Four months after a Supreme Court case challenging the abortion drug mifepristone was dismissed, three conservative states – Missouri, Kansas, and Idaho – have filed a new lawsuit in Texas requesting the rollback of FDA efforts to ease access to the drug. The lawsuit could potentially lead to a Supreme Court review in the next presidential administration, threatening the availability of the drug in states where abortion is legal. Mainstream medical organizations have refuted claims that mifepristone is unsafe, with medication abortions accounting for a significant portion of abortions in the US.
The lawsuit challenges the FDA’s approval of dispensing the drug through the mail, approval of a generic version of the drug, and the elimination of certain requirements for follow-up visits and physician prescribers. With abortion being a central issue in the upcoming election, both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris have weighed in on the issue. Trump expressed agreement with the Supreme Court’s ruling on mifepristone, while Harris has been more vocal in supporting the FDA’s approval and subsequent actions to ease access to the drug.
The attempt at a legal redo stems from a technical ruling by the Supreme Court earlier this year, where doctors and anti-abortion groups involved in the original lawsuit were found to lack standing. The states, which had intervened earlier in the case, were not allowed to do so at the Supreme Court and vowed to amend the lawsuit. Led by Missouri’s Attorney General Andrew Bailey, the states claim standing due to the FDA’s actions facilitating violations of state abortion laws and displacing laws regarding abortions for foster care girls.
The Supreme Court ruling against the anti-abortion groups upheld the FDA’s decisions regarding mifepristone, which included allowing the drug to be dispensed through the mail. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the unanimous court, stated that citizens and doctors do not have standing to sue simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities without demonstrating how they would be injured by the government’s alleged under-regulation of others. The case could have significant ramifications as the nation grapples with the fallout from the 2022 Supreme Court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade.
