🧑‍🏫Supreme Court Issues Controversial Ruling On Abortion Pill Access

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the abortion pill Mifepristone can continue to be available by mail without requiring an in-person appointment with a clinician.

The decision comes after a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans on May 1 that threatened widespread access to the pill.

The nation’s highest court granted emergency requests from drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro to block the appeals court ruling.

The decision marks a setback for the state of Louisiana and ensures that litigation will not disrupt access to the drug.

On May 4, the court, led by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, had provisionally paused the appeals court ruling while the justices considered their next steps, according to multiple published reports.

Two of the court’s conservative justices, Alito and Clarence Thomas, dissented.

Thomas, noting that mailing mifepristone is illegal under Louisiana law, sharply criticized the drug manufacturers, arguing they were not entitled to block a court order “based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise.”

In a separate opinion, Alito said the Biden administration’s 2023 decision to make mifepristone available by mail was an effort to “undermine” the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade.

“Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations, and states that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement,” Alito added.

Abortion rights activists, naturally, hailed the ruling as a victory, however temporary it may turn out to be.

“The Supreme Court just did the bare minimum, but this ruling is a relief for patients who can continue to get the care they need. We know this is just one in a long line of attacks on our rights and our care,” Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, said in a statement.

The underlying case centers on Louisiana’s challenge to a Food and Drug Administration decision made during the Biden regime allowing mifepristone to be prescribed without in-person appointments, making the abortion pill accessible even in states where abortion is largely prohibited.

Anti-abortion groups have sought to restore the in-person dispensing requirement, arguing that taking mifepristone at home can pose health risks, though multiple studies have concluded the medication is generally safe and effective.

In urging the Supreme Court not to intervene, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, wrote in court filings that despite Louisiana’s near-total abortion ban, as many as 1,000 abortions per month were still occurring through mifepristone pills mailed into the state.

Murrill later criticized the court’s ruling in a statement issued Thursday evening.

“It’s shocking that the Supreme Court would block this common-sense return to medically ethical practices and oversight,” she said. “We will keep fighting.”

An attorney for the Alliance Defending Freedom, Erin Hawley, who is litigating the case with the state of Louisiana, said in a statement Thursday’s ruling, “It’s high time the Biden FDA be held accountable for the destruction it has caused with this high-risk drug.”

Earlier this week, Alabama received approval from the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday to move forward with a redistricting effort that could strengthen Republican prospects in two congressional districts currently represented by Democrats.

In a 6-3 decision, the justices vacated a lower court order that had required Alabama’s congressional map to contain two majority-black voting districts.

Those districts are currently represented by Reps. Terri Sewell and Shomari Figures, both Democrats.

The ruling follows the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Louisiana v. Callais, which limited the use of race in congressional redistricting and struck down Louisiana’s map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Not surprisingly, left-wing Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the Alabama ruling, multiple reports noted.