A Physician Attack on the FDA — Will the Supreme Court Reduce Access to Mifepristone?

Katie Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmms2312012

IF: 158.5

2024-02-08

New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract:A Physician Attack on the FDA Options will narrow for pregnant people if the U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of antiabortion physicians who’ve sued the FDA, demanding that it revoke its approval ...

medicine, general & internal

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Mifepristone: US Supreme Court rejects ban on abortion drug

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q1321

2024-06-15

BMJ

Abstract:The US Supreme Court has unanimously rejected a case to restrict access to the abortion drug mifepristone. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an anti-abortion group in Texas, had asked the court to ban the drug and force the Food and Drug Administration to take it off the market. The case had been appealed from lower courts.1On 13 June the Supreme Court rejected the case on technical grounds, stating that the alliance did not have legal standing to sue because doctors who were used as examples by the group to support its case were not harmed. They did not use or prescribe the drug or treat patients taking it, nor were they harmed by the drug remaining on the market. US physicians who object to abortions are protected from treating patients seeking abortion.The court did not rule on the main point: that the FDA had wrongly approved the drug, that it...

medicine, general & internal
US Supreme Court questions legitimacy of case seeking to ban mifepristone

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q763

2024-03-28

BMJ

Abstract:US Supreme Court justices appeared sceptical when hearing oral arguments in a case seeking to ban mifepristone, questioning the legitimacy of the group that brought the case and largely ignoring the question of whether mifepristone should be banned.1Last year the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which says it values the sanctity of life from fertilisation to natural death, sued the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in a lower court, claiming that mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortions, was dangerous to women and had been wrongly approved. The judge ordered FDA to take mifepristone off the market but the ruling was suspended and the case was appealed to the Supreme Court.2The case is important because medication abortions are now used in about two thirds of US abortions and because it challenges FDA authority and its scientific rulings.During the Supreme Court hearings on 26 March the nine justices focused their...

medicine, general & internal
Abortion-pill challenge provokes doubt from US Supreme Court

Mariana Lenharo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00938-4

IF: 64.8

2024-03-28

Nature

Abstract:Lawsuit could roll back access to mifepristone, a drug widely used to induce abortion in the United States. Lawsuit could roll back access to mifepristone, a drug widely used to induce abortion in the United States.

multidisciplinary sciences
Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Amanda Barrow,Cathren Cohen,Jaclyn Serpico,Melissa Goodman,Daniel Grossman,Sarah Raifman,Ushma Upadhyay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12281

2024-07-29

Abstract:On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case that could have severely impacted access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortion. The researchers summarize the legal challenges to the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) original approval of mifepristone in 2000 and its 2016 and 2021 decisions modifying mifepristone's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Program and label, the responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to the challenges, and the potential implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. The researchers detail how the FDA relied on a robust scientific record analyzing tens of thousands of patient experiences that conclusively demonstrated the safety and effectiveness of the changes to the mifepristone REMS Program and label and urge the Supreme Court to rely on the clear scientific record and preserve access to mifepristone without reimposing restrictions. What follows is a reprint of this brief.
Understanding the Impacts of the Supreme Court Case FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Eve Espey,Tiffany Hailstorks,Lisa Hofler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.5376

IF: 11.816

2024-03-25

JAMA

Abstract:This Viewpoint outlines the potential effects of the Supreme Court case regarding mifepristone restrictions: a decision for the FDA would allow current dispensing, while ruling against the FDA would severely curtail access to reproductive health options.

medicine, general & internal
Amicus brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers supports mifepristone's safety and effectiveness

Amanda Barrow,Cathren Cohen,Jaclyn Serpico,Melissa Goodman,Daniel Grossman,Sarah Raifman,Ushma Upadhyay

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/psrh.12282

2024-07-29

Abstract:On January 30, 2024, over 300 researchers filed an amicus brief in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a United States (US) Supreme Court case concerning the regulatory status of mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion. In this Comment we summarize the legal challenge, responses from the FDA and drug manufacturer to these challenges, oral arguments presented before the Court, and the implications of the Court's decision on access to mifepristone in the US. We also summarize the content of the accompanying amicus brief.
What’s at stake for science in ‘abortion pill’ case

Meredith Wadman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado6440

IF: 56.9

2024-02-16

Science

Abstract:Supreme Court decision this summer could gut FDA’s authority over drugs

multidisciplinary sciences
The FDA in the Crosshairs—Science, Politics, and Abortion

Holly Fernandez Lynch,Aaron S. Kesselheim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.2229

IF: 11.816

2024-03-25

JAMA

Abstract:In this Viewpoint, the Supreme Court case FDA v AHM is used to illustrate the tension the FDA faces between science and politics, and state authority over abortion vs federal authority over which drugs may be marketed nationwide.

medicine, general & internal
Mifepristone: a potential clinical agent based on its anti-progesterone and anti-glucocorticoid properties.

Yayi Sun,Marong Fang,Henry Davies,Zhiying Hu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2013.856410

2014-01-01

Gynecological Endocrinology

Abstract:Nowadays, unwanted pregnancy is a major globe tragedy for millions of women, associated with significant direct and indirect costs, no matter for individuals or society. The progesterone receptor antagonist steroid, mifepristone has been widely and effectively using throughout the world for medical abortion, but to a lesser extent for emergency contraception. In this review, we hope to explore the role of mifepristone as a contraceptive, particularly for emergency contraception. Studies of mifepristone have also been expanding to the fields of endometriosis and uterine fibroids. Furthermore, this initially considered reproductive medicine has been investigated in some psychotic diseases and various disorders of hypercortisolism, because of its glucocorticoid receptor antagonism. Mifepristone was approved suitable for patients with hyperglycemia secondary to Cushing's syndrome by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2012. The aim of this article is to review published reports on the anti-progesterone and anti-glucocorticoid properties of mifepristone as a clinical agent. There is a new insight into systematically describing and evaluating the potential efficiency of mifepristone administrated in the field of endocrine and neuroendocrine, not only in obstetrics and gynecology.
Applying global lessons to protect abortion access in the United States

Terry McGovern,Mary Favier,Laura Gil,Bonsitu Kitaba-Gaviglio,Clarisa Bencomo,Ira Memaj,Samantha Garbers,Malia Maier

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-073833

2024-01-03

BMJ

Abstract:Since the US Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade in 2022, eliminating the federal constitutional right to an abortion, the introduction of state laws and policies has made the legal and healthcare landscape more challenging. Twenty states have banned or severely restricted abortion care,1 and recent legislation is restricting access to abortion medication as well as abortion services, with Wyoming becoming the first state explicitly to ban the use of abortion medication.2In response, US abortion rights advocates have pushed to extend federal protections and the federal government has taken important steps to expand and protect access to medication abortion. These efforts have focused on strengthening executive branch rules and guidance because the lack of a pro-abortion majority in Congress prevents legislation being passed to protect abortion. In January 2023, the US Food and Drug Administration eliminated a requirement that mifepristone, the most common form of medication abortion, be dispensed in...

medicine, general & internal
Banning abortion prevents us from providing safe care to all pregnant women

Maryl Sackeim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q2459

2024-11-08

BMJ

Abstract:On 24 June 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Roe v Wade and revoked the constitutional right to abortion. Following the Dobbs decision, control of abortion policies was returned to individual states. The election on 5 November further degrades hope for progress in women's health. With Donald Trump now the president-elect, a federal abortion ban is likely, and even access to in vitro fertilisation and contraception may be at risk.1Many political and moral problems exist with a male dominated court and political party deciding who can make decisions about women's reproductive autonomy. But as a healthcare professional in obstetrics and gynaecology, what concerns me most is the court's limited view of what is at stake here: the ability to keep pregnant women healthy. Abortion is completely banned in 13 states and heavily restricted in others. This removes far more than access to the narrow definition of abortion...

medicine, general & internal
Post- Roe v Wade psychiatry: legal, clinical, and ethical challenges in psychiatry under abortion bans

Nina V Kraguljac,Debra P Bruns,Paul S Appelbaum,Erika Botello,Victoria L King,Natalie Remiszewski,Alik S Widge,Jonathan E Alpert,Linda L Carpenter,Adrienne Grzenda,John H Krystal,William M McDonald,Charles B Nemeroff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s2215-0366(24)00096-8

IF: 77.056

2024-05-25

The Lancet Psychiatry

Abstract:Summary In recent history, the world has witnessed a trend towards liberalization of abortion laws driven by an increasing understanding of the negative personal and public health consequences of criminalizing abortion. By contrast, several countries have recently implemented restrictive reproductive laws, joining the 112 countries where access to abortion care is banned completely or with narrow exceptions. On June 24, 2022, the US Supreme Court ruling in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned its landmark decisions in Roe v Wade that established abortion until the point of viability of the fetus as a constitutional right. After Roe v Wade having been overturned, it is projected that many women in the USA will be prevented from accessing safe abortion care. Importantly, abortion bans not only impose constraints on patient autonomy, they also restrict physicians' ability to practice evidence-based medicine, which will negatively impact psychiatric care. It is therefore crucial for the practicing psychiatrist to be familiar with this new legal landscape. In this Personal View, we aim to provide a topical overview to help clinicians gain a clear understanding of legal, clinical, and ethical responsibilities, focusing on the USA. We also discuss the reality that psychiatrists might be called upon to determine medical necessity for an abortion on psychiatric grounds, which is new for most US psychiatrists. We predict that psychiatrists will be confronted with very difficult situations in which lawful and ethical conduct might be incongruent, and that abortion bans will result in greater numbers of patients needing psychiatric care from a system that is ill-prepared for additional demands.

psychiatry
The right to artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion) in the practice of the US Supreme Court: a review of recent trends

І.І. Забокрицький,I. Zabokrytskyy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.24144/2788-6018.2024.03.8

2024-07-22

Analytical and Comparative Jurisprudence

Abstract:This article examines the latest trends in the US Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on the right to artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion). It is stated that the right to abortion is not an integral part of the text of the US Constitution - it was not provided for in the original text, nor in the Bill of Rights, nor in subsequent amendments. However, the regulation of the right to abortion has been the subject of litigation and a number of decisions of the US Supreme Court. The issue is not only legal, but also political - in particular, the attitude to the regulation of the right to abortion, the question of whether it should be resolved at the federal level or at the level of individual states, what discretion should be given to the states, etc. This issue is a part of the debate, a public discussion, in almost every US election. Main decisions of the US Supreme Court in this area are reviewed, in particular Roe v. Wade, Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA. It is concluded that the right to abortion in the United States is not enshrined in the Constitution, and this creates certain problems, since it allows some theorists and practitioners to appeal to the fact that the absence of such constitutional enshrinement indicates an unwillingness to grant this right the status of a fundamental right protected by the Constitution. It is argued that this argument should be disagreed with, since in the US legal tradition a significant number of rights are somehow derived from the text of the Constitution in judicial practice, and therefore the understanding of the right to abortion as such which is grounded in the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution is fully justified. It is pointed out that recent trends, in particular, the cases which have been heard or are pending in 2022-2024, indicate that the stability of legal regulation of the right to abortion in the United States has been shaken. Almost 50 years of Roe v. Wade precedent were not enough to convince some in the community that the right to abortion is truly firmly rooted in American history and tradition. By depriving it of constitutional protection, it allowed for considerable discretion to be given to the states, which could impose various types of regulation, up to and including a complete ban. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine further extended the «attack» on this right, which may also affect the interests of a significant number of women in the United States. To summarize, the recent trends are more political than legal, caused rather by ideological motives, as there were not enough convincing arguments to abandon the previous practice established by Roe v Wade. Enshrining the right to abortion at the level of the US Constitution (through an amendment) could help, but seems unrealistic given the polarization of society.
What role should maternal-fetal medicine physicians play in the era of abortion restriction?

Leilah D Zahedi-Spung,Ebony B Carter,Julia López,Candice Woolfolk,George A Macones,Molly Stout,Leilah D. Zahedi-Spung,Ebony B. Carter,George A. Macones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajogmf.2020.100126

2020-08-01

Abstract:In 2019, a total of 25 abortion bans were signed into law by states in the Southeast and Midwest. As of May 2019, 33 states have passed laws restricting or limiting abortion services, including "trigger laws" that make abortion illegal in the event that Roe v. Wade is overturned. In addition, 9 states have passed extreme abortion laws, such as making abortion illegal early in gestation (as early as 6-8 weeks' gestation), which are all currently enjoined and not in effect. The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and Society of Family Planning agree that access to abortion is essential to women's health and oppose legislation that directly affects the patient-physician relationship. It is time for maternal-fetal medicine physicians to play a more active role in the fight for abortion access. A 2012 study of maternal-fetal medicine physicians found only 31% of respondents performed dilation and evacuation for termination of pregnancies, predominantly based on whether the provider was trained in dilation and evacuation procedures during fellowship. We performed a 2018 survey of all maternal-fetal medicine fellows and program directors and found that more than two-thirds (62 of 90 [68.9%]) of fellows desire dilation and evacuation training; however, only 9 of 39 (23.1%) program directors believe dilation and evacuation training should be required. The maternal-fetal medicine community is well positioned to improve access to abortion services in the United States by prioritizing dilation and evacuation training for fellows and actively participating in reproductive health advocacy.
Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal

Sharifi, Mitra F.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03145-2

2024-06-09

Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

Abstract:To investigate the abortion views and reproductive concerns of current in vitro fertilization patients after the US Supreme Court Dobbs v. Jackson decision, which overturned the Roe v. Wade decision guaranteeing abortion access.

genetics & heredity,obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
Promising selective progesterone receptor modulators: what's new in female contraception?

Anita Nelson,Marit Pearlman Shapiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13543784.2024.2422838

2024-11-18

Abstract:Introduction: Selective progesterone receptor modulators (SPRMs), such as mifepristone and ulipristal acetate (UPA), have demonstrated high efficacy and safety as single-dose treatments for medication abortion and emergency contraception (EC). Other obstetrical and gynecologic applications have emerged, both for episodic and ongoing uses. The potential of these compounds to provide estrogen-free, ongoing contraception is promising; however, the rare, but serious, hepatic injury cases seen with UPA have put at least a temporary halt to further research in this area. Areas covered: This paper reviews the biophysical impacts and clinical applications of SPRMs in women's reproductive health, with a focus on the roles of mifepristone and UPA in family planning. Given the political environment, especially in the United States where these applications may be threatened, extensive description is dedicated to mechanisms of action of these agents. Expert opinion: Both mifepristone and ulipristal acetate are first-line options for single-use applications. There continues to be a need for estrogen-free ongoing contraception that does not have unpopular impacts on bleeding caused by contraceptive methods and for treatments for heavy menstrual bleeding. However, current restrictions on UPA limit longer term use. Perhaps other SPRMs without hepatic impacts may emerge to fill this need.
US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can regulate emergency abortions

Janice Hopkins Tanne

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.q959

2024-04-27

BMJ

Abstract:The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on 24 April that emergency abortions should be allowed in states with strict abortion bans.An emergency abortion is a rare procedure carried out to save a woman's life or to protect her health. Questions by conservative justices suggested the court might rule against permitting such abortions when it gives its ruling in June or early July.1In 2022 the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion and returned regulation to the 50 states, about half of which ban or severely restrict abortions.2Idaho's strict abortion ban shows the continuing conflict between federal law and state law. The US Constitution says that federal law overrides state law. The Biden administration sued Idaho which, like six other states, bans abortions except to save the life of the pregnant woman, not her health. It said Idaho should follow the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labour Act (EMTALA), which...

medicine, general & internal
Online Medication Abortion Direct-to-Patient Fulfillment Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Decision

Caila Brander,Jessica Nouhavandi,Terri-Ann Thompson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.34675

2024-10-05

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance Online pharmacies have emerged as stakeholders in abortion care since the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) relaxed in-person dispensing requirements in 2020. The role of online pharmacies in dispensing abortion medications following the Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization decision on June 24, 2022, is understudied. Objective To describe medication abortion prescription fulfillment patterns for 1 online pharmacy 1 year before and after the Dobbs v Jackson decision, considering patient, prescriber, and state policy characteristics. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study assesses deidentified medication abortion prescription fulfilment data from 1 online pharmacy. Prescribers sent prescription requests to the online pharmacy, which dispensed abortion medications to patients by mail. The study sample included prescription requests fulfilled by the online pharmacy between June 20, 2021, and June 24, 2023, for patients aged at least 18 years who received the combined medication abortion regimen. Data were analyzed from July 2023 to July 2024. Exposures The US Supreme Court Dobbs v Jackson decision on June 24, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures Patient and prescriber characteristics are described, including patient age, state to which the prescription was sent, medications prescribed, and prescribing prescriber's clinic care modality (in-person only, hybrid [in-person and virtual], and virtual only). States were grouped according to the Guttmacher Institute classification of policy support for abortion (most or very supportive, somewhat supportive, and somewhat restrictive). Fulfillment trends were disaggregated by prescriber modality and state policy environment; 2 states with similar telehealth but differing coverage policies (Illinois and Colorado) were compared. Results The dataset included 87 942 observations. Most prescriptions were sent to individuals younger than 30 years (57.1%), with a mean (SD) age of 28.7 (6.4) years. Throughout the study period, the greatest volume of prescription requests came from states with most or very supportive policies and from prescribers at virtual-only platforms. More prescriptions were sent in the year after Dobbs v Jackson (daily mean [SD], 88.5 [47.2] prescriptions in March 2022 vs 201.5 [97.5] prescriptions in March 2023) with fulfillment spikes following the Dobbs v Jackson leak on May 2, 2022, and decision on June 24, 2022. State policy contexts mirrored the overall trends, while prescriber modality trends were unique, with a big spike in fulfillment at 12 weeks after the Dobbs v Jackson decision for hybrid clinics compared with in-person-only clinics and telehealth-only platforms, which saw their largest spikes in mean daily prescription fulfillment the week immediately after Dobbs v Jackson . Illinois and Colorado had similar fulfillment trends, with spikes immediately following the Dobbs v Jackson decision and overall higher fulfillment after Dobbs v Jackson , with a daily mean (SD) of 10.5 (7.0) prescriptions in Illinois and 8.8 (5.7) prescriptions in Colorado in March 2022 versus 26.6 (13.6) prescriptions in Illinois and 16.7 (10.1) prescriptions in Colorado in March 2023. Conclusions and Relevance These findings illustrate the increasingly critical role online pharmacies play in direct-to-patient abortion care provision in the US and the strong linkages between virtual-only prescribers and online pharmacies. These findings suggest that barriers to accessing online pharmacies for abortion care should be removed.

medicine, general & internal
Telehealth enables safe medication abortion in shifting health and legal contexts

Dana M. Johnson,Abigail R. A. Aiken,Terri-Ann Thompson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-02876-0

IF: 82.9

2024-03-16

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Telehealth provision of medication abortion is safe and effective, but ensuring equitable access is challenging in the USA — and further compounded by an upcoming Supreme Court case.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental
A narrative review of illegal online pharmacies and contemporary issues with restricting FDA-approved medication access

Zarnab Jillani,Lauren Reinhard,John Hertig

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/27550834231220512

2023-12-25

Abstract:The rapid growth of technology has transformed the way the public purchases many products, including medications. Online medication purchasing has become a convenient and confidential route for patients to access healthcare without leaving their homes. Online pharmacies have many benefits but also present an increased risk for patient harm caused by unintentionally purchasing from illegal online pharmacies. Illegal online pharmacies are those that operate online without the requisite valid licenses or supply drugs not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). As obtaining certain medications has become restricted, either due to policy or drug shortages, more patients are relying on services provided by Internet pharmacies. The overturning of Roe versus Wade has caused an emerging drug restriction that may coerce the public to turn to Internet pharmacies for purchasing medications. A narrative review was conducted to analyze both the past and present effects of medications sold by illegal online pharmacies to help recognize the implications of restricting access to FDA-approved medications. Several large science and health literature databases were searched to find relevant references. Resulting resources, which referenced the connection between restricting access to FDA-approved medications and the increase in illegal online sales, were included in this review. The information evaluated in this article will help inform healthcare providers and policymakers of the inadvertent effects of restricting access to FDA-approved medications.

A Physician Attack on the FDA — Will the Supreme Court Reduce Access to Mifepristone?

Mifepristone: US Supreme Court rejects ban on abortion drug

US Supreme Court questions legitimacy of case seeking to ban mifepristone

Abortion-pill challenge provokes doubt from US Supreme Court

Brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers as Amici Curiae in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Understanding the Impacts of the Supreme Court Case FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Amicus brief of over 300 reproductive health researchers supports mifepristone's safety and effectiveness

What’s at stake for science in ‘abortion pill’ case

The FDA in the Crosshairs—Science, Politics, and Abortion

Mifepristone: a potential clinical agent based on its anti-progesterone and anti-glucocorticoid properties.

Applying global lessons to protect abortion access in the United States

Banning abortion prevents us from providing safe care to all pregnant women

Post- Roe v Wade psychiatry: legal, clinical, and ethical challenges in psychiatry under abortion bans

The right to artificial termination of pregnancy (abortion) in the practice of the US Supreme Court: a review of recent trends

What role should maternal-fetal medicine physicians play in the era of abortion restriction?

Attitudes, concerns, and perceptions of patients undergoing fertility treatments in an abortion restrictive state in the aftermath of the Roe v. Wade reversal

Promising selective progesterone receptor modulators: what's new in female contraception?

US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether states can regulate emergency abortions

Online Medication Abortion Direct-to-Patient Fulfillment Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Decision

Telehealth enables safe medication abortion in shifting health and legal contexts

A narrative review of illegal online pharmacies and contemporary issues with restricting FDA-approved medication access