Based on Tuesday’s evaluation of an abortion pill case, the Supreme Court seems likely to reject a push to curb the distribution of the drug mifepristone. In the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM), physicians and organizations that are anti-abortion challenged the FDA’s approval of the medication. The majority of the judges were skeptical of the plaintiff’s argument, which couldn’t seem to prove that the approval harmed them. If the court makes its final decision in accordance with the recent discussion, the nation will take a step, however small, in the right direction for preserving reproductive rights. The AHM, however, takes a dangerous stance — one that challenges the authority of the FDA, the third article of the Constitution and the responsibilities of healthcare professionals.
Only two judges, conservatives Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., favored limits on the pill’s distribution. Justice Neil M. Gorsuch argued that allowing the case to persist could stand as “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action.” The FDA, composed of scientists and medical professionals, has been established as the authority responsible for the approval and distribution of drugs. This task is so far past the court’s area of expertise. If the judiciary oversteps that role, it could have severe ramifications on the FDA’s legitimacy.
The FDA originally approved mifepristone in 2000, then expanded access to the pill in 2016 and 2021 by allowing doctors to prescribe it through telemedicine and send the pill by mail. In an era of severe reproductive rights restrictions, having access to mifepristone upholds, to an extent, women’s bodily autonomy. In states with abortion bans that don’t distinguish between surgical abortion and medication, women can’t even obtain access to the pill. But for those who can, rescinding that opportunity would be a severe and dangerous restriction, considering mifepristone was used in over 63% of all abortions last year.
Even when disregarding the merits of the case and the dangers that a decision could pose on reproductive rights, most judges acknowledged the sheer dubiety of the plaintiff’s claim. According to Article III, a litigant must have suffered an “actual or imminent injury” to press charges. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court asked whether any doctors involved could actually prove the FDA’s approval of mifepristone harmed them. None could.
The doctors represented by the Alliance focused on hypothetical scenarios, such as, “What if a woman has taken mifepristone and comes in facing dangerous, life-threatening side effects, and I am obligated to treat her, in conflict with my conscience?” But the doctors didn’t have any concrete instances of this situation or something like it happening.
A doctor’s responsibility is to provide care aside from any personal opinions. Say a patient comes in on their deathbed, suffering from a drug overdose. Should a doctor be able to refuse to treat them, acting in accordance with their views on drug use?
In fact, physicians are already protected from being forced to perform or assist in procedures contrary to their religious beliefs or moral convictions. These conscience rights, clearly indicated by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, do not surpass the foundational duty of care, shown in how the doctor will need to make other accommodations by referring the patient elsewhere if they refuse to perform a service.
The case argued by the AHS does not involve requiring doctors to perform any sort of abortion procedure. These doctors are afraid of tending to those who might have complications from the abortion pill, such as hemorrhaging or intensive bleeding. Is a woman unworthy of medical attention because her complication resulted from taking an abortion pill? These doctors might believe so, but that doesn’t make it right to refuse to provide that care, a responsibility presumed by their occupation. Doctors have the right to the conscience clause, but it does not transcend the patient’s right to receive care.
The Alliance’s inability to present concrete instances of injury was evidence of the fact that there are hardly any. Scientific studies show that medication complications from abortion pills are extremely rare — only 0.4% of patients who use mifepristone face complications. Let’s just hope that for the few individuals who do face difficulties with the medication, their doctors aren’t horribly conscience-stricken about tending to them.
Lindsey Osit, FCRH ’24, is a journalism major from South Windsor, Conn.
