The U.S. Supreme Court appears poised to sidestep the heated debate surrounding the abortion pill mifepristone, focusing instead on the technical legal question of “standing” in a push made by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG).
Standing refers to the legal right to initiate a lawsuit. To do so, the ACOG must demonstrate adequate connection to and harm from the law or action it wants to challenge. The ACOG, backed by a collection of physicians, argues that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) decision to maintain in-person dispensing requirements amidst a pandemic is untenable and unnecessarily intrusive towards patients seeking medical abortions.
However, recent arguments put forward suggest that the Supreme Court might dodge the merits of this argument entirely. Having largely focused its query on the issue of whether the aggrieved parties have the right to sue, the court has left stakeholders unsure about its inclination to address the underlying issues related to the abortion pill requirements.
Mifepristone is part of a two-drug combination used to carry out early-stage non-surgical abortions. Concerns over its availability and restrictions imposed by the FDA, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, have fueled an intense debate around the substance. These restrictions require that the drug be distributed by certified healthcare providers in a clinical setting, raising concerns about patient accessibility during lockdown.
For more detailed analysis on standing grounds arguments and implications, consider consulting the Court’s official argument transcript or other expert legal analyses available. Keep an eye on these developments as they have the potential to reshape legal standards around drug regulation and abortion rights.