Texarkana Gazette

Pro-choice fears mount around abortion pills case as decision nears

-

Abortion rights advocates delivered a stark warning to the Biden administra­tion’s top health official in a private meeting last week: It’s time to take seriously “fringe” threats that could wind up blocking abortion access across the country.

Driving their anxiety is a Texas lawsuit brought by conservati­ve groups seeking to revoke the decades-old government approval of a key abortion drug.

The suit has been widely ridiculed by legal experts as rooted in baseless and debunked arguments. But in recent weeks, abortion rights advocates and some in the Biden administra­tion have grown increasing­ly concerned that the case is likely to be decided entirely by conservati­ve judges who might be eager for a chance to restrict abortion access even in Democrat-led states where the procedure has remained legal since the fall of Roe v. Wade.

“It’s hard to really comprehend the full and terrible impact if what the plaintiffs have asked for in that case is actually granted,” Liz Wagner, senior federal policy counsel at the Center for Reproducti­ve Rights, told Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra during the meeting at a Virginia abortion clinic. “It would be catastroph­ic.”

The case was filed in Amarillo, where U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, nominated by President Donald Trump and known for his conservati­ve views on issues like same-sex marriage and abortion, could rule as early as this week. An appeal would land in the right-leaning Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, ultimately presenting the Supreme Court with another major abortion case less than a year after its conservati­ve majority retracted the constituti­onal right to abortion.

“Obviously we have people who are not fans of the administra­tive state on that court and also obviously people are not fans of abortion,” Jenny Ma, senior counsel for the Center for Reproducti­ve Rights, told Becerra. “It’s a perfect storm.”

The suit aims to undo the U.S. Food and Drug Administra­tion’s 2000 approval of mifepristo­ne, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion. The regimen, which includes a dose of another drug called misoprosto­l, now accounts for more than 50 percent of abortions nationwide. While misoprosto­l is widely used on its own to perform abortions around the world, studies show it is less effective than the two-step regimen, and usually causes more cramping and bleeding.

Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservati­ve legal group that has been involved in antiaborti­on litigation, filed the suit in November on behalf of four antiaborti­on medical organizati­ons and four doctors who say they have treated patients with the drug.

The FDA has repeatedly deemed the two-step medication abortion protocol to be a safe and effective alternativ­e to surgical abortions. But the conservati­ve group’s 113-page lawsuit argues that the FDA chose politics over science when it approved “chemical abortion drugs,” purposely ignoring what the plaintiffs claim are potentiall­y harmful side effects.

Wagner said in an interview that she and her colleagues have struggled to get people to take the case seriously. In a recent briefing on Capitol Hill with congressio­nal staff, Wagner said, some attendees had a hard time understand­ing how abortion access could be under threat in states like New York and California.

“We were getting comments like, ‘But these states protect the right to have an abortion,’” said Wagner, adding that she and Ma had to repeatedly explain that the right to abortion was not a right to a specific method of abortion.

At the Alexandria, Va., Whole Woman’s Health clinic last week, Becerra pointed the lawyers to the Justice Department, which he said was “paying close attention” to the Texas case. His staff declined to comment further.

Inside the Justice Department, a reproducti­ve rights task force establishe­d in July by Attorney General Merrick Garland has been searching for legal avenues to protect access to abortion pills.

The department issued a legal opinion in January saying that the U.S. Postal Service may deliver abortion pills to people in states that have sharply restricted the procedure, arguing that federal law allows the mailing of the pills because the sender cannot know for sure whether the recipient would use them illegally.

Now, officials say, the task force has its eyes on the case in Texas.

“We are vigorously defending the FDA in unpreceden­ted litigation that is seeking to withdraw mifepristo­ne from the marketplac­e — an action that would work severe harm to all who rely on the medication,” Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta, who chairs the reproducti­ve task force, said at a public event in January.

The Justice Department has conceded in its legal arguments that the Supreme Court’s opinion striking down Roe stands as the reigning federal law. The crux of the department’s opposition in the Texas case is that Congress empowered the FDA to approve the use of new drugs — not states. Allowing abortion pill opponents to undercut the FDA’s judgment with “cursory and baseless allegation­s of harm” could spark challenges to other approved drugs and fuel public distrust of the process, Justice Department lawyers argued in a filing in the case.

Despite a widespread belief among abortion rights advocates that the lawsuit’s claims are baseless, providers have been preparing for their worst-case scenario, with many ready to implement new protocols if they can no longer distribute mifepristo­ne.

“I don’t think it’s a stretch at all,” said Amy Hagstrom Miller, chief executive of Whole Woman’s Health, a network of abortion clinics with locations across several states, including Texas before the Supreme Court ruling triggered a law banning almost all abortions there. “I have a lot of experience with these crazy legal theories that sound radical in Texas actually becoming reality.”

In a two-step medication abortion, a patient first takes one pill of mifepristo­ne, which terminates the pregnancy. Approximat­ely 24 hours later, they typically take a four-pill dose of misoprosto­l, a drug first introduced in 1973 to treat stomach ulcers, to soften the cervix and prompt contractio­ns that expel the fetus.

If the Texas case results in taking mifepristo­ne off the market, Hagstrom Miller said, her clinics would likely default to a misoprosto­l-only protocol.

 ?? (AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File) ?? Boxes of the drug mifepristo­ne sit on a shelf at the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala.
(AP Photo/Allen G. Breed, File) Boxes of the drug mifepristo­ne sit on a shelf at the West Alabama Women’s Center in Tuscaloosa, Ala.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from United States