Two federal judges. Two opposing decisions. So, what does that mean for the rest of us? The situation is a complicated one, with a lot of uncertainties on both sides. With the controversial decision regarding Roe v. Wade last summer — which overturned the constitutional right to access abortions and paved the way for individual states to reduce or outright ban abortions — many people are worried about their rights. Decisions about things such as abortion pills are big ones and many people are either worried or excited to see what this means for the future.
On Friday, April 7, dueling, back-to-back rulings by federal judges raised questions about Americans’ access to the drug mifepristone, the most common abortion pill in the country. These rulings about the provision of mifepristone were issued by two separate federal judges — one in Texas and one in Washington State. While both rulings are only preliminary injunctions, issued before the full case has been heard by the court, they state opposite things. Their differences indicate that a showdown in the Supreme Court is more likely than not.
Texas Ruling
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas Amarillo Division, issued a preliminary injunction in the case of Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. Kacsmaryk stated that the Food and Drug Administrations approval of mifepristone in 2000 was invalid. He ruled that the drug’s approval should be put on hold and stayed his order for seven days to give the FDA time to appeal. This ruling also suspends any subsequent decisions made by the FDA that expanded the use of mifepristone for terminating pregnancies.
According to legal experts, Kacsmaryk’s ruling is one of the first times a court has ordered an approved drug to be removed from the market over the FDA’s objections. If the ruling stands, it could effectively impact anyone who wants to use the drug and could even have repercussions for the federal government’s authority in regulating other types of drugs.
After seven days, unless an appellate court intervenes, mifepristone’s approval will be stayed and no longer in effect. Essentially, this means the drug would become unapproved and unable to be manufactured, marketed or distributed.
Washington State Ruling
Judge Thomas O. Rice of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington ruled in a case filed by Attorneys General from Oregon and Washington, joined by 16 other Attorneys General. The ruling orders the FDA to maintain mifepristone’s availability in the 17 states and D.C. that filed the lawsuit before the court. Rice ruled that federal officials could not hinder access to the drug in those states, thus maintaining the status quo.
The ruling is in response to the lawsuit filed by Democratic attorneys general, which challenged the FDA’s decision to impose restrictions on mifepristone. They claim the restrictions on the drug are “unnecessary” and “limit its availability.”
What Does This Mean?
The results of these two decisions mean that the FDA now has conflicting rulings regarding the use of mifepristone. Does it suspend its approval of the drug, or does it not alter its approval of the drug? And how do these decisions impact us? Medication abortion, like the use of mifepristone, is the primary way people access abortions in the U.S. Mifepristone is also the predominant medication — and the only one approved by the FDA, and it has been for the last 20 years. If mifepristone is no longer approved, due to the Texas decision, then it would become illegal to market the drug, making it much harder to access.
There are a lot of questions surrounding these decisions and what they will mean for the rest of us. This deadlock is likely to be determined in the Supreme Court, but it’s also possible for the Fifth Circuit to overrule the district court, meaning the stay wouldn’t go into effect. Given how passionate each side is on this issue, it’s clear that whatever decision is made will not be the end of the discussion. We can expect many more battles surrounding abortion and its regulation.
Which decision do you support? Tweet us @VALLEYMag with your thoughts!
