Mifepristone: US abortion pill access in doubt after rival rulings

BBC News:

A Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas has ordered a hold on the longstanding approval of a widely used abortion drug, mifepristone.

But an hour later an Obama-picked judge in Washington state issued a competing ruling, ordering that access to the drug be preserved in 17 states.

The pill has been allowed for over 20 years, and is used in most abortions.

The duelling court orders make it likely that the issue will escalate to the US Supreme Court.

In a 67-page opinion, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Amarillo, Texas, halted the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. The ruling will not go into effect for seven days to allow the government time to appeal.

The US Department of Justice confirmed on Friday night it would challenge the Texas ruling.

Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision could limit access to the drug for millions of women in the US. Legal analysts said the ruling threatens to upend the entire foundation of America’s drug regulatory system.

It comes after the Supreme Court removed constitutional protections for abortion last year, triggering a wave of state-by-state bans.

A lawsuit filed by anti-abortion groups had argued that the drug’s safety was never properly studied.

https://emp.bbc.com/emp/SMPj/2.48.0/iframe.htmlMedia caption,

‘Barbaric’ abortion law nearly killed these Texas women

In his ruling, Judge Kacsmaryk said the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval had violated federal rules that allow for accelerated approval of certain drugs. The FDA spent four years reviewing mifepristone before it was approved in 2000.

The judge also said the FDA had failed to consider the “psychological effects” of mifepristone and its safety record.

The FDA’s “failure [to account for this] should not be overlooked or understated”, his legal opinion continued. The FDA, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynaecologists (ACOG) and other mainstream medical organisations say mifepristone is safe for use.

Allison Whelan, assistant professor in Georgia State University College of Law who filed a legal brief in favour of keeping FDA approval, said the ruling – which refers throughout to “unborn humans”, not fetuses – was “inflammatory”.

“The politics and ideology motivating Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision could not be made any clearer by the inflammatory anti-abortion language used throughout the opinion,” she told the BBC.

“He cherry-picks the studies he cites to support his conclusion that abortions are unsafe or harm those who get abortions, without citing the many studies that refute those conclusions.”