Texas judge grants motion allowing Idaho to join in lawsuit against FDA over Mifepristone
In a recent legal development, Amarillo U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has granted a motion allowing Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas to intervene in an anti-abortion lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The lawsuit, originally filed in November 2022 by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, has become a focal point in the ongoing debate over reproductive rights. The judge’s decision, delivered on Friday, January 12, 2023, allows these states to assert their interests in the case.
The FDA had contested the states’ involvement, arguing that they had waited too long to join the suit. However, Judge Kacsmaryk disagreed, stating that the states could present their arguments in the lawsuit. Notably, the judge, appointed by President Trump, had previously suspended the use of the drug Mifeprex in an unusual legal move in April 2023.
The motion to intervene cites new data indicating that individuals are crossing state lines or resorting to mail orders to obtain chemical abortion pills, specifically Mifeprex. The interveners argue that this trend poses safety concerns and places an economic burden on hospitals dealing with resulting complications.
Mifeprex, approved by the FDA in generic form in April 2019 and in its name-brand version in September 2020, has been deemed safe by the administration when used correctly. The motion to intervene contends that the FDA has failed in its duty to protect the public by not restricting the use of allegedly dangerous drugs, particularly those impacting women and girls.
Read more:
- Scottsdale Police Apprehend Florida Man Accused of Sexually Exploiting Local Children
- Your Unclaimed $1,500: Easy Steps to Claim It Today!
- Florida bill faces backlash for targeting transgender community
- Mississippi Rejects Federal Aid for Child Hunger
- Hundreds Of Tickets Issued During Travel Ban In New York
The judge’s decision acknowledged the substantial allegations raised by the states against the FDA, emphasizing potential impacts on their “economic, sovereign, and [interests.” The ruling highlighted that the case does affect the states, justifying their intervention. Even if the judge’s analysis were incorrect, the court could still permit intervention based on precedents allowing states to intervene when certain criteria are met, such as timeliness and common questions of law or fact.
Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Indiana, and Kentucky responded to the ruling, characterizing it as a “seemingly innocuous legal move” that could lend credibility to what they perceive as a baseless argument. The organization expressed concerns that this could pave the way for the Supreme Court to entertain unsupported claims, labeling the move as an attempt to grasp at legal straws.
Rebecca Gibron, CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai’i, Indiana, Kentucky, criticized Idaho’s repeated appearances in front of the Supreme Court, suggesting that the state’s lawmakers are actively working against reproductive rights, despite not having broad support within the state. Gibron called for a discerning approach from the court, emphasizing the decades of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of Mifepristone.
Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador’s Office expressed satisfaction with the court’s recognition of Idaho’s standing in the case, citing concerns over the safety of women in the state and the unregulated access to mail-order abortion pills. Labrador stated that the FDA’s actions jeopardize the lives of pregnant women and their unborn children.
The original lawsuit was filed by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, joined by various medical organizations and individuals. It contends that Mifepristone was not properly approved by the FDA and should be removed from the market to safeguard women’s health.
It’s noteworthy that the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, based in Amarillo, Texas, is designated as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), which accuses the organization of consistently working against LGBTQ+ and abortion rights. Similarly, the American College of Pediatricians, another party involved, is also designated as a hate group by the SPLC for promoting anti-LGBTQ junk science.
The Supreme Court’s decision to hear the case in December 2023 has heightened the significance of the legal battle, with a verdict expected in the summer of 2024. As the case unfolds, it continues to fuel the contentious debate surrounding reproductive rights and the legal landscape of abortion in the United States.
