Access to crucial healthcare opportunities was dangerously restricted for millions of Americans when the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade which previously solidified the right to abortion in the U.S. 

A recent court case in Texas could’ve made a common pill used for the procedure even harder to access. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled against the makers of Mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, in a suit challenging the decades-old approval of the drug by the FDA. On April 21, the Supreme Court preserved access to the pill by rejecting restrictions from lower courts while the lawsuit continues. This was done in response to emergency requests from both the Biden administration and Danco.

It is crucial to recognize that this is far from a final decision or an official ruling. Mifepristone will likely be protected at least into 2024. The next stop for the Texas suit, however, is the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans which will hear arguments starting May 17. It could still very well continue all the way to an official Supreme Court case and cut off access on a national scale at that point.

Mifepristone is one of two drugs used in the process of medicated abortions. When taken by a pregnant person, the small yellow pill halts growth and development. The second pill, misoprostol, is hexagonal and causes contractions that will expel the contents of the uterus. This form of abortion is typically performed in the first trimester and is more successful the earlier it is given to a patient. It is relatively safe, with both Tylenol and Viagra carrying more health risks.

The combination method has a 99.6 percent success rate. Furthermore, in areas where mifepristone is illegal or otherwise unavailable, misoprostol alone can be used with slightly less reliability at 80 to 100 percent. According to the Guttmacher Institute, more than half of all abortions currently performed in the United States are medication based. 

While this court case originated in the state of Texas it has serious national implications. Firstly, cutting off approval would logically drop the rate of safe abortions. It would be especially impactful in already restrictive states such as Georgia which currently enforces a six-week ban. At this early stage of pregnancy, if a person knows they are pregnant and wish to terminate medication is the most common method.

If upheld, this ruling would effectively ban abortion entirely in Georgia and states with similar laws without any additional legislation. Those determined to end their pregnancies would likely then turn to unsafe methods. In 1972 alone, which was the last full year before Roe was decided, 35 women died from unsafe and illegal abortions. Kacsmaryk’s ruling does not have the potential to save more lives. Rather, it threatens them. 

Furthermore, the FDA is currently the only regulatory agency for medications in the country. They have strict protocols (including the emergency protocol under which Mifepristone was first approved), regulations and procedures to ensure that legal drugs taken by Americans are safe to consume. Simply put, the FDA knows what they are doing and has the body of knowledge necessary to determine safety accurately. Judges, on the other hand, may not have that critical knowledge. If a precedent is set allowing one medication to be overturned by a judge who finds it unsafe, any medicine with any chance of potentially negative side effects could be next. 

Despite the case not officially having been argued in front of the Supreme Court yet, Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas voted in favor of restrictions remaining through the appeal process, with Alito writing a four-page dissenting opinion. The fact that these justices believe they have the power, even in the short term, to regulate medications is concerning. The ability to regulate what Americans put in their bodies should remain in the hands of the experts: the FDA.