Several media outlets falsely reported the Supreme Court “ruled in prefer” of exposure to the pregnancy pill mifepristone, but in reality , the court , dismissed the case without addressing the merits of pro- life activists ‘ argument, opening the door to potential challenges.  ,
The reports follow the conclusion of the FDA’s appeal to the Supreme Court against the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s ( AHM) challenge to mifepristone’s approval. A U. S. District Court had suspended the endorsement, but the Supreme Court reversed their decision.
Attorney Andrea Picciotti- Bayer, producer of , The Conscience Project, explained that the professional decision related to the parties officially involved, rather than the material of the pro- life argument.
In many ways, Picciotti-Bayer told The Federalist in an interview,” I can understand and I appreciate the value ] of the main point of the opinion, which had nothing to do with the FDA shenanigans and everything to do with judicial restraint.
A variety of media sources amplified the selection as “certainly a get” for abortion access, as claimed by Planned Parenthood Medical Officer Colleen McNicholas in , an appearance , on MSNBC.
An ABC affiliate , reported in Washington, D. C., that the” Supreme Court rule]d ] in favor of access to contraception pill”, billing the Court’s opinion as a loss for the pro- living motion.
The Washington Bureau of , Fox 8 even called the ruling , a win for abortion activists,” stating that the” Supreme Court rule]d ] in favor of abortion rights. ”  ,
The decision, nevertheless, was no a” blow for pro- abortion activists “or a dismissal of their concerns to mifepristone, as , reported by NBC.  ,  ,
Understanding the situation depends on distinguishing between a decision regarding whether a party involved has legal standing to file a lawsuit and a decision regarding the merits of the arguments in question. The court did not evaluate the validity of AHM’s objections to the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Instead, it determined that AHM lacked standing to sue because they do not prescribe or use mifepristone, and do not allege direct monetary, property, or physical injuries.
” The plaintiffs have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee,  , wrote , in the Court’s ruling”. However, those kinds of objections alone do not establish a justiciable case or controversy in federal court under Article III of the Constitution.
Numerous legal experts claim that the decision leaves the door open for more lawsuits attempting to gain access to the abortion pill.  ,
According to Attorney Kristen Waggoner, who represented the AHM in oral arguments in the Supreme Court, Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri will continue this legal battle and attempt to establish standing. This could provide an opportunity for the court to evaluate and strike down the FDA approval that” recklessly removed commonsense safeguards “on mifepristone, Waggoner , said , in an interview , with NPR.
Mifepristone is a drug that instigates a chemical abortion, which accounted for , nearly two- thirds , of abortions last year. The drug has led to the death of dozens of women and serious side- effects, including hemorrhaging and severe infection, in thousands more since 2022,  , according to FDA data. The drug is , currently approved , by the FDA for use up to the first ten weeks of pregnancy.
Monroe Harless is a summer intern at The Federalist. She recently received degrees in journalism and political science from the University of Georgia.
