By: Matthew Perrone & Denise Lavoie
Abortion providers in three states filed a lawsuit Monday aimed at preserving access to the abortion pill mifepristone, even as the drug is threatened by a separate Texas lawsuit winding its way through U.S. court system.
The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Virginia on behalf of clinics in Virginia, Montana and Kansas, is the latest legal action over the decades-old pill, which is part of the two-drug regimen used in most U.S. abortions.
A federal judge in Texas issued a ruling last month that would have revoked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s longstanding approval of the pill, an unprecedented challenge to the federal drug regulator. But the Supreme Court blocked that decision and other limits from a lower court from taking effect while the lawsuit continues.
Abortion-rights advocates and their opponents continue jostling for a legal foothold on the issue across the country.
The clinics in Virginia, Montana and Kansas sued the FDA on Monday in federal court to force the agency to drop several longstanding restrictions on how mifepristone can be prescribed.
But from a practical standpoint, the groups said they are seeking a court order that would shield mifepristone access in their states as the litigation over the drug proceeds. That is what 18 liberal states achieved last month when a federal judge in Washington state issued a ruling ordering the FDA to preserve access to mifepristone in those states, regardless of any conflicting court decisions. The ruling came shortly after the Texas decision, creating confusion for abortion providers and their patients.
The plaintiffs in Monday’s lawsuit said they hope to prevent similar chaos as the legal battle over mifepristone accelerates. An appeals court in New Orleans is set to hear arguments in the Texas case later this month.
“Plaintiffs cannot retool their practices overnight with no notice — healthcare has no on-off switch. They and their patients require clarity around their continued provision of mifepristone,” states the lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the clinics by the Center for Reproductive Rights, a New York-based legal and advocacy group that works to ensure access to abortion.
The group said it included abortion providers in Virginia, Montana and Kansas in the lawsuit because those states are not parties to either the Texas or Washington cases, but they have many lawmakers who are hostile to abortion access and “are caught in the middle of this maelstrom.”
The FDA approved mifepristone, in combination with a second pill, as a safe and effective means of ending pregnancy in 2000. Mifepristone is sometimes used for alternate reasons, including managing miscarriages.
At the time of the approval, the FDA imposed a number of restrictions on the drug, including requiring that prescribers undergo certification and that women sign an agreement form before taking it.
In recent years, the FDA has made mifepristone easier to get, dropping a two-decade-old requirement that women pick up the pill in person. But the FDA has repeatedly concluded that the remaining requirements — including prescriber certification and patient forms — are necessary.
In their lawsuit, the clinics argue that these restrictions “stigmatize and undermine access to medication abortion.”
The abortion providers who are suing include: Whole Woman’s Health Alliance, a nonprofit organization that operates healthcare facilities in Charlottesville and Alexandria, Virginia; Whole Woman’s Health of the Twin Cities, LLC, in Minnesota, which provides telehealth services for medication abortion in Virginia, Maryland, Minnesota, New Mexico and Illinois; and Blue Mountain Clinic, a family practice in Missoula, Montana, which first opened in 1977 as the first and only abortion clinic in the state.
Other providers named as plaintiffs include: Helen Weems, a certified nurse practitioner licensed to practice in Montana and owner of All Families Healthcare, a sexual and reproductive health clinic in Whitefish, Montana; and Trust Women, which operates clinics in Wichita, Kansas, and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma.
A new effort was introduced late Monday in the Nebraska Legislature to restrict abortion access in the state, less than two weeks after a bill that would have banned abortion at around six weeks of pregnancy failed to overcome a filibuster.
The new plan to ban abortion at 12 weeks of pregnancy drew fervent protests from opponents who had been assured by Speaker of the Legislature Sen. John Arch that the abortion proposal was dead for the session.
Drawing even more outrage was the way the measure was introduced: as an amendment to a bill that would ban gender-affirming hormone treatments and gender reassignment surgery for minors — the most controversial bill of the session that has led at least two lawmakers to filibuster every bill before the body this year.
Omaha Sen. Machaela Cavanaugh, who has led the filibuster effort since late February to protest the trans bill, angrily promised Monday night to ratchet up her efforts to further slow the work of the Legislature following the abortion amendment.
“We have 161 hours after today. That is going from 9 a.m. to midnight,” she said. “And you better believe I’m going to maximize every minute of that. Every single minute of it.”
In late April, an abortion bill that would have banned abortion once cardiac activity can be detected failed to get the 33 votes it needed to end the debate on it. Historically, that means the bill is shelved for the remainder of the session.
In other related news, the AP also reported that the leader of a major anti-abortion group aligned herself Monday with former President Donald Trump on the issue, just weeks after raising questions about his commitment to restricting access to the procedure.
Calling her meeting Monday with Trump “terrific,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America group, said in a statement that he “reiterated that any federal legislation protecting these children would need to include the exceptions for life of the mother and in cases of rape and incest.”
The characterization of the meeting — which Dannenfelser’s group said happened at Trump’s Florida home — marked a turnaround from more than two weeks ago. Then, Dannenfelser called Trump’s contention that abortion restrictions should be left up to individual states, not the federal government, a “morally indefensible position for a self-proclaimed pro-life presidential candidate.”
Dannenfelser’s group has said it would not support any White House candidate who did not at a minimum support a 15-week federal abortion ban. Her statement about Monday’s meeting with the leading GOP contender didn’t mention any discussion of proposed confines for a federal ban, aside from Trump’s opposition to late-term procedures, which he has long opposed.
Trump has referred to himself as “the most pro-life president in American history,” as his three nominations of conservative judges to the Supreme Court paved the way for the reversal of Roe v Wade, which had legalized abortion nationwide for nearly 50 years.
(AP)
