{"id":15035,"date":"2024-10-21T09:03:32","date_gmt":"2024-10-21T09:03:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/?p=15035"},"modified":"2024-10-21T09:27:07","modified_gmt":"2024-10-21T09:27:07","slug":"states-revive-lawsuit-to-sharply-curb-access-to-abortion-pill","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/?p=15035","title":{"rendered":"States Revive Lawsuit to Sharply Curb Access to Abortion Pill"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

The Supreme Court ruled in June that the original plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors and groups, did not have standing to sue. Now three states are trying to continue the legal fight.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
\n

A lawsuit seeking to sharply restrict the abortion pill mifepristone \u2014 a case the Supreme Court<\/a> threw out this year \u2014 has re-emerged in a version that presents new challenges for abortion-rights supporters and the federal government\u2019s ability to regulate abortion medication.<\/p>\n

The revised lawsuit<\/a> was filed this month by the <\/span>conservative state attorneys general of three states \u2014 Missouri, Idaho and Kansas \u2014 against the Food and Drug Administration in the same federal district court in Texas as the original case. It seeks to reverse numerous regulatory changes the F.D.A. has made since 2016 that greatly expanded access to mifepristone.<\/p>\n

It also asks for new restrictions, including to outlaw the medication for anyone under 18. And it takes aim at the fast-growing practice of prescribing abortion pills through telemedicine and mailing them to patients, including those in states with abortion bans.<\/p>\n

In the United States, abortion pills are prescribed up to 12 weeks into pregnancy and are now used in nearly two-thirds of abortions. The typical regimen involves mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy development, followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol, which causes contractions like a miscarriage. Decades of research has found the pills to be overwhelmingly safe<\/a>, and serious complications rare.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

<\/div>\n
\n
\n

The original lawsuit, filed in 2022 by anti-abortion doctors and groups, was rejected in June by the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling. The court said that the plaintiffs did not have standing<\/a> to sue because they couldn\u2019t show they had been harmed by the F.D.A.\u2019s decisions on mifepristone. But that ruling didn\u2019t extinguish the case\u2019s chance of being revived<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Last year, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas petitioned to join the suit at the lower court level and were granted the status of intervenors. The states were denied permission to intervene at the Supreme Court level, but after the original plaintiffs\u2019 claims were rejected, the states remained part of the lower court case, and this month they filed an amended complaint as plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

\n
\n
<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.<\/p>\n

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n
\n

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and\u00a0log into<\/a>\u00a0your Times account, or\u00a0subscribe<\/a>\u00a0for all of The Times.<\/p>\n

\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.<\/p>\n

Already a subscriber?\u00a0Log in<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Want all of The Times?\u00a0Subscribe<\/a>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/section>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Supreme Court ruled in June that the original plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors and groups, did not have standing to sue. Now three states are trying to continue the legal fight.A lawsuit seeking to sharply restrict the abortion pill mifepristone \u2014 a case the Supreme Court threw out this year \u2014 has re-emerged in a version that presents new challenges for abortion-rights supporters and the federal government\u2019s ability to regulate abortion medication.The revised lawsuit was filed this month by the conservative state attorneys general of three states \u2014 Missouri, Idaho and Kansas \u2014 against the Food and Drug Administration in the same federal district court in Texas as the original case. It seeks to reverse numerous regulatory changes the F.D.A. has made since 2016 that greatly expanded access to mifepristone.It also asks for new restrictions, including to outlaw the medication for anyone under 18. And it takes aim at the fast-growing practice of prescribing abortion pills through telemedicine and mailing them to patients, including those in states with abortion bans.In the United States, abortion pills are prescribed up to 12 weeks into pregnancy and are now used in nearly two-thirds of abortions. The typical regimen involves mifepristone, which blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy development, followed 24 to 48 hours later by misoprostol, which causes contractions like a miscarriage. Decades of research has found the pills to be overwhelmingly safe, and serious complications rare.The original lawsuit, filed in 2022 by anti-abortion doctors and groups, was rejected in June by the Supreme Court in a unanimous ruling. The court said that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue because they couldn\u2019t show they had been harmed by the F.D.A.\u2019s decisions on mifepristone. But that ruling didn\u2019t extinguish the case\u2019s chance of being revived.Last year, Missouri, Idaho and Kansas petitioned to join the suit at the lower court level and were granted the status of intervenors. The states were denied permission to intervene at the Supreme Court level, but after the original plaintiffs\u2019 claims were rejected, the states remained part of the lower court case, and this month they filed an amended complaint as plaintiffs.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and\u00a0log into\u00a0your Times account, or\u00a0subscribe\u00a0for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber?\u00a0Log in.Want all of The Times?\u00a0Subscribe.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":15037,"comment_status":"close","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15035","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lifestyle"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15035","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=15035"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15035\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":15038,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15035\/revisions\/15038"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/15037"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=15035"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=15035"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/medexperts.pro\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=15035"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}