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

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
Potential consequences of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

Kelly Cue Davis,Blythe Rhodes Fortino,Nisha Gottfredson O’Shea,Nisha Gottfredson O'Shea

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000986

2024-03-08

Psychology of Addictive Behaviors

Abstract:Objective: In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released a landmark decision in which they held that the right to abortion is not protected by the U.S. Constitution, ending almost 50 years of federally legal abortion in the United States. Because prior research demonstrates linkages between reproductive health and substance use at multiple socioecological levels, in this special section, we present studies that take a broad scope to understanding how addictive behaviors and reproduction-related behaviors, options, and access to care interrelate across a variety of contexts. Method: In this introduction, the guest editors detail the impetus for this special section, provide a brief overview of the present studies, discuss policy and intervention implications, and suggest future research directions. Results: The five studies presented in this special section span a wide range of populations, methods, and substance use and reproduction-related issues, including reasons for past abortions among women with opioid use disorder, alcohol effects on men's condom use resistance, considerations regarding alcohol-involved rape on implementation of "rape exceptions" to abortion bans, the role of early exposure to substance use and sexual abuse on reproductive health outcomes, and the effects of exposure to abortion-related media coverage on alcohol use intentions following the Supreme Court decision. Conclusions: The studies in this special section highlight the ways in which substance use and reproductive health are inextricably intertwined. Recent and future changes in reproductive health legislation and policy underscore the critical need for continued empirical inquiry into these intersecting public health concerns. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

psychology, multidisciplinary,substance abuse
Abortion pill marketing and sourcing on twitter following Dobbs v. Jackson supreme court ruling

Tiana J. McMann,Michael R. Haupt,Nicolette Le,Marielle E. Meurice,Jiawei Li,Raphael E. Cuomo,Tim K. Mackey

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13625187.2024.2354868

2024-05-25

The European Journal of Contraception & Reproductive Health Care

Abstract:Objective This study examines abortion-related discourse on Twitter (X) pre-and post-Dobbs v. Jackson ruling, which eliminated the constitutional right to abortion.

public, environmental & occupational health,obstetrics & gynecology
How technology is reframing the abortion debate

D Callahan

Abstract:Since the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, medical and scientific developments have focused greater public and professional attention on the status of the fetus. Their cumulative effect may influence legal, social, and moral thought and set the stage for a change in public opinion and a challenge to legalized abortion. There is as yet no inexorable convergence of medical data and legal opinion that would undermine the rational of Roe v. Wade. But the prochoice movement must find room for an open airing of the moral questions if abortion is to remain what it should be--a legally acceptable act.
Current Development in the United States Case Law on Abortion and its Possible Impacts on the European Union and Continental Legal System

Miroslav Chupáč

DOI: https://doi.org/10.62733/2023.1.67-82

2023-06-30

Abstract:This article aims to acquaint readers with the role and decision-making practice of the (Federal) Supreme Court of the United States of America in the matter of artificial abortion and a woman’s right to abortion in general. Special focus is placed on jurisprudential development in 2022, as a landmark decision was issued in 2022, which significantly interferes with the right to abortion throughout the United States. Abortion and abortion policy is currently widely discussed across the United States. For several decades, it was clear beyond any doubt that abortion is, in essence, a fundamental human right arising from the Constitution itself (Fourteenth Amendment) and that a woman can – while respecting certain set rules – undergo abortion, particularly in the first trimester, at virtually any time, according to her will. However, what was regarded as a certain and fundamental women’s right arising from the Constitution, has been overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2022 for the first time in 50 years. In addition to the description of the current situation in the United States, this article briefly reflects on the possible effects of the current state of jurisprudence in the United States on the continental legal system. This article is created and reflects the legal status as of December 1, 2022.
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
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
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
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.
Court reaffirms Roe but upholds restrictions

Abstract:By a 5-4 margin, the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed on June 29, 1992, "the essential holding in Roe v. Wade" that prior to fetal viability, a woman has a constitutional right to obtain an abortion. After viability, a state may prohibit abortion, but only if it provides exceptions for endangerment to the woman's life or health. The Court said that both the intimate nature of the decision to terminate a pregnancy and the Court's obligation to follow precedent required it to uphold Roe's central holding. At the same time, however, the Court discarded Roe's trimester framework that severely restricted a state's power to regulate abortion in the early stages of pregnancy, saying that the trimester framework "undervalues" the state's interest in potential life, which exists throughout pregnancy. The Court also adopted a more lenient standard for analyzing the constitutionality of abortion restrictions than was permitted under Roe. It said a state may regulate abortion throughout pregnancy, as long as it does not impose an "undue burden" on a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy. The Court defined "undue burden" as a regulation that "has the purpose or effect of placing a substantial obstacle in the path of a woman seeking an abortion of a nonviable fetus." Under Roe, the right to abortion was deemed "fundamental" and could not be restricted unless the state could show a "compelling" interest in doing so.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)
Provision of Medications for Self-Managed Abortion Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Decision

Abigail R. A. Aiken,Elisa S. Wells,Rebecca Gomperts,James G. Scott

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.4266

IF: 11.816

2024-03-25

JAMA

Abstract:Importance The Supreme Court decision in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned the right to choose abortion in the US, with at least 16 states subsequently implementing abortion bans or 6-week gestational limits. Prior research indicates that in the 6 months following Dobbs , approximately 32 360 fewer abortions were provided within the US formal health care setting. However, trends in the provision of medications for self-managed abortion outside the formal health care setting have not been studied. Objective To determine whether the provision of medications for self-managed abortion outside the formal health care setting increased in the 6 months after Dobbs . Design, Setting, and Participants Cross-sectional study using data from sources that provided abortion medications outside the formal health care setting to people in the US between March 1 and December 31, 2022, including online telemedicine organizations, community networks, and online vendors. Using a hierarchical bayesian model, we imputed missing values from sources not providing data. We estimated the change in provision of medications for self-managed abortion after the Dobbs decision. We then estimated actual use of these medications by accounting for the possibility that not all provided medications are used by recipients. Exposure Abortion restrictions following the Dobbs decision. Main Outcomes and Measures Provision and use of medications for a self-managed abortion. Results In the 6-month post- Dobbs period (July 1 to December 31, 2022), the total number of provisions of medications for self-managed abortion increased by 27 838 (95% credible interval [CrI], 26 374-29 175) vs what would have been expected based on pre- Dobbs levels. Excluding imputed data changes the results only slightly (27 145; 95% CrI, 25 747-28 246). Accounting for nonuse of medications, actual self-managed medication abortions increased by an estimated 26 055 (95% CrI, 24 739-27 245) vs what would have been expected had the Dobbs decision not occurred. Conclusions and Relevance Provision of medications for self-managed abortions increased in the 6 months following the Dobbs decision. Results suggest that a substantial number of abortion seekers accessed services despite the implementation of state-level bans and restrictions.

medicine, general & internal
Utah flouts FDA with new placental stem cell law

Meredith Wadman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adp6026

IF: 56.9

2024-04-05

Science

Abstract:Measure declares that patients can be given unapproved treatments

multidisciplinary sciences
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

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

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

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

Abortion-pill challenge provokes doubt from US Supreme Court

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

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

US Supreme Court questions legitimacy of case seeking to ban mifepristone

Mifepristone: US Supreme Court rejects ban on abortion drug

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

Potential consequences of the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision.

Abortion pill marketing and sourcing on twitter following Dobbs v. Jackson supreme court ruling

How technology is reframing the abortion debate

Current Development in the United States Case Law on Abortion and its Possible Impacts on the European Union and Continental Legal System

Applying global lessons to protect abortion access in the United States

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

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

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

Court reaffirms Roe but upholds restrictions

Provision of Medications for Self-Managed Abortion Before and After the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization Decision

Utah flouts FDA with new placental stem cell law

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