The Supreme Court did the right thing Thursday by ruling unanimously against a challenge to the safety of mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in medical abortions.
Of course, this was not the Court that protected access to abortion, which it destroyed by overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago and eliminate the constitutional right to abortion. He also did not comment on the safety of mifepristone, which has been available for more than 20 years.
It was the Court that dismissed a ridiculous case on the basis that the plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors, had no standing or personal interest to question the safety of the drug. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and others sued the Food and Drug Administration, claiming that mifepristone's approval should be revoked because it had not been studied enough, even though it has been used safely for more than two decades.
Still, anyone who cares about the right to control their body and their destiny should feel relief and satisfaction. If the judges had ruled in favor of anti-abortion groups, they would have restricted access to the most common and safest form of abortion throughout the country. Even residents of progressive states like California would have had less access to medication abortion. So this is a victory.
But any sense of relief must be tempered by this reality check: Anti-abortion forces are relentlessly plotting to ban abortion altogether. Precisely because medical abortion is used so frequently, it is a target for abortion opponents and will continue to be so.
It is infuriating that the case has come this far, ascending the judicial ladder from the courtroom of anti-abortion District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, based in Amarillo, to the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed part of his decision, and finally to the Supreme Court. Supreme Court. This case was obviously flawed. It wrongly questioned the FDA and the plaintiffs had no business bringing it forward.
In the opinion, Judge Brett Kavanaugh eviscerated the group's claim that it could sue the FDA because they could eventually suffer personal or economic harm from medication abortion. Kavanaugh wrote that the group had not identified any doctor who had been forced to perform an abortion against his conscience. Nor did they demonstrate that they would suffer economic damages because they could We have to divert time from other patients to treat those with complications from mifepristone.
The only thing the plaintiffs demonstrated in this case is that they have moral and ideological objections to abortion. Kavanaugh offered this suggestion: “Citizens and physicians who object to what the law allows others to do can always bring their concerns to the Executive and Legislative branches.”
That note is a sober reminder that the fight for access to abortion is not over. There is no doubt that Thursday's ruling was a victory for reproductive rights. But this is a long battle. Abortive drugs will end up in court again. Other plaintiffs will argue that they have standing to fight to reduce abortion procedures.
The only way to stop this continued attack on our rights is through the ballot box. Every voter must remember that access to abortion must be protected in state constitutions and federal laws so that the decision does not fall to nine judges who do not represent the 336 million Americans whose lives will be affected by their decisions. In November, and in every election afterward, voters must send a message to elected officials and political candidates that they must protect abortion rights if they want to be in office.
