The FDA regulates around 20,000 drugs, but according to the ACLU, the abortion pill is the only one that needs to be picked up in person. Both the ACOG and the American Medical Association believe mifepristone, the first of the two pills, is safe for women to give at home. It causes tissues in the uterus to break down and separate from the uterus. A day or two later, the equally safe misoprostol follows, which contracts the uterus and expels its contents. According to the Guttmacher Institute, an organization that campaigns for reproductive rights, around 39% of abortions in the US in 2017 were from pills.
David Chelmow, president of the university's Obstetrics and Gynecology Chairs, who is also a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said, "The FDA's unique restriction on mifepristone prevents doctors from exercising their medical judgment and limits their ability to do so during this pandemic optimal drugs for delivering miscarriages and abortions and unnecessarily jeopardizing patient safety. "
In a letter to the FDA dated April 14, 2020, Democratic Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin and Patty Murray spoke out in favor of easing personal regulation. They took note of a study of 13,000 women who took the mifepristoneMisoprostol It was found that only 0.01% had been hospitalized for infections.
In their letter, the lawyers argued:
"Patients who have previously been examined and advised by a clinician on a previous face-to-face visit or telemedicine appointment will have to travel to a health center during the pandemic to receive a pill and sign a form. And these patients, their doctors and other key workers are unnecessarily at greater risk of mandating COVID-19 for this ministerial role. "
The lawsuit resulted in a decision by US District Judge Theodore Chuang in July to issue an injunction waiving personal settlement. In August he added to it Decision that enables abortion clients to receive that Abortion pill online and in Pharmacies without personal visits. At the time, Trump regime attorneys argued that "judges must not question how officials deal with public health concerns." In October, Supreme Court justices ordered the government to do so "Dissolve, change or maintain the injunction, also on the grounds that the relevant circumstances have changed." They ordered Chuang to re-investigate the case when the government did their part.
These "changed circumstances" included the alleged weakening of the pandemic, which of course has indeed reached new heights, now causing an average of more than 3,000 deaths per day from COVID-19. Chuang confirmed his decision in early December with the following words:
“While advances in vaccines and medical treatments for COVID-19 may give cause for optimism and advance the day when the injunction is no longer warranted, the impact of these advances has not materially changed the current health risks and obstacles facing women looking for medication. The Court therefore finds that these factors do not materially alter the likelihood of success in the matter or justify a postponement or dissolution of the injunction at the present time. "
However, Chuang noted that the sentence was not "indefinite" and wrote that the restraining order was “30 days after the end of the public health emergency declared by the secretary, it should end. With the positive news about vaccines, there is reason to hope that that day will come soon. "
While five of the Conservative justices passed their ruling Tuesday without signature or comment, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a statement that neither of them signed. Since the judgment in Planned Parenthood v. Casey 1992 is to assess a restriction on abortion on the basis of whether it would place an "undue burden" on women in obtaining the procedure. However, Roberts wrote that the problem is not the case in this case whether the FDA rule is an undue burden, but "whether the district court has duly ordered the Food and Drug Administration to repeal these established requirements as the court itself assessed the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic".
The COVID-19 pandemic has therefore made many typical activities more difficult and dangerous. A visit to the doctor's office is no exception. As a result, the federal government has urged health care providers and patients to use telemedicine. For example, the CDC has advised medical providers to use telemedicine "whenever possible" as it is "the best way to protect patients and staff from COVID-19". 4 The CDC has also advised patients to use telemedicine “
What response does the government have to the possibility that refusal to suspend FDA personal requirements for mifepristone during the COVID-19 pandemic will result in some women having the 10-week window [during which abortion from drugs is legal is] missed altogether? No need to worry, the government assures this court, because even if the FDA's personal requirements result in women losing the opportunity to have a drug abortion, they can still seek a surgical abortion. What a callous answer.
Callous indeed. But when it comes to reproductive rights, the nation has a long history of calluses. While the Court was of course focused on the close matter before it, the issue is not whether pill abortion should be allowed without a face-to-face visit during a pandemic, but whether it should be allowed in "normal" times. The AMA thinks so. ACOG thinks so. Two decades of scientific knowledge about the use of abortion drugs in more than 60 countries prove their safety. Which controls might have made sense 20 years ago, when abortion with a pill was introduced, is no longer medically meaningful today. But obviously these fit in with the goals of compulsive childbirth, which are determined to control women's bodies and their sexuality. These ideologues now have a majority in the Supreme Court approving them.