WASHINGTON (CN) — Medical associations and rights groups are calling on the Supreme Court to reject “junk science” that threatens to strictly limit access to a popular abortion drug.
“If the Supreme Court allows the Fifth Circuit's order to take effect, it would roll back the clock on science, reinstating restrictions that the FDA and every leading medical authority have found to be medically unnecessary, and dramatically reducing access to mifepristone across the country,” Julia Kaye, an attorney with the ACLU, said in a media briefing.
The Food and Drug Administration approved mifepristone — one of two drugs used in medication abortions — in 2000. In the two decades since its approval, mifepristone has become one of the most studied drugs on the market.
It is not only safer than common drugs like penicillin or Viagra but also 14 times safer than childbirth. Despite its safety record, two lower courts have found abortion pills carry high risks and should not have been given approvals by the FDA.
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled to revoke mifepristone’s FDA approval, finding that the pill caused intense psychological trauma and post-traumatic stress. Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee in Texas, said the government’s prescription and distribution of the drug put some women in serious or life-threatening situations.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit said the FDA failed to adequately consider mifepristone’s side effects and the potential harm of lowering safeguards to accessing the drug. While the New Orleans-based appeals court did not completely revoke mifepristone’s approval, it ruled to strictly curtail access to the pill.
Both rulings rejected scientific evidence not only from the FDA but also from leading medical authorities. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Medical Association, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine and 13 other leading medical societies called the evidence for mifepristone’s safety overwhelming. The groups said major adverse events occur in less than 0.32% of patients and the risk of death is almost nonexistent.
The American Psychological Association said there is no rigorous scientific research that shows abortion negatively impacts mental health. The organization said scientific studies do show, however, that people who are denied abortion care experience more symptoms of anxiety and low self-esteem than those who receive an abortion.
The leading medical groups claim that instead of using their expertise, the courts accepted inaccurate and disproven studies from a group of clinicians opposed to abortion.
Kacsmaryk’s ruling cites two studies that have since been retracted. The studies contradicted evidence that abortion pills are safe, claiming the drug caused dangerous complications. The journal said the studies’ conclusions were misleading and the authors failed to disclose their affiliations with anti-abortion advocacy organizations.
Medical experts do not only take issues with these two studies. Kacsmaryk also relied on a study of 98 anonymous blog posts to conclude that medication abortion could be harmful to women’s mental health.
Dr. Ingrid Skop, an obstetrician-gynecologist, became a key witness in the lower courts’ rulings. Skop, who works at an anti-abortion research organization, has admitted to relying on the website abort73.com for statistics in an expert report and plagiarizing other authors’ work in her publications.
The lower court used articles Skop published in the journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. In 2015, the same journal published an article arguing HIV does not cause AIDS. The doctor advocacy group also previously accused former President Barack Obama of hypnotizing listeners with his speeches.
Other courts have previously rejected Skop’s testimony as providing inaccurate and overstated information about abortion complications.
The Fifth Circuit cited Skop 17 times.
Dr. Donna Harrison, the president of the group who brought the case, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, was cited nine times by the court of appeals. The court used Harrison’s work to learn about the risks of mifepristone.
Like Skop, Harrison’s research has also been rejected by other courts. Harrison told the court that many patients do not fully understand medication abortion or the risks the drugs present. She also testified that many doctors do not know they need to report adverse events of abortion pills or how to do so. Harrison is an obstetrician-gynecologist but she has not practiced since 2000.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists faulted the lower courts for accepting these and other discredited experts.
“The Fifth Circuit accepted these assertions with no evidentiary hearing, while simultaneously discounting the overwhelming evidence that mifepristone is a safe and essential component of reproductive health care,” the group wrote in its amicus brief. “The decision is disconnected from the science and effectively sanctions respondents’ misuse of the drug regulatory system to create barriers to care.”
If the high court upholds the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it would deal a massive blow to abortion access in the post-Roe era. Abortion pills have provided people seeking abortions with an easily accessible option, sometimes by mail, where others are unavailable.
The appeals court’s rollbacks would end virtual abortion access, forcing patients to go into clinics to receive the pill. Abortion seekers could be forced to travel to a clinic for multiple appointments. Only physicians would be able to prescribe the medication. Both of these results could overwhelm clinics, groups say.
The medical associations and other reproductive health advocacy groups asked the justices to reverse the appeals court and not allow the FDA’s judgment to be displaced by what they term junk science.
“The bottom line is that access to safe and effective FDA-approved medications like mifepristone should be based on rigorous scientific research and the medical community consensus, not on the fringe opinions of a few extremists pushing debunked claims to serve their ideological goals,” Kaye said.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in the case on March 26.
Follow @KelseyReichmann
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
Sudan war marks one-year anniversary April 15, 2024 -
-
Hunter Biden appeals April 12, 2024 -
