Judge approves FDA request to stop mail delivery of abortion drugs-SCOTUSblog


Supreme Court Tuesday agreed A measure proposed by the US Food and Drug Administration to reinstate federally required measures requires personal collection of pills for miscarriage in early pregnancy from healthcare providers. Last summer, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, a federal district judge suspended the request, and then in October the judge instructed the FDA to return to the lower court to seek narrower relief, to retain the ruling.

The new order of the Supreme Court means that the FDA will once again be able to enforce regulations requiring in-person visits, although it is willing to do so, once President-elect Biden’s management takes over next week, it may change. The judges are divided according to ideology in the ruling. U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetrics and GynecologyThe three liberal judges of the court stated that they would have rejected the government’s application.

Regulations ordered by the Center on Tuesday controlled the distribution of mifepristone, a drug approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to end pregnancy 10 weeks before pregnancy. According to FDA regulations, patients who want to use the drug to terminate pregnancy must sign a form that admits the risks associated with the drug and obtain the pills usually produced under the brand name Mifeprex from the medical service provider of the medical institution. After taking the medicine from the hospital or clinic, the patient can take the pills at home, but cannot receive the pills by mail.

Last year, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Maryland, arguing that requiring patients to visit their healthcare providers in person during the pandemic constituted a substantial obstacle to the Constitution and caused an abortion. The U.S. District Court Judge Theodore Chuang agreed to the ACOG order and issued an order in July prohibiting the FDA from enforcing its in-person request anywhere in the United States before the pandemic is over.

After the US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit rejected the FDA’s request to suspend the Chuang ruling during the appeal period, the FDA filed a lawsuit in the Supreme Court on August 26. But it wasn’t until October 8 that the justices took action. A single order was issued but refused to resolve the FDA request. The FDA explained that the FDA argued that Zhuang’s order was at least too general because it applies to all 50 states and has nothing to do with COVID-19 rates in specific states. The judge believes that more information will help them. Therefore, the FDA should return to the district court and ask Chuang to lift, modify or freeze its order, “including on the grounds that the relevant circumstances have changed.” The court also made it clear to Zhuang that “a ruling should be made within 40 days after receiving the government’s statement.”

On December 9, Zhuang issued a new order that rejected the FDA’s request to suspend or dissolve its previous order. Chuang emphasized that his order to prevent the FDA from enforcing the in-person request is “no time limit”, especially in light of the “positive news related to vaccines”. Shows that the situation has not improved enough to warrant any changes to his July order.

The FDA returned to the Supreme Court on December 15 on the grounds that, as stated in its original application, the implementation of the regulation would not constitute a substantial obstacle to women’s ability to obtain abortions. It states that patients can always undergo surgical abortion. In addition, the FDA added that Indiana and Nebraska, respectively, require patients to personally collect medicines from healthcare providers. The FDA noted that the number of abortions in these states has actually increased during the pandemic, dismissing any idea that requiring in-person visits would make abortions more difficult.

In its response, ACOG emphasized that “patients can already be assessed and consulted freely through telemedicine, and can swallow mifepristone tablets at a time and place of their choice.” By prohibiting the FDA from requesting in-person visits to actually collect the pills, the District Court’s Commands help “avoid[] Serious virus risk. “ACOG wrote that although the district court order has been in effect for nearly six months, the FDA has not provided any evidence that anyone can obtain mifepristone without a personal visit and was harmed. In the end, ACOG concluded. In conclusion, although the Supreme Court “may hope that the epidemic will ease” in October, when the case was sent back to the district court for another trial, the situation was the opposite. ACOG asserted: “Today’s support is less than October’s support. The court initially refused approval in October. “

In a brief order issued late on Tuesday afternoon, nearly a month after the Trump administration submitted a brief response in support of the request, the court approved the request. The court’s ruling allowed the FDA to enforce the personally facing rules while continuing to appeal the merits of Chuang’s case.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued another opinion, agreeing to suspend the execution of Zhuang’s order and allow the FDA to enforce the decision personally requested before appealing. Roberts emphasized that at this juncture, the question for the justices is not whether to personally ask whether to make abortions more difficult for women. Instead, he emphasized that the issue is whether Chuang was right in instructing the FDA to lift the personal request based on its “own assessment of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.” Roberts reiterated his view that in a pandemic situation, courts generally should not “make a second guess at a politically accountable entity with the background, ability and expertise to assess public health.” Roberts concluded, Zhuang Lawsuits should not be ordered. The FDA relaxed its personal requirements.

Judge Stephen Breyer said he would reject the FDA’s application.He did not join Different objections of Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Judge Elena Kagan also joined. Sotomayor observed that due to the pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control generally urged health care providers to use telemedicine for appointments as much as possible, but the government refused to do so for women seeking medical abortions. In addition, Sotomayor added that the epidemic has become more serious since the FDA first requested the government to resume its in-person request in October.

Speaking of the FDA’s request, Sotomayor argued that the execution of the request in person “has an unnecessary and undue burden on women’s right to obtain an abortion.” Sotomayor explained that women seeking abortions are already at risk of developing complications from COVID because they are pregnant and because they are more likely to be women of color and have lower incomes. She added that it is more difficult to obtain an abortion because “during the pandemic, the infirmary greatly reduced the availability.” She explained that as a result, the district court “found that these barriers could cause women to miss 10 weeks of medication completely. The abortion window.”

Sotomayor strongly criticizes the FDA’s recommendation that even if women cannot get medical abortions in time, they can still undergo surgical abortions. “What a cold reaction,” Sotomayor retorted. Surgical abortion is “more invasive” and riskier than medical abortion.

In Roberts’s argument, Sotomayor put forward Roberts’s argument that the court should obey the FDA’s decision and not relax the requirement for face-to-face worship. – Admit that she “agrees[d] This respect is due to reasonable decisions made by public health officials in response to a deadly pandemic. She pointed out that, in this case, the FDA has not yet explained why it decided to abandon the in-person request during the pandemic, or even similar requests for other drugs. “There is no reasonable decision by the court to postpone. “

Sotomayor emphasized that U.S. laws “have long chosen abortion more harshly than other medical procedures with similar or greater risks.” She concluded that face-to-face requirements “are for women seeking to exercise their right of choice. It has brought unnecessary, unreasonable and unreasonable undue burdens. One can only hope that the government will reconsider and give more care and sympathy to help those seeking some kind of control over their health and reproduction during this turbulent period. Women of life.”

Nearly a month after the FDA’s request was fully briefed, the court issued the order. There is no explanation for the court’s delay. Although Tuesday’s ruling allows the FDA to immediately resume the request in person, the Biden administration can choose to waive the request during the pandemic or more permanently.

This article is Originally published in Haoge Court.

Published on U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Featured, Urgent appeal and application

Recommended citation:
Amy How
Judge approves FDA request to stop abortion drug delivery,
SCOTUS blog (January 12, 2021, 7:51 PM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/justices-grant-fda-request-to-block-mail-delivery-of-abortion-pills/

Like it? Share with your friends!


What's Your Reaction?

hate hate
confused confused
fail fail
fun fun
geeky geeky
love love
lol lol
omg omg
win win


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Choose A Format
Personality quiz
Series of questions that intends to reveal something about the personality
Trivia quiz
Series of questions with right and wrong answers that intends to check knowledge
Voting to make decisions or determine opinions
Formatted Text with Embeds and Visuals
The Classic Internet Listicles
The Classic Internet Countdowns
Open List
Submit your own item and vote up for the best submission
Ranked List
Upvote or downvote to decide the best list item
Upload your own images to make custom memes
Youtube, Vimeo or Vine Embeds
Soundcloud or Mixcloud Embeds
Photo or GIF
GIF format