Two recent rulings regarding abortion medication conflicts with each other. In one case, a Texas judge said that the approval of mifepristone, one of the drugs used to terminate a pregnancy, should be halted; however, the appeal is underway. In the other case, a judge ordered to keep the drug available in 17 states.
Both cases deal with the administrative law (the administration and regulation of federal and state government agencies) that controls how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates mifepristone. Although the disputes did not connect to the question of whether there is a right to abortion, the Texas ruling included the idea that "embryos could have individual rights" and to consider this idea in other court rulings.
People without resources to travel to states like California or New York for in-clinic abortions can be harmed by growing restrictions. These cases have been appealed to higher courts as the issue climbs back up to the Supreme Court ever since they have repealed Roe v. Wade.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/08/politics/medication-abortion-texas-washington-fda/index.html
9 comments:
I'd like to emphasize your point about the growing inequity in reproductive care access. Like you said, not everyone has the privilege to travel to a state that allows them to receive this healthcare. To build on this, I would add that women have less of a right to choose where they live because in many cases they must decide between having reproductive rights and not having them; the choice is easy for many, all other things being equal. But not everyone can choose, so these restrictions are most limiting to poor individuals, highlighting one of the many flaws of such restrictions.
The quote that the CNN article presents from the Texas judge is a fascinating display of irony of his anti-abortion arguments. "The judge said that the FDA failed to consider 'the intense psychological trauma and post-traumatic stress women often experience from chemical abortion'” (Sneed, CNN). This argument on the basis of women's health, while it may seem like its trying to prevent "psychological trauma," fails to consider the massive impacts of pregnancy (especially unwanted pregnancies) on the well-being of women. Additionally, the Texas judge was a Trump nominee, and his ruling is clearly a political move to push forward a conversative agenda (the same can be said for the judge that concurrently gave an opposing ruling that favors a liberal agenda).
The contradictory decisions about abortion drugs are a big deal, especially for those who depend on them to end their pregnancies. It is super alarming to see that administrative legal disputes are making it more difficult to get safe and legal abortions. I think that we have to keep fighting for safe, legal abortion access, particularly for people who cannot afford to travel to states with fewer restrictions. The fact that these cases have been appealed to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, also emphasizes the pressing requirement for ongoing engagement and advocacy in favor of reproductive rights.
I agree with Tyler’s point that the growing restrictions are going have an extra severe impact on women who aren’t able to choose where they live or have the money to get the necessary care they need. Adding on all these restrictions to getting access to safe abortions is going to increase the amount of women who put their lives in danger getting illegal or less safe abortions because they don’t have access to the healthcare they need.
The multiple competing laws and regulations have only complicated the situation. Someone who desperately needs an abortion might now not have the proper information about where to go or what drugs to use. It's ironic that there is so much confusion, stress, and overall burden placed on some because of these new regulations and conflicting laws, when pro-lifers claim to be doing a moral good. And I also agree with other people's points about how some restrictions are unjust because not everyone can leave the state.
These pills becoming less and less accessible to the people living outside of that 17 states could mean that the chains tied around these women are tightening as we speak. Not everyone have the privilege to cross states for abortions either. In a country that emphasizes equality, equal opportunities should be provided to everyone with equal costs.
It is concerning to see the issue of abortion resurfacing and becoming more difficult to safely perform. Tyler made a great point that this will have negative implications for women in states such as Texas, who may turn to more dangerous alternatives to obtain an abortion. If this issue is reached at a federal level, it could negatively impact all states and be a detrimental change. I hope that this will not be the case and that it will never pass the supreme court.
I think that the issue of abortion has been taken a step too far. The Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is illegal, and know people are going after the pill that helps abortions occur. These drugs account for more than half of all abortions that happen in the US. Furthermore, this new legal battle might strictly limit access to medication even in states where abortion is legal. In addition, the Supreme Court has stepped in with Justice Alito temporarily blocking the tighter access restriction on an abortion pill which keeps the FDA approval in place. The Justice Department wants to hold off the appeals court ruling that would impact access for all women. In an ABC news article, they mention how "If allowed to take effect, the lower court's orders would upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with sweeping consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, women who need access to the drug, and FDA's ability to implement its statutory authority'> This ruling deals with not only abortion but also FDA's ability to review, approve and regulate drugs.
https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/doj-asks-supreme-court-emergency-stay-abortion-pill/story?id=98585391
https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/14/supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-abortion-pill-restrictions.html
I feel like the fact that there are conflicting rulings on this issue demonstrates the lack of legal basis for the push to ban abortion. Based on all precedent and natural law, people should have the right to abortion, and rulings against that right aren't based on legality but on personal opinion or religion. Of course, there's legal debate over many issues but for abortion, I think it is because it isn't a legal debate but a religious and "moral" one. This fact is even more reason that it should be an individual decision for people.
Post a Comment