In a recent case that has become a focal point of the ongoing debate surrounding abortion rights in the United States, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has taken extraordinary steps to keep details of an abortion pill case from becoming public knowledge. This case involves the drug mifepristone, widely used in medication abortions.
Typically, federal court cases are documented in a publicly available docket, ensuring transparency and accessibility. However, in a striking departure from standard procedure, Judge Kacsmaryk, during a conference call with lawyers on March 10, expressed his intentions to delay releasing any information about the hearing until the night before it was scheduled to take place. This move, ostensibly made to prevent disruptions or protests, was revealed when the Washington Post obtained details of the call and reported on it the following day, giving the public some forewarning.
The hearing, which took place on March 15, was closely watched by both supporters and opponents of abortion rights. During the proceedings, according to reports from the Washington Post, Judge Kacsmaryk appeared receptive to the plaintiffs’ arguments. The plaintiffs, a group opposing abortion, contended that mifepristone is unsafe, claiming it could be harmful or even deadly, and alleged that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rushed its approval process.
The attorney representing the anti-abortion group, Erik Baptist, emphasized the risks associated with the drug during the hearing. “How many more women have to die?” he questioned, underscoring their case for revoking the drug’s approval. This sentiment was reported by the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, highlighting the dramatic stakes set by those opposed to the drug.
Contrastingly, scientific data and a plethora of studies have demonstrated mifepristone’s safety and efficacy. According to FDA statistics updated in 2018, out of 3.7 million users of mifepristone, only 24 deaths were recorded, and there was no conclusive evidence linking these deaths directly to the drug. Furthermore, the Department of Justice attorneys, defending the FDA’s position in court, pointed out that 99.9% of those who use mifepristone experience no significant side effects, which bolsters the argument for its continued approval and widespread use.
Yet, the move to potentially ban an FDA-approved drug that has been in the market for over two decades is without precedent. Acknowledging this, Judge Kacsmaryk questioned Baptist about any historical precedents for such a ruling. Baptist admitted there were none, attributing this to the FDA’s resistance to past challenges against the drug.
Both the nature of the lawsuit and the judicial approach to it have raised eyebrows. Lorie Chaiten, a senior staff attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union’s Reproductive Freedom Project, told BuzzFeed News that in any ordinary circumstances, such a lawsuit would be dismissed outright. “What the plaintiffs have asked for here is unprecedented,” Chaiten said, noting the historical reluctance of courts to intervene in the pharmaceutical market, especially concerning drugs that have long been established and used by the public.
The significance of the case extends beyond the courtroom in Texas. In a related legal action, Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against the FDA in late February in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Their legal challenge broadly advocated for the removal of additional restrictions on mifepristone but also sought assurances that the drug would not be withdrawn from the market or its availability reduced. On Friday following the March 15 hearing, District Judge Thomas Owen Rice, appointed by former President Barack Obama, granted a preliminary injunction supporting this stance, highlighting the public interest in maintaining access to mifepristone.
However, Judge Rice was cautious about issuing a nationwide injunction, given the ongoing and conflicting case in Texas. The resolution of these conflicting judicial perspectives and the ultimate stance of the Supreme Court remain to be seen, but the potential implications are vast. As Chaiten pointed out, even in jurisdictions where abortion remains legal, any legal uncertainty regarding the approval status of mifepristone could have severe consequences for its prescription and distribution.
This case, therefore, is not merely a legal battle; it is a confrontation about values, science, regulatory process, and women’s rights. It underscores the deep divisions within the United States on the issue of abortion, and whatever decision emerges from this judicial conflict will likely resonate across all facets of American society.
