{"id":309347,"date":"2024-03-26T16:00:12","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T21:00:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.liveaction.org\/news\/?p=309347"},"modified":"2024-03-31T22:14:45","modified_gmt":"2024-04-01T03:14:45","slug":"four-shocking-admissions-supreme-court-abortion-pill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/four-shocking-admissions-supreme-court-abortion-pill\/","title":{"rendered":"Four shocking admissions from the US Supreme Court abortion pill case oral arguments"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

The United States Supreme Court finalized hearing oral arguments<\/a> on March 26 in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) v. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), <\/em>a lawsuit which challenged<\/a> the legitimacy of FDA’s recent expansions of the abortion pill, likely the most important case since the Dobbs v. Jackson<\/em> case which overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em>.<\/p>\n

During oral arguments, Elizabeth Prelogar, Solicitor General representing the FDA, argued that respondents \u2014 a group of pro-life medical professionals \u2014 lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, claiming the medical professionals were promoting “judicial second guessing.”<\/p>\n

\"US

US Supreme Court hears abortion pill case FDA v AHM March 26, 2024<\/p><\/div>\n

Do pro-life doctors have standing?<\/strong><\/p>\n

AHM’s standing in the case was a predominant issue throughout the hearing. Yet, as Live Action News previously documented<\/a>, the Fifth Circuit previously held that Respondent doctors and associations do<\/em> have standing to file suit.<\/p>\n

Another issue heavily argued was whether conscience protections applied to the Respondent pro-life doctors. This line of questioning seemed to intrigue several of the justices, many of whom inquired whether federal conscience protections would have sufficed, rather than \u2014 as Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson alluded \u2014 everyone being impacted by returning to pre-2016 FDA safety requirements for accessing the drug.<\/p>\n

Those requirements would roll the gestational limits back from 10 weeks to seven weeks and eliminate mail-order and pharmacy dispensing of the drug by reinstating in-person requirements. It would also once again require prescribers of the drug to report non-fatal adverse events.<\/p>\n

The FDA claimed that the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA<\/a>) would protect conscience rights \u2014 but Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Erin Hawley, representing the pro-life doctors in the case, seemed to dispute that claim.<\/p>\n

Hawley pointed to two specific clients, Dr. Christina Frances and Dr. Ingrid Skop, who testified to treating women in the emergency room who were suffering from incomplete abortions.<\/p>\n

“These are emergency situations. Respondent doctors don’t necessarily know until they scrub into that operating room whether this will be abortion drug harm,” Hawley told Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. “In addition, the government simply cannot get story straight on EMTALA… they told district court the very opposite.”<\/p>\n

\"ADF

ADF attorney Erin Hawley represents pro-life doctors argues abortion pill case before SCOTUS<\/p><\/div>\n

AHM’s arguments for standing<\/strong><\/p>\n

AHM doctors have\u00a0testified<\/a>\u00a0to treating women who took abortion drugs with severe complications \u2014 \u201cmany who presented to the emergency room.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIn removing crucial safeguards for the use of abortion drugs, FDA expressly counted on OB\/GYN hospitalists and emergency-room doctors\u2014like Respondents\u2014to manage abortion-drug complications,\u201d AHM previously<\/a> claimed. \u201cWhen faced with these emergencies, Respondents have no choice but to provide immediate treatment, even though this kind of participation in an elective abortion harms their consciences and injures them in other ways.\u201d<\/p>\n

They allege that the \u201cFDA\u2019s [own] data and the Doctors\u2019 testimony establish that Respondents face a \u2018substantial risk\u2019 of these injuries\u2026 and FDA\u2019s 2021 and 2016 actions increase that risk.\u201d<\/p>\n

\n
\n

The FDA has relied on unreliable and inadequate data to remove essential safety standards from #Mifepristone<\/a>, but our patients deserve better care. pic.twitter.com\/KLdGX9qo9S<\/a><\/p>\n

— AAPLOG (@aaplog) March 26, 2024<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n