{"id":237835,"date":"2021-01-12T19:22:02","date_gmt":"2021-01-13T01:22:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=237835"},"modified":"2021-10-11T16:43:11","modified_gmt":"2021-10-11T21:43:11","slug":"supreme-court-halts-mail-order-abortion-pill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/supreme-court-halts-mail-order-abortion-pill\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court says FDA’s in-person abortion pill safety regulations will stay in place"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The Supreme Court has issued a stay on a District Court order which had enjoined the FDA’s in-person requirement \u00a0to receive the abortion pill regimen at an abortion facility. The stay<\/a> affirms that the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) in-person abortion pill distribution requirements will remain in place, though as recently as October 2020, the Supreme Court “refused to rule on a request from the Food and Drug Administration to reinstate a rule banning the distribution of abortion pills by mail,” according to a previous report<\/a> by Live Action News.<\/p>\n

According to SCOTUS Blog<\/a>\u00a0(emphasis added):<\/p>\n

\n

The Supreme Court on Tuesday\u00a0granted a request<\/a>\u00a0from the Food and Drug Administration to reinstate a federal requirement that a pill used to induce abortion in the early stages of pregnancy be picked up in person from a health care provider. A federal district judge had suspended that requirement last summer because of the COVID-19 pandemic and then left that ruling in place after the justices in October directed the FDA to return to the lower court to seek narrower relief.<\/em><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s new order means that the FDA will once again be able to enforce the regulations requiring in-person visits, although its willingness to do so could change once the administration of President-elect Joe Biden takes over next week<\/strong>. The justices divided on ideological lines in the ruling in\u00a0Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists<\/a>, with the court\u2019s three liberal justices indicating that they would have denied the administration\u2019s application.<\/em><\/p>\n

In issuing the stay, Chief Justice Roberts said the issue at hand was not whether or not the current requirements pose an undue burden upon women seeking abortion, but whether or not the District Court properly ordered the FDA to lift those requirements. \u201cMy view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the \u2018background, competence, and expertise to assess public health,\u2019 \u201d Roberts wrote, adding, \u201cIn light of those considerations, I do not see a sufficient basis here for the district court to compel the FDA to alter the regimen for medical abortion.”<\/p>\n

The court’s three liberal justices \u2014\u00a0Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan \u2014\u00a0dissented.<\/p>\n

READ:\u00a0An OB\/GYN speaks: The \u2018no-test\u2019 abortion pill protocol experiments with women\u2019s health<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Previously, the pro-abortion American College of Obstetrician-Gynecologists (ACOG) had sued for the requirements to be suspended for the duration of the pandemic, and U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in the group’s favor<\/a>. \u201cParticularly in light of the limited timeframe during which a medication abortion or any abortion must occur, such infringement on the right to an abortion would constitute irreparable harm,\u201d he wrote in his ruling. \u201cBy causing certain patients to decide between forgoing or substantially delaying abortion care, or risking exposure to COVID-19 for themselves, their children, and family members, the In-Person Requirements present a serious burden to many abortion patients.\u201d<\/p>\n

Yet overturning the FDA requirements also put women at serious risk of harm, as the FDA itself argued in its appeal.<\/p>\n