribe mifepristone, they do not have standing. Also, she noted that AHM’s cited injury is speculative and rests on unlikely contingencies. This included the rare cases of severe complications that may require emergency treatment.
Some justices seemed to align with the FDA’s argument. Justice Elena Kagan referred to the FDA’s brief, noting that the decision of the Fifth Circuit to restrict access to mifepristone was the only time a court has interfered with an FDA-approved drug. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson appeared sceptical towards the AHM’s request for an order to restrict access to these drugs entirely, based on the objection of being forced to participate in the procedure.
Danco’s attorney, Jessica Ellsworth, stated that the Comstock Act, which prohibits abortion-inducing substances from being sent via post, has not been enforced for nearly a century, therefore its interpretation or reach need not factor into this case.
Erin Hawley, AHM’s attorney, argued for their standing, stating that the doctors represented by AHM face the dilemma of either aiding a woman with a life-threatening condition or violating their consciousness by assisting with an abortion, a situation she claimed fulfils the requirements for legal standing.
Their point did not go unchallenged, with Justice Kagan pressing Hawley for indicated instances where objections to participating in procedures due to moral or religious reasons were denied. Justice Amy Coney Barrett also questioned the extent of alleged conscience objections, as the offered affadavits seemed to focus on objections to performing abortions exclusively.
The court’s decision is anticipated by the end of its term in June. Meanwhile, opinions from professional groups and public sentiments continue to pour in, with widely varying views coming from both the pro-choice and anti-abortion camps, as marked by the vibrant scene outside the court during the arguments.(Jurist News)