The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
At the same time, groups and doctors that oppose abortion want the justices to go even further than a conservative federal appeals court did and hold that the initial 2000 approval of the drug was also unlawful.
Erin Hawley, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the abortion pill challengers, urged the justices to agree with the lower-court decisions restricting access to the drug when they eventually decide the case.
Challengers – including doctors and groups who oppose abortion – argue that the FDA did not do enough to study the safety implications of the drug when it approved its use and made it more easily accessible in subsequent years.
The legal volleying jumpstarted this spring, when US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, issued a ruling that would have a halted the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug.
Prelogar said that if the lower court decision is allowed to take effect it would “up-end the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with damaging consequences for women seeking lawful abortions and a healthcare system that relies on the availability of the drug under the current conditions of use.”
The 5th Circuit decision “destabilizes” the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries “by questioning when scientific studies – accepted by FDA – are sufficient to support conditions of use,” Ellsworth added.
The original article contains 1,170 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
At the same time, groups and doctors that oppose abortion want the justices to go even further than a conservative federal appeals court did and hold that the initial 2000 approval of the drug was also unlawful.
Erin Hawley, an attorney with the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the abortion pill challengers, urged the justices to agree with the lower-court decisions restricting access to the drug when they eventually decide the case.
Challengers – including doctors and groups who oppose abortion – argue that the FDA did not do enough to study the safety implications of the drug when it approved its use and made it more easily accessible in subsequent years.
The legal volleying jumpstarted this spring, when US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, issued a ruling that would have a halted the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug.
Prelogar said that if the lower court decision is allowed to take effect it would “up-end the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with damaging consequences for women seeking lawful abortions and a healthcare system that relies on the availability of the drug under the current conditions of use.”
The 5th Circuit decision “destabilizes” the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries “by questioning when scientific studies – accepted by FDA – are sufficient to support conditions of use,” Ellsworth added.
The original article contains 1,170 words, the summary contains 215 words. Saved 82%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!