DOJ to appeal Texas court ruling on mifepristone
The Texas ruling was contradicted by Washington et al. v. FDA ruling, which ordered the FDA to keep mifepristone available.
Photo: Al Drago/Getty Images
Attorney General Merrick B. Garland said Friday that the Department of Justice would appeal the Texas court decision banning the use of mifepristone nationwide.
Garland said in a statement, "The Justice Department strongly disagrees with the decision of the District Court for the Northern District of Texas in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA and will be appealing the court's decision and seeking a stay pending appeal."
The Texas ruling was also contradicted by another decision in Washington et al. v. FDA, which ordered the Food and Drug Administration to keep mifepristone available. The State of Washington preliminary ruling said the FDA must continue to allow healthcare providers to mail abortion pills to their patients in 17 states and the District of Columbia
The mifepristone case is ultimately expected to land before the Supreme Court.
Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra said, "This is a regressive ruling issued by a single court in a single state that will have a disastrous impact on women and families across America if not overturned. Mifepristone was approved by the FDA as safe and effective to manage abortion decades ago and has been approved by drug regulators around the globe.
"Today's ruling affects more than just access to abortion care," Becerra said. "Some physicians use mifepristone for miscarriage management, which can be one of the most difficult times in a woman's life."
WHY THIS MATTERS
Numerous physician groups and abortion rights advocates weighed in on the Texas decision.
Dr. Jack Resneck Jr., president of the American Medical Association, said, "Today's court decision from a federal district court in Texas staying longstanding approval of mifepristone flies in the face of science and evidence and threatens to upend access to a safe and effective drug that has been used by millions of people for more than 20 years. The court's disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation. By rejecting medical facts, the court has intruded into the exam room and has intervened in decisions that belong to patients and physicians. The court's rebuff of scientific facts also undermines informed decisions, erodes trust in institutions, exacerbates social divides, and places individual and collective health at risk.
"Additionally, this decision introduces the extraordinary, unprecedented danger of courts upending longstanding drug regulatory decisions by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Doing so goes against the established scientific process that leads to those decisions and puts other drugs at risk of being subject to similar efforts," he said.
Frederick Isasi, executive director of Families USA said, "This reckless decision threatens the ability of every American to get FDA-approved medications, not just access for women to safe and effective abortion. The extremists that brought this case think one judge should be able to interfere with the careful scientific process and medical experts at the FDA. This judge has blown apart FDA's scientific independence."
THE LARGER TREND
Medication abortions account for more than half of all abortions in the country, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
Last June, the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and left the decision on abortion to the states, creating confusion for physicians, especially emergency room physicians, over what is legal and what is not.
Twitter: @SusanJMorse
Email the writer: SMorse@himss.org
Matthew Fisher will offer more detail in the HIMS23 session "A Confusing Muddle: Health Policy Post-Dobbs." It is scheduled for Tuesday, April 18, at 3 p.m. - 4 p.m. CT at the South Building, Level 1, S100 C.
