State Attorneys General Urge Supreme Court to Uphold Ban on Mail-Order Abortions
Nineteen state Attorneys General have filed a brief with the Supreme Court, supporting a federal appeals court’s ban on mail-order abortions. The ban aims to protect women from the potential risks associated with improper FDA approval processes for abortion pills. The Biden administration faces criticism for its pursuit of an agenda that allegedly bypasses democratic processes. The brief, led by Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch, sheds light on the FDA’s actions over the past two decades, emphasizing the need to uphold safeguards for women’s health.
The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals had previously ruled against mail-order abortions, expressing concerns about the FDA’s flawed approval of the drug mifepristone. The court argued that the FDA had neglected to study the drug’s safety adequately and had removed essential safeguards over the years. The legal battle, now reaching the Supreme Court, underscores the potential life-or-death consequences of the FDA’s decisions.
Attorney General Fitch emphasized the importance of preserving the right of states to determine abortion policies, especially following the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dobbs case. The legal brief outlines the FDA’s gradual erosion of safety measures for mifepristone, leading to a broad mail-order abortion-drug regime. The brief also criticizes the FDA for its failure to study the cumulative effects of various approved changes, putting women’s health at risk.
The attorneys general argue that the FDA’s actions have far-reaching consequences, jeopardizing the well-being of women and their children. The brief highlights the risks associated with chemical abortion drugs, emphasizing the need for accountability and adherence to legal obligations.
The legal battle reflects a broader debate over the FDA’s responsibility in approving and regulating abortion drugs. The 5th Circuit’s decision earlier this year enhanced safety requirements, limiting the permissible gestational age for taking chemical abortion drugs and reinstating necessary doctor visits. The court emphasized the FDA’s failure to regulate the potent drug adequately, prompting concerns about the harm caused to women.
In the wake of the legal developments, a Nevada woman’s death following a botched abortion at Planned Parenthood has drawn attention to the risks associated with abortion drugs. The family of Alyona Dixon, 24, is suing the Las Vegas hospital for allegedly inadequate medical care following complications from the abortion.
As the Supreme Court prepares to consider the case, the legal brief from pro-life state Attorneys General underscores the need to prioritize women’s health and well-being in the regulation of abortion drugs. The outcome of this legal battle may shape future policies surrounding mail-order abortions and the FDA’s role in regulating abortion drugs.