A kit with mifepristone pills (left) and misoprostol, two drugs used in the United States for safe and effective termination of pregnancy
A federal appeals court on Wednesday sided with abortion opponents who are challenging an authorization granted more than 20 years ago in the United States for a pill to terminate pregnancy.
The debate centers on mifepristone (initially named RU-486), which, in combination with another drug, has been used by approximately 5.6 million women since its authorization in 2000 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
In early April, a first-instance judge suspended its sales authorization for arguing — despite the scientific consensus — the risk to women’s health.
Democrat Joe Biden’s administration immediately appealed and the Supreme Court restored authorization of the shot while the process continued.
On Wednesday, three eminently conservative New Orleans appeals court judges heard convincing arguments from the sides.
At the hearing, accessible by telephone, the judge was serious with the public prosecutor.
Judge James Ho said, “The story that you tell us is that no one can challenge the FDA.” “We have the right to review the FDA like any other agency, that’s the role of the courts,” he said.
On the other hand, his aide Jennifer Elrod pointed to the seriousness of the Justice Department before the decision in the first place. “Are these personal attacks justified?” the judge asked.
Attorney Sarah Harrington responded that these were not personal attacks but criticisms of the judge’s “analysis”. In contrast, the judge was conciliatory with the attorneys for the plaintiffs, the Anti-Abortion Coalition.
Abortion rights supporters expressed disappointment at the end of the hearing. “The dice are stacked because the judge in the case is known for his incredible hostility toward abortion,” said Jennifer Delvain of the powerful ACLU civil rights organization.
The appeals court’s decision, however, does not mark the end of this legal battle, it may be examined by a group of magistrates from that court and may be the subject of a new appeal before the United States Supreme Court.
