5th Circuit Court Takes Steps to Curtail Abortion by Mail

In a significant legal development, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered a verdict on Wednesday in the high-stakes abortion case known as Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. Food and Drug Administration (AHM v. FDA). The court ruled in favor of imposing additional restrictions on abortion pills, notably ending the practice of mail-order abortions. This decision comes as part of a broader debate surrounding the regulation of abortion medications and their impact on women's health.

Shop Holy Cards

Photo credit: Christian Bowen

Highlights

By Catholic Online (NEWS CONSORTIUM)
8/16/2023 (8 months ago)

Published in Marriage & Family

Keywords: 5th circuit, court, appeals, ruling, abortion, pills, mail, pro-life

The 5th Circuit Court's ruling did not outright prohibit the use of abortion pills. Instead, it ordered the FDA to reinstate regulations that were in place prior to 2016, particularly concerning the prohibition of administering abortion pills through mail or telemedicine channels. This shift in policy comes in response to concerns raised about the safety of the drug mifepristone, commonly used for chemical abortions.

The court's decision was driven by its assessment that the FDA had neglected to address crucial safety concerns related to mifepristone's usage. It argued that the FDA failed to consider the cumulative effect of removing safeguards and to gather substantial evidence proving the safe use of mifepristone without in-person prescriptions and dispensing.

As a result of this ruling, variations of commonly used abortion pills, such as Mifeprex and generic mifepristone, will now remain accessible under the safety restrictions that were in place before 2016. Erin Hawley, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, a legal firm representing AHM and other pro-life groups involved in the case, explained that while the immediate impact might not be apparent, the Supreme Court's certification of this ruling will require the FDA to revert to the regulations from the year 2000.

Hawley further detailed that under these reinstated regulations, mifepristone's approval will be limited to pregnancies up to seven weeks, requiring a minimum of three in-person doctor visits for drug administration. This change aims to enhance the health and safety of women seeking abortion services.

The decision was celebrated by those advocating for stricter abortion regulations. Hawley emphasized that the court's ruling reflects a victory for medical practitioners and associations as well as for women's health and safety. She criticized the FDA's past actions, which she deemed politically motivated rather than rooted in scientific judgment.

The Biden administration has yet to issue a response to the ruling, but it is expected that they will likely appeal the decision to the Supreme Court. The legal debate surrounding mifepristone's regulation and the broader implications for abortion rights is far from over.

Mifepristone, the primary drug used in chemical abortions, interrupts the development of an unborn fetus by cutting off essential nutrients required for growth. Chemical abortions presently account for more than half of all abortions conducted in the United States.

This legal case is part of a larger context marked by intensified discussions about abortion rights and regulations. It could prove to be a landmark case similar in significance to Dobbs v. Jackson Women†s Health Organization, the ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade.

Shop Timeless Catholic Gifts

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA case initially garnered attention when Federal Texas Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a controversial ruling on April 7, suspending the FDA's approval of mifepristone. This was based on the argument that the approval was granted using flawed reasoning and unsubstantiated studies. The Biden administration swiftly appealed this ruling, leading to a chain of legal actions and the eventual Supreme Court involvement.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court temporarily blocked Kacsmaryk's ruling and referred the case back to the 5th Circuit for comprehensive review. This ongoing legal battle is emblematic of the divisive discourse surrounding abortion access and the regulatory framework governing medication-based abortions.

Katie Daniel, the State Policy Director at Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, emphasized the potential risks posed by mail-order abortion pills, emphasizing that these practices endanger the health of numerous women and girls each year. The organization maintains that the FDA's decisions surrounding abortion medications must be guided by rigorous scientific analysis and genuine concern for women's well-being.