The Supreme Court has also declined to consider a challenge to the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000, which is well past the statute of limitations of six years. This means that regardless of the Supreme Court’s decision, mifepristone will continue to be on the market, but can become a lot more difficult to obtain. A ruling against mifepristone will reverse changes FDA made in 2016 and 2021 that eased access to the drug, including the lengthened window for use from 7th week to 10th week of pregnancy and access to mifepristone through U.S. mail.
Oral arguments are likely to be scheduled for spring, with decisions to be made by the end of June, putting the debate of abortion under spotlight in the 2024 campaign season. Abortion is expected to be a major issue for voters in the 2024 presidential election, and some Democrats have urged President Joe Biden to focus attention on abortion in his reelection effort. Recently, the Texas Supreme Court ruled against Kate Cox’s abortion case, saying that she does not qualify for an abortion under medical exception.
As both the 2024 election and Supreme Court’s mifepristone hearing draws near, candidates and voters will have to take a stand on the polarizing issue of reproductive rights.
- Momoka Dhanuwidjaja
Sources:
20 comments:
I agree, I think that abortion is going to be a HUGE topic for presidential candidates in the 2024 election. I also agree that the distribution of mifepristone will get significantly higher is the supreme court decision rules against it. I think that issues like abortion and these rulings further polarize America as people are forced to take stances not necessarily because they agree with them but because its the only stance that aligns with their party. As George Washington predicted, political parties has created a two party system where is there no middle ground with candidates only taking extreme stances. This only further polarizes our government and people.
In terms of the actual drug mifepristone. I believe that you can't get rid of abortions you can only get rid of safe abortions. If mifepristone becomes harder to obtain, people will resort to more dangerous ways to get what they want. Mifepristone is a safe alternative that incentives safety.
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218332935/mifepristone-abortion-pill-supreme-court
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-agrees-hear-showdown-abortion-pill-access-rcna128185
The whole abortion discussion becoming particularly inflamed in the last few years, already is incredibly upsetting, scary and wrong. Limiting access to abortions not only violates one's free will and inhibitions, but quite often their health; it couldn't seem more clear to me that abortion should be completely legal, and should be viewed as basic healthcare. It appears conservatives keep tightening and tightening their grasp on people and women in a frightening way. It seems they are certainly working tirelessly to restrain every semblance of the possibility of abortion. The fact that the supreme court 24 years ago declined a challenge to mifepristone, reveals how the drug should indisputably remain available.
It feels ridiculous and dystopian, that leaders remain so faithful to their parties "values," that they completely ignorant to the cries for help of women, or consider basic rationale. I don't understand why those who support abortion believe its justified to restrict, endanger, and screw everyone else over just because of their beliefs. It feels especially hypocritical as those who don't support abortion are often men or above child bearing age, and have probably lost touch with reality and kindness.
I did hear about Kate Cox's case, as was appalled by unfortunately not surprised by the Texas Supreme Court ruling. Her fetus had many abnormalities, would likely die at birth or soon after. Doctors supported abortion was the best step for her, yet she was denied an abortion by law. Why make this woman suffer for nine months, only to bear a child which she cannot keep. Common sense is so clearly lacking in this ruling. Human's faults and cruelty show clearly throughout the world, but usually in a recognizable and agreed upon way. America's responses to abortion reveals how even in a "just" country, humans are mindless, corruption is always present, and humanity is always capable of atrocity.
The Supreme Court's pending decision on mifepristone's access is a crucial moment for reproductive rights as it could limit healthcare options for those seeking medication abortion. The fact that it sits so close to the 2024 election makes it a pivotal issue for candidates. The stance that candidates take on this matter can significantly shape their campaigns and bring in more supporters. So, as we get closer to the supreme court's decision on access to mifepristone I look forward to seeing how each candidate reacts.
Now, in regards to the soon to be ruling I find it even more harming to women when the supreme court takes away safe abortion methods. A study showcased that around 68,000 women die of unsafe abortions annually, this makes it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality(13%). Furthermore, of the women who survive unsafe abortions, 5 million of them will suffer long-term health complications. So, by the supreme court taking away safe abortion methods to "protect women" they are actually harming them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
I think it is ridiculous that Kate Cox was unable to gain an abortion, just because she couldn't prove her life was in danger. She visited the ER 4 times, had risks of a uterine rupture, and her ability to have future children was in jeopardy. Furthermore, with any pregnant person, pregnancy alters their body, shifting important organs and putting pressure on their cardiovascular system. Pregnancy is extremely uncomfortable and certainly can have detrimental effects on a person's mental and physical health. To force someone to lower their quality of life and go through all of this just to have their baby die a few days after birth seems unnecessary and cruel. I'm not exactly sure the current process for pregnant people to obtain mifepristone, but I imagine that with new regulations making it harder to obtain, people will be pushed to more extreme measures. Making abortions harder to obtain will just mean that many people will seek abortions and pills through potentially dangerous outlets.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-kate-cox-texas-exceptions-e85664b2ab76bcb689b1b91913d3e33e
By taking away mifepistone, women are just left to suffer carrying a child along with multiple possible complications. Factors such as financial status, proper parental care, or health concerns regarding the mother or the child, display the importance mifepristone can have. As candidates are preparing for the 2024 election, incorporating support for abortion can and may also not be able to garner more support for the candidate. To appeal to the democrats, I think that this would be a great strategy whereas using this to try and gather support from whole population would be slightly more difficult. Depending on the approach, proceeding with more moderation may be a better plan when trying to gather support from more people. But, looking at polling regarding abortion, I still think that being vocal on abortion support will be beneficial towards presidential campaigns. In the end, as Spencer mentioned, the topic surrounding abortions and medical abortions will play a big role in how candidates are viewed and how much of a following they can gain.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
I think that by taking away mifepistone it is just creating more complications around abortion, especially since so many states already have so many restrictions on it. I also think its weird considering it still is available, just harder to get to, making me kind of wonder whats the point? I agree with others that this being so close to the 2024 elections means that people will be taking clear stands on this, yet it seems so dehumanizing as it is pregnant women who will be struggling. There are many things for women to consider if they are having a baby and I think it is absurd to be making an abortion so hard to obtain, it just isn't right.
I agree with several people in the fact there was a solid foundation for Cox to be included under medically needed abortions. Her medical record (as outlined by Mia) more than proves that, almost any unbiased doctor would agree. I think that really only goes to show just how strong anti-abortion sentiment is in Texas, one that reflects much of the Republican Party. This so called clause of "medical exceptions" seems more like a half attempt to appease the minority pro-choice constituency within the state. Moreover, having a court comprised of an overwhelming majority of Republican justices determine the necessity of an abortion really just seems like a formal way to say no.
The fact that this is the first abortion case since Roe v. Wade makes the Supreme Court's ruling only that much more important. I wouldn't be surprised that whatever the outcome may be, spirits and protests on one side and/or the other will arise again. In turn, such spirits will be very influential within the 2024 presidential nomination as highlighted by Spencer. The strength of Biden's stance upon abortion will likely influence single-issue voters and conservative Democrats in their nomination and presidential choices. From Rodriguez's statement, it seems as though it'll be a big part of his campaign.
I agree with other commenters; making mifepristone difficult to get will lead to more health complications. Abortion is healthcare, as visible in Cox's case, and no one wants to carry a non-viable fetus. Many have compared Cox’s case and other cases where a pregnant person could not terminate a pregnancy with a non-viable fetus to the creation of “walking coffins.” This description is truly horrific and emphasizes how pregnant people have no autonomy over their bodies, and the hypothetical life of the fetus (whether viable or not) is worth more than their mental and physical health.
https://jessica.substack.com/p/a-country-of-walking-coffins
Not only are they taking away a person’s choice for abortion by making it illegal, but they are now limiting the drugs essential for abortion. I don’t understand what they are trying to achieve. Why do they not care for the well-being of the person making the decision? This limitation just emphasizes how lots of people undermine the many reasons why a person chooses not to give birth; whether it be financial, emotional, or whatever reason, it is not taken into consideration. It concerns me to see people making this about politics instead of saving and/or respecting the person’s life and choices. Reading what happened to Kate Cox makes me sad, as she was forced to go to another state to get an abortion because Texas restricted her. Like Amit said, it's horrible how people have no autonomy over their bodies. I hope the Supreme Court does not limit mifepristone.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2023/12/11/kate-cox-flees-texas-abortion-case/71880910007/
Like many other commenters, I am devastated at this news. I've come to learn through my research the need for mifepristone for a multitude of situations. An article from NPR shares stories from women about their experience with mifepristone which has opened my eyes to its many uses. Mifepristone can be used to quicken miscarriages which can reduce the amount of suffering and trauma families go through. It can also be an easier way for those seeking an abortion to receive one if they are unable to get to a clinic, do not want to alert others of their choice, or want to reduce the pain and trauma from a surgery. Taking away this treatment means taking away the rights of women to their bodies.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2023/05/17/1176514276/mifepristone-abortion-miscarriage-pill
In general, I agree with my fellow commenters. I think it's important to consider Kate Cox's circumstance, in which she experienced difficulties seeking an abortion since she could not prove a clear threat to her life. I think it's extremely unfair taking into account that she had evidence. With a number of emergency room visits, the presence of hazards such as uterine rupture, and the jeopardization of her future fertility, she was still forced to fight for her rights surrounding abortion- a right that ultimately should not be something women have to fight for in my opinion. In addition, I think It is critical to understand that pregnancy causes major physical changes to a woman's body, such as the displacement of essential organs and increased load on the cardiovascular system. As a student of an Aragon teacher who recently gave birth, she explained the inconveniences of giving birth ( especially needing larger sized shoes). This uneasy and potentially harmful impact on both mental and physical well-being emphasizes the importance of such decisions. In order to create change, I think change is needed at the congressional level. However, initiatives aiming to put greater rules on abortion operations may fail to account for the varied and multifaceted issues that people like Kate Cox encounter. As Congress navigates these policy challenges, I believe it is critical that lawmakers understand the full spectrum of circumstances that affect individuals' reproductive health and autonomy.
https://apnews.com/article/abortion-kate-cox-texas-exceptions-e85664b2ab76bcb689b1b91913d3e33e
https://www.npr.org/2023/12/13/1218332935/mifepristone-abortion-pill-supreme-court
It's crazy to think that this is the first abortion case since Roe v. Wade. Like Chin-Yi said, that just makes the case more important. When I first heard about Cox's case, I wasn't surprised because we've repeatedly seen this. We still have yet to overcome conservative beliefs over abortion for situations like this to not repeat themselves. It's disappointing and heartbreaking to see as a woman growing up in America, undoubtedly. The fact that Cox was denied an abortion in her state of residence despite the fact that her pregnancy literally put her life at threat is terrifying to me. Like Cody said, despite all of the evidence Cox had, she was still forced to fight for her rights. America is in desperate need of congressional change to protect the women of our country. Putting harsher restrictions on abortions will not solve the disputes surrounding abortion. As new generations emerge, it's only becoming more standard for people to see the flaws in our government's stance on abortion. Even if that doesn't change completely, just like Cody mentioned, I think lawmakers must consider full circumstances before making a decision that puts one's life to an end unnecessarily.
I agree that this will play a role in the election of the presidential candidate, however I think it will also play into other elections in the future. For example, the state governor elections or state representatives considering that while this is a national issue, states can choose to continue to legalize or ban/restrict abortion laws. Some states who may not protect the abortion rights are somewhat in the middle (per say), and the state governments and preservatives will affect the states overall position on abortion.
Something that Spencer mentioned was safe abortions, having mifepristone be harder to obtain will potentially gear women to find other ways to have an abortion, however it may be dangerous. Kate Cox was fortunate to be able to go to another state to have a safe abortion, however not every woman will have the ability to just go to another state that legalizes these abortions and have it. I remember watching in APUSH a film regarding women's rights in the 1970’s where a woman was getting an abortion in the home of a doctor because they could not receive an abortion anywhere else. In today's time, Texas allows private citizens to file civil lawsuits against those that “aids or abets” abortions which means that people who are attempting to perform an abortion can be sued, and in return the filer will receive $10,000. With these restrictions on drugs like mifepristone, doctors performing the act, and overall just being able to have an abortion will impact women who need to have an abortion more negativity then many may actually realize.
The case decision will likely come in late June, it will be interesting to see the decision itself and the impact that decision will have on future elections and peoples view overall.
https://www.npr.org/2022/07/11/1107741175/texas-abortion-bounty-law
https://www.context.news/money-power-people/roe-v-wade-which-us-states-are-banning-abortion
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/11/us/kate-cox-abortion-law-texas-case/index.html
As echoed by many of the classmates here, I also share my confusion as to the potential decision to limit the drug mifepristone, wouldn't it also heavily impact states that are open to abortion and pro-choice? I believe that the ruling will have a significant effect in how politicians will shape their agenda and campaigning headed into the 2024 election, as it will be a huge topic that many will be keen to see how the leader of the next executive branch would address and resolve the issue.
I found an interesting news report summed up by MSNBC that analyzes the effects of the restrictions of mifepristone:
https://www.msnbc.com/11th-hour/watch/scotus-to-decide-on-access-to-abortion-pill-mifepristone-understanding-how-the-pill-works-200282693972
Mifepristone is a drug used for medication abortion, BUT people could also use it to control high blood sugar for those with Cushing syndrome with type 2 diabetes if they aren't candidates for surgery. By banning mifepristone, do they plan to prevent others from taking it if it isn't for abortion? Moreover, I agree with Spencer, by continuously banning ways for women to get an abortion, it is only preventing them from safely getting one. Thus women might resort to dangerous or life threatening abortions.
Regarding Kate Cox, I don't think her case for asking for an abortion was very fair. In Texas, women aren't allowed to get an abortion once the fetus' first heartbeat is detected, but those with a medical emergency or an unsafe pregnancy are allowed to get one even after Texas' deadline. As mentioned by Mia, there were many health issues she experienced during her pregnancy which should of qualified Cox her to get an abortion since their abortion law states abortions are allowed in cases of medical emergencies. The fact that she was denied an abortion because she couldn't prove it leads me to the question: what severity of a medical emergency or unsafe pregnancy qualifies women for abortion in Texas? Does it have to be a life or death situation? Furthermore, preganacies change women physically and mentally, one of the more commonly known mental changes is post-partum depression which women might not be ready for. In my opinion, when should be free to get an abortion whenever they feel they personally need one as they know their OWN body the best.
https://versustexas.com/texas-abortion-law/
They are not only making abortion illegal, but they are also restricting access to essential abortion medications, depriving individuals of their choice. The motive behind these actions is unclear, and it raises questions about their disregard for the well-being of those making such personal decisions. The limitations imposed fail to consider the various reasons, be it financial, emotional, or otherwise, that influence a person's choice not to proceed with childbirth. It is disconcerting to witness the politicization of this issue instead of prioritizing the preservation and respect for an individual's life and choices.
These anti-abortion policies are concerning to see. Restricting access to this incredibly important medication for abortions contributes to the restriction of these individuals' right to choose. It seems that people are trying to get closer and closer to a straight-up ban on abortion, but they know that the public would never let that happen. Mifepristone blocks a hormone called progesterone, which is one that is necessary for a pregnancy to continue. It is used for around 54% of abortions, proving its importance and how many people it would affect if this drug were made to be incredibly difficult to attain. Mifepristone is a safe option for abortion, so policies like these would make safe abortions harder to achieve, which would be bad for the health of several women who are just trying to exercise their natural right to make decisions over their own bodies. Around 20 million women who are trying to get an abortion choose unsafe options, and around 70,000 of them die, while 5 million have long-term health effects. These numbers will only rise if access to this drug is restricted. I think the priority should be the health of these women in cases such as these, and this case would only contribute to the worsening their health and a larger number of deaths.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2709326/
https://www.guttmacher.org/article/2022/02/medication-abortion-now-accounts-more-half-all-us-abortions
I feel as though in regards to this and many other drugs that are limited from the public through government intervention, people will find a way to get it anyway. The difference is that before the limitations, people will SAFELY operate the drug whereas after these regulations, people will start taking this more dangerously and with less caution. Things like this also raise questions about WHO is making choices for women. As we’ve learnt about in Mr. Siltons class, a lot of the people in decision-making positions are white, christian, male, and old which is the exact OPPOSITE of the demographic going for abortions. This raises the concern of if these people are really doing what's in the best interest of the people and if they really know what they’re even talking about because they have never had to make the decision on whether they need to get an abortion or not. Additionally, I agree with Chin-Yi here in regards to the medical exception aspect of this case and the appeasement of the minority. In conclusion, I think limiting mifepristone will just lead to more unsafe abortions and it won't REALLY do anything except create an increase in death. This is just another way to control the minority to me.
Post a Comment