SCOTUS Issues Temporary Stay on Abortion Pill Restrictions

0:00

/0:00

Facts

On Friday, SCOTUS Justice Samuel Alito issued a temporary hold on a Texas district judge's ruling that blocked the Food and Drug Admin.'s (FDA) approval of the abortion pill mifepristone after the Dept. of Justice (DOJ) requested the Supreme Court's intervention.¹
The DOJ request follows a Fifth Circuit Court's decision Wednesday that granted a temporary stay on the ban but left certain restrictions on the use and distribution of the pill in place.²
In that case, two Trump-appointed judges, Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham, ruled to impose the restrictions, while George W. Bush appointee Catharina Haynes favored putting the Texas ruling on hold to allow for oral arguments.³
The issue at hand is whether the FDA, which first approved the pill over 20 years ago, justifiably expanded its use in 2016 to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy and allowed for it to be dispensed by mail without a doctor's visit.⁴
The filing said it 'concerns unprecedented lower court orders countermanding FDA’s scientific judgment and unleashing regulatory chaos.'⁵
Both the DOJ and Danco — a manufacturer of the pill — asked the high court to either freeze the lower court opinion or take up the case themselves and hear arguments before the summer recess. If the court hadn't stepped in, the restrictions would have taken effect at midnight.⁵

Right narrative, as provided by Federalist. The abortion industry has lied about the effects of chemical abortions for a long time, and this legal battle is finally bringing the facts to light. By approving mifepristone, the FDA put women and girls at risk of symptoms ranging from cramping and nausea to infection and bleeding. Facing pressure from the powerful abortion lobby, the FDA prioritized abortion pill access over encouraging women to consult their doctors. This has always been a political issue, but the public is only opening its eyes to that fact now.
Left narrative, as provided by Vanity Fair. If the Texas ruling is ultimately upheld, it will open the door for right-wingers to challenge the FDA's authority on more than just mifepristone. Based on the judge's opinion, the plaintiffs had standing to bring this case simply because they alleged — without a shred of evidence — that some people were harmed by the pill. With that precedent set, anti-vaxxers and other conspiracy theorists can convince a judge to overrule any medicine they deem problematic.