Judge James Ho of the U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals wrote an opinion last week that attracted a lot of attention. A three-judge panel that included Ho ruled in favor of further restrictions on access to mifepristone, the abortion pill, which will remain widely available under a Supreme Court order while litigation continues.

But Ho also wrote a separate opinion contending that medical providers could further challenge the drug on the grounds of “aesthetic injury,” a concept he borrowed, strangely, from environmental law. In what seemed a baffling argument, Ho wrote, “Unborn babies are a source of profound joy for those who view them. Expectant parents eagerly share ultrasound photos with loved ones. Friends and family cheer at the sight of an unborn child. Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients — and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted.”

Ho’s opinion cited multiple cases involving attempts to protect either wildlife or natural landscapes from harms that would diminish the viewing pleasure of nature lovers. He cited, for example, the 1972 Supreme Court case Sierra Club vs. Morton, in which the environmental group sought to block construction of a ski resort in California’s Sequoia National Forest on the grounds that the resort would harm the “area’s aesthetics and ecology.”

He also cited the 1992 case Lujan vs. Defenders of Wildlife, which concerned standing to sue a government agency for spraying pesticides harmful to “beetles and butterflies that plaintiffs intended to view.” “It’s well established,” Ho wrote, “that, if a plaintiff has ‘concrete plans’ to visit an animal’s habitat and view that animal, that plaintiff suffers aesthetic injury when an agency has approved a project that threatens the animal.” In Ho’s legal analogy, then, patients undergoing abortion are akin to damaged natural landscapes or wildlife sanctuaries. Antiabortion doctors, meanwhile, play the role of disappointed tourists missing out on expected vacation pleasures.

Critics have noted the callous cynicism of Ho, a Trump appointee, draping his support for antiabortion activism in the mantle of purported environmental concern. Feminists have decried the demeaning paternalism implicit in likening pregnant women to animals. Less examined has been the critical importance of the term “aesthetic” here. Unlike most arguments against abortion, which tend to equate it with murder, Ho criticizes it as causing aesthetic deprivation, denying doctors the pleasure they might derive from using medical imaging technology to peer into the interior of a woman’s body. His text makes frequent use of words like “view,” “image” and “sight.” While this argument may have been advanced mainly as a legal maneuver to establish standing for the doctors trying to reverse mifepristone’s federal approval, it reveals a larger truth about the antiabortion movement.

To construe abortion as a crime against the privilege of looking inside women is to construe them as objects offered up for the visual consumption, pleasure and, of course, control of others. This is not a new concept. Psychoanalytic critics use the term “scopophilia” to refer to a presumably male audience’s erotic viewing enjoyment of the prurient presentation of women’s bodies in film or television, for example. Scopophilia objectifies women, turning them into visual surfaces to be looked at, embellished, augmented or reduced, perfected and consumed — in a word, commodified.

Ho’s opinion takes scopophilia to new depths, extending it below the surface of the skin into women’s bodily interiors, which he treats here as yet another category of viewable commodity, more subject to the controlling, pleasure-seeking gaze of medical providers than to the volition of the women themselves. It’s no accident that this opinion pertains specifically to nonsurgical abortion. By virtue of being a pill, mifepristone can make abortion invisible, often obviating the need for medical imaging or pelvic exams and thereby eliminating visual access to the procedure.

Mifepristone can also reduce or even eliminate visual access to patients themselves: In many cases, a woman can get a prescription without an office visit and take the pill in the privacy of her home. Mifepristone in this way offers women a powerful mode of resistance to the kind of compulsory bodily visibility that Ho advocates. Perhaps that’s why the judge chose the seemingly bizarre grounds of “aesthetic injury” to argue against access to the drug. It allows him to reposition abortion in the very realm from which mifepristone effectively frees it: that of prurient visual surveillance.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The abortion pill faces its most disturbing attack yet appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court initially gave itself a deadline of Wednesday to decide whether women seeking access to a widely used abortion pill would face more restrictions while a court case plays out. But on the day of the highly anticipated decision the justices had only this to say: We need more time.

In a one-sentence order, the court said it now expects to act by Friday evening. There was no explanation of the reason for the delay.

The new abortion controversy comes less than a year after the Supreme Court’s conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

The following is a look at the drug at issue in the new case, how the case got to the nation’s highest court and what the delay might say about what’s going on.

___

WHAT IS MIFEPRISTONE?

Mifepristone was approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration more than two decades ago. It has been used by more than 5 million women to safely end their pregnancies, and today more than half of women who end a pregnancy rely on the drug, the Justice Department said.

Over the years, the FDA has loosened restrictions on the drug’s use, extending from seven to 10 weeks of pregnancy when it can be used, reducing the dosage needed to safely end a pregnancy, eliminating the requirement to visit a doctor in person to get it and allowing pills to be obtained by mail. The FDA also approved a generic version of mifepristone that its manufacturer, Las Vegas-based GenBioPro, says makes up two-thirds of the domestic market.

Mifepristone is one of two pills used in medication abortions, along with misoprostol. Health care providers have said they could switch to misoprostol only if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain. Misoprostol is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.

___

HOW DID THE CASE GET STARTED?

Why Amarillo? U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who was nominated by then-President Donald Trump, is the sole district court judge there, ensuring that all cases filed in the west Texas city land in front of him. Since taking the bench, he has ruled against President Joe Biden’s administration on several other issues, including immigration and LGBTQ protections.

On April 7, Kacsmaryk issued a ruling that would revoke the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, but he put the decision on hold for a week to allow an appeal.

Complicating matters, however, on the same day Kacsmaryk issued his order, a court in Washington state issued a separate ruling in a lawsuit brought by liberal states seeking to preserve access to mifepristone. The Washington judge, Spokane-based Thomas O. Rice, whom then-President Barack Obama nominated, ordered the FDA not to do anything that might affect the availability of mifepristone in the suing states. The Biden administration has said it is impossible to follow both judges’ directives at the same time.

___

HOW DID THE CASE GET TO THE SUPREME COURT?

The Biden administration responded to Kacsmaryk’s ruling by asking the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to prevent it from taking effect for now.

Last week, the appeals court narrowed Kacsmaryk’s ruling so that the initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 is not affected, for now. But it agreed with him that changes the FDA made to relax the rules for prescribing and dispensing the drug should be put on hold. Those rules included expanding when the drug could be taken and allowing for the drug’s delivery through the mail.

The appeals court acted by a 2-1 vote. The judges in the majority, Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham, are both Trump picks.

The Biden administration and the maker of mifepristone, New York-based Danco Laboratories, appealed to the Supreme Court, saying that allowing the appeals court’s restrictions to take effect would cause chaos. Facing a tight deadline, the Supreme Court gave itself some breathing room and issued an order suggesting it would act by Wednesday evening. That timeline was extended to Friday, the day the justices will hold a previously scheduled private conference.

The justices could talk about the issue further then. The additional time could also be part of an effort to craft an order that has broad support among the nine justices. Or one or more justices might be writing a separate opinion and asked for a couple of extra days.

___

WHAT COULD HAPPEN NEXT?

The Supreme Court’s delay suggests a maddening reality about an institution that ordinarily adheres to a schedule that hasn’t changed much in years: Even experts can be in the dark about when the court will decide things and how.

Cases are argued over seven months from October to April, and the most important decisions typically come right before the justices take a long summer break. The court does not say which cases it plans to hand down on a given day, and the court, in a search for consensus, will sometimes pass on the biggest issues it faces and decide a very small legal point.

But nowhere is the uncertainty as great as a separate category of cases that have come to be known as the shadow docket.

Apart from death row inmates seeking 11th-hour reprieves, shadow docket cases generally involve emergency appeals to the justices before lower courts have reached final decisions. That includes the mifepristone case.

When the justices consider this set of cases, they don’t usually have a deadline to act. A few years back, an order concerning an elections case in Texas came in the wee hours of a Saturday morning for no reason other than that’s when Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg finished work on her dissenting opinion.

___

Follow the AP’s coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post The Supreme Court fight over an abortion pill: What’s next? appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is leaving women’s access to a widely used abortion pill untouched until at least Friday, while the justices consider whether to allow restrictions on the drug mifepristone to take effect.

The court is dealing with a new abortion controversy less than a year after its conservative majority overturned Roe v. Wade and allowed more than a dozen states to effectively ban abortion outright.

At stake now is whether to allow restrictions on mifepristone ordered by a lower court to take effect while a legal challenge to the medication’s Food and Drug Administration approval continues.

The justices had at first given themselves a Wednesday evening deadline in a fast-moving case from Texas in which abortion opponents are seeking to roll back FDA approval of mifepristone, which is used in the most common method of abortion in the United States.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Justice Samuel Alito issued a one-sentence order giving the court more time and indicating it expects to act by Friday night. Alito, the justice in charge of handling emergency appeals from Texas, provided no explanation.

The justices are scheduled to meet for a private conference Friday, where they could talk about the issue. The additional time could be part of an effort to craft an order that has broad support among the justices. Or one or more justices might be writing a separate opinion, and asked for a couple of extra days.

The drug first won FDA approval in 2000, and conditions on its use have been loosened in recent years, including making it available by mail in states that allow access.

The Biden administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, the maker of the drug, want the nation’s highest court to reject limits on mifepristone’s use imposed by lower courts, at least as long as the legal case makes it way through the courts. They say women who want the drug and providers who dispense it will face chaos if limits on the drug take effect. Depending on what the justices decide, that could include requiring women to take a higher dosage of the drug than the FDA says is necessary.

Alliance Defending Freedom, representing anti-abortion doctors and medical groups in a challenge to the drug, is defending the rulings in calling on the Supreme Court to restrict access now.

Complicating the situation, a federal judge in Washington has ordered the FDA to preserve access to mifepristone under the current rules in 17 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia that filed a separate lawsuit.

The Biden administration has said the rulings conflict and create an untenable situation for the FDA.

Even as the abortion landscape changed dramatically in several states, abortion opponents set their sights on medication abortions, which make up more than half of all abortions in the United States.

The abortion opponents filed suit in November in Amarillo, Texas. The legal challenge quickly reached the Supreme Court after a federal judge issued a ruling on April 7 that would revoke FDA approval of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions.

Less than a week later, a federal appeals court modified the ruling so that mifepristone would remain available while the case continues, but with limits. The appeals court said the drug should only be approved through seven weeks of pregnancy for now, even though the FDA since 2016 has endorsed its use through 10 weeks of pregnancy.

The court also said that the drug can’t be mailed or dispensed as a generic and that patients who seek it need to make three in-person visits with a doctor, among other things.

The generic version of mifepristone makes up two-thirds of the supply in the United States, its manufacturer, Las Vegas-based GenBioPro Inc., wrote in a court filing that underscored the perils of allowing the restrictions to be put into effect.

In the latest legal twist surrounding the case, GenBioPro filed a lawsuit Wednesday to preemptively block the FDA from removing its drug from the market, in the event that the Supreme Court doesn’t intervene.

The FDA approved the company’s generic pill in 2019, based on data and studies showing it is essentially identical to the original version of mifepristone. Both versions have been studied extensively and deemed safe for women.

If the justices aren’t inclined to block the ruling from taking effect for now, the Democratic administration and Danco have a fallback argument, asking the court to take up the challenge to mifepristone, hear arguments and decide the case by early summer.

The court only rarely takes such a step before at least one appeals court has thoroughly examined the legal issues involved.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans already has ordered an accelerated schedule for hearing the case, with arguments set for May 17.

Mifepristone has been available for use in medication abortions in the United States since the FDA granted approval in 2000. Since then, more than 5 million women have used it, along with another drug, misoprostol, to induce abortions.

Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said in an interview with The Associated Press that for the court to allow restrictions intervening with FDA decisions “would be ludicrous, if it wasn’t so serious.”

If the justices take such a step, said Pelosi, D-Calif., “they’ve been too long on Mount Olympus, and it is time for a bright light to be shone.”

__

AP Health Writer Matthew Perrone and Associated Press writer Jessica Gresko contributed to this report.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Supreme Court extends access to abortion pill to Friday appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

If allowed to stand, the order issued last week by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk could restrict access to the abortion medication mifepristone as early as Friday, unsettling abortion providers less than a year after the reversal of Roe v. Wade already dramatically curtailed abortion access.

The Food and Drug Administration in 2000 granted approval to mifepristone, one of two drugs used for medication abortion in the United States. There is essentially no precedent for a lone judge overruling the FDA’s medical decisions, and pharmaceutical executives signed a letter Monday warning that the ruling could endanger other medications.

In appealing to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Biden administration said Kacsmaryk’s “extraordinary and unprecedented order” should remain on hold while it challenges the decision.

“If allowed to take effect, the court’s order would thwart FDA’s scientific judgment and severely harm women, particularly those for whom mifepristone is a medical or practical necessity,” the Justice Department wrote.

Kacsmaryk, an appointee of Donald Trump, issued his decision Friday but ruled it would not take effect for seven days — meaning the end of this week barring another court stepping in.

Adding to the uncertainty was unresolved confusion Monday over a conflicting order by a different federal judge in the state of Washington, who within 20 minutes of Kacsmaryk’s decision issued a separate ruling that directed U.S. authorities not to make any changes that would restrict access to the drug in at least 17 states where Democrats had sued.

Underlining that confusion, the Justice Department on Monday separately asked the federal court in Washington state for clarity, given the competing orders.

The abortion drug has been widely used in the U.S. since securing FDA approval. The other drug used for abortion medication in the United States is misoprostol, which is also used to treat other medical conditions and was not part of Kacsmaryk’s decision.

Many providers must wait and see what happens in the courts between now and Friday before deciding what to do next, Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told reporters.

If the Texas court’s ruling takes effect, some providers are prepared to pivot to a misoprostol-only regimen while others may transition to only surgical abortions.

“We don’t know exactly what will happen,” Dalven said. “What we do know is that there will be significant confusion and chaos as providers try to provide the best care they possibly can for their patients.”

The lawsuit in Texas was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which was also involved in the Mississippi case that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned. At the lawsuit’s core is the allegation that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because it did not adequately review its safety risks.

Courts have long deferred to the FDA on issues of drug safety and effectiveness. But the agency’s authority faces challenges in a post-Roe legal environment in which abortions are banned or unavailable in 14 states, while 16 states have laws specifically targeting abortion medications.

Among the pharmaceutical executives who signed the petition criticizing Kacsmaryk’s ruling was Albert Bourla, CEO of the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, which has produced the biggest-selling COVID-19 vaccine and treatment in the U.S.

The document warns that the decision diminishes the FDA’s authority over drug approvals. A Pfizer spokeswoman verified for The Associated Press that Bourla signed the letter.

“If courts can overturn drug approvals without regard for science or evidence, or for the complexity required to fully vet the safety and efficacy of new drugs, any medicine is at risk for the same outcome as mifepristone,” the letter states.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Justice Department appeals Texas abortion pill order appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

AMARILLO, Texas (AP) — A federal judge overseeing a high-stakes case that could threaten access to medication abortion across the nation asked lawyers for the “courtesy” of not publicizing upcoming arguments, according to a court record released Tuesday that reveals new details of a move experts say is outside the norm for the U.S. judicial system.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — who was appointed by former President Donald Trump and is known for conservative views — told attorneys during a status conference by telephone on Friday that because the case has prompted death threats and protests, “less advertisement of this hearing is better,” according to a transcript of the meeting.

“And because of limited security resources and staffing, I will ask that the parties avoid further publicizing the date of the hearing,” Kacsmaryk said, according to the transcript. “This is not a gag order but just a request for courtesy given the death threats and harassing phone calls and voicemails that this division has received.”

Kacsmaryk did not specify who made threats.

“We want a fluid hearing with all parties being heard. I think less advertisement of this hearing is better,” the judge said in asking lawyers not to tweet about the hearing so that the court could avoid “any unnecessary circus-like atmosphere of what should be more of an appellate-style proceeding.”

The judge said he planned to issue an order setting the hearing late on Tuesday, one day before the hearing in Amarillo, a Texas Panhandle community that has few direct flights and is more than four hours drive from the nearest major city. Kacsmaryk ultimately issued the order Monday, after The Washington Post reported on his attempt to keep the hearing under wraps.

Protests are now planned in Amarillo Wednesday, with the Women’s March advocacy group urging people to rally outside the federal courthouse wearing judge and kangaroo costumes to decry Kacsmaryk.

Terry Maroney, a professor at Vanderbilt University Law School who studies federal judges, said they often have security concerns in high-profile cases, but Kacsmaryk’s handling of such worries was unusual.

“I have not heard of anybody doing this,” Maroney said of Kacsmaryk seeking to delay public notice of the hearing. “It does strike me as unusual and not proper.”

Maroney said that while Kacsmaryk noted his request to avoid publicity was not an order, most lawyers would nonetheless be inclined to obey when a judge frames a request as a matter of safety. “It functionally operates as a gag order,” she said.

University of Oklahoma law professor Joseph Thai called it “deeply concerning” for a federal judge to try to keep the public in the dark.

“The fact that the Trump-appointed judge is deciding a highly political question, potentially denying millions of women across the country a safe and effective abortion pill, makes it all the more critical to ensure public notice and access to the hearing at which their rights will—or will not—be heard,” Thai said. “Nothing less than the legitimacy of the judicial branch is at stake.”

The closely watched lawsuit is challenging the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s more than 20-year approval of the drug mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions which account for more than half of the abortions in the U.S.

The suit was filed by a group that helped challenge Roe v. Wade, which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down last year, stripping away women’s constitutional protections for abortion.

Impacts of a ruling against the FDA could take years to play out. It could affect states regardless of whether abortion is legal there.

Arthur Hellman, a professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, said that if Kacsmaryk had issued a gag order the lawyers could have appealed it but there was no avenue for judicial review of his requesting their silence “as a courtesy.” “It gives rise to the appearance that he’s trying to keep the hearing, somehow, secret,” said Hellman. “It just looks bad.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Abortion pill access case: Judge wants ‘less advertisement’ appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

California will cease all its business with Walgreens, the retail drugstore chain, Gov. Gavin Newsom said on Monday, days after the company announced it would not dispense abortion medication in 21 Republican-dominated states.

“California won’t be doing business with @walgreens – or any company that cowers to the extremists and puts women’s lives at risk,” the Democratic governor tweeted. “We’re done.”

Newsom’s pushback came at an already fraught time for the future of medication abortion, which is used in more than half of all procedures nationwide, as a Texas judge weighs issuing a ban on Mifepristone, the first pill in a two-drug abortion regimen. Walgreens had responded to legal pressure from Republican attorneys general in 21 states – including a handful where abortion remains legal – in deciding to partially halt its efforts to sell the drug.

“We intend to be a certified pharmacy and will distribute Mifepristone only in those jurisdictions where it is legal and operationally feasible,” the company said last week in a statement.

Walgreens declined to comment on Newsom’s tweet.

The clash between Newsom and Walgreens, a massive chain with thousands of stores around the country, marks the latest round of fallout following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. The ruling, handed down in June of last year, shook up national politics ahead of the 2022 midterms – with many Democrats crediting the backlash for helping their candidates in tough, swing state and seat races – and complicated relationships between political and business leaders.

It’s not clear exactly how California will seek to cut ties with Walgreens.

The state is currently “reviewing all relationships between Walgreens and the state,” said Newsom spokesman Brandon Richards. He also accused the company of giving in to “right wing bullies.”

Late last week, Democratic California state Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a statement slamming Walgreens for bowing to political pressure from GOP officials.

“Medication abortion is safe, effective, and serves as a lifeline for people in need of critical care, especially those from vulnerable and underserved communities,” Bonta said on Friday. “I am disappointed that Walgreens has decided to give in to political pressure from anti-abortion states, and cut off access to these necessary and lifesaving medications.”

The company on Monday sought to clarify its position, though their latest statement only added to the confusion.

“Walgreens plans to dispense Mifepristone in any jurisdiction where it is legally permissible to do so,” the company said. Medication abortion is legal and accessible in states like Kansas and Iowa, among others, despite opposition from top Republicans, who have threatened legal action.

In a letter addressed to Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, an anti-abortion Republican, from last month, Walgreens said it “does not intend to dispense Mifepristone within your state and does not intend to ship Mifepristone into your state from any of our pharmacies.”

Abortion remains protected under Kansas state law. Last summer, the state voted overwhelmingly to block efforts by lawmakers to ban the procedure following the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade less than two months earlier.

The US Food and Drug Administration said in early January that pharmacies certified to dispense Mifepristone can do so directly to someone who has a prescription from a prescriber.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Newsom to shut Walgreens out of California state business following abortion pill decision appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Food and Drug Administration on Thursday permanently removed a major obstacle for women seeking abortion pills, eliminating a long-standing requirement that they pick up the medication in person.

Millions of American women will now be able to get a prescription via an online consultation and receive the pills through the mail. FDA officials said a scientific review supported broadening access, including no longer limiting dispensing to a small number of specialty clinics and doctor’s offices.

But prescribers will still need to undergo certification and training. Additionally, the agency said dispensing pharmacies will have to be certified.

The decision is the latest shift in the polarized legal battle over medication abortion, which has only intensified amid the disruptions of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is certain to spur legal challenges and more restrictions in Republican-led states.

Earlier this year the FDA stopped enforcing the in-person requirement because of the pandemic. Under Thursday’s decision, the agency permanently dropped the 20-year-old rule, which has long been opposed by medical societies, including the American Medical Association, which say the restriction offers no clear benefit to patients.

The FDA’s latest scientific review stems from a 2017 lawsuit led by the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the agency’s restrictions block or delay medical care, especially for people in low-income and rural communities.

The ACLU hailed the elimination of the strictest requirements but said regulators should have gone further and allowed prescribing by any physician and broader pharmacy dispensing. Abortion opponents said the FDA decision would result in more drug-related side effects and complications for women.

Physicians who prescribe the drug, mifepristone, will have to certify that they can provide emergency care to deal with potential adverse effects, including excessive bleeding, FDA officials said Thursday.

The change still means many more doctors will be able to write prescriptions and American women will be able to fill their orders at far more pharmacies, including via online and mail-order services.

The effect will vary by state. More than a dozen Republican-led states have passed measures that limit access to the pills, including outlawing delivery by mail.

Increased use of mail-order abortion pills could pose a dilemma for the anti-abortion movement, given that its leaders generally say they don’t favor criminalizing the actions of women seeking abortions and because mail deliveries can be an elusive target for prosecutors.

The latest policy shift comes as advocates on both sides of the abortion debate wait to see whether the conservative Supreme Court will weaken or even overturn the Roe v. Wade decision that guarantees the right to abortion nationwide.

Roe’s demise would likely prompt at least 20 Republican-governed states to impose sweeping bans while perhaps 15 states governed by Democrats would reaffirm support for abortion access. More complicated would be politically divided states, where fights over abortion laws could be ferocious.

Medication abortion has been available in the United States since 2000, when the FDA first approved mifepristone to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks. Taken with another drug called misoprostol, it constitutes the so-called abortion pill.

About 40% of all abortions in the U.S. are now done through medication — rather than surgery — and that option has become more pivotal during the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the time of approval, the FDA imposed limits on how the drug could be distributed, including barring it from regular pharmacies and requiring that all doctors providing the drug undergo special certification. Women were also required to sign a form indicating they understood the medication’s risks. The FDA said Thursday there have been 26 deaths associated with the drug since 2000, though not all of those can be directly attributed to the medication due to underlying health conditions and other factors.

Common drug side effects include cramping, bleeding, nausea, headache and diarrhea. In some cases excess bleeding needs to be stopped with a surgical procedure.

Near the beginning of the outbreak, the FDA waived in-person requirements for virtually all medications, but left them in place for mifepristone.

That triggered a lawsuit from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which successfully overturned the restriction in federal court. The Trump administration then appealed the ruling to the Supreme Court, which reinstated the requirement in January.

The point became moot — at least temporarily — in April when the FDA said it would not enforce the dispensing limits during the current public health emergency.

“The FDA’s decision will come as a tremendous relief for countless abortion and miscarriage patients,” said Georgeanne Usova, a lawyer with the ACLU. “However, it is disappointing that the FDA fell short of repealing all of its medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone and these remaining obstacles should also be lifted.”

Jeanne Mancini, president of the March for Life Education and Defense Fund, said the decision “will lead to more lives lost to abortion, and will increase the number of mothers who suffer physical and psychological harm from chemical abortions.”

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post US regulators lift in-person restrictions on abortion pill appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.