Abortion pill ruling continues to spark debate
NORTH TEXAS (CBSNewsTexas.com) – North Texans on both sides of the abortion debate are waiting to see if the U.S. Supreme Court intervenes in a case involving a commonly used abortion pill.
Martha Sanchez of the group Young Invincibles is among the abortion-rights supporters who criticize the ruling Friday by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee, to suspend the abortion pill Mifepristone. "It is very, very upsetting."
The FDA gave the drug the green light in 2000, insists it's safe, and disagrees with abortion rights opponents who challenged the agency's approval of the drug decades later.
Sanchez told CBS News Texas, "It's really alarming just how far they've gone to undermine a federal agency that has the experts and the capable bodies to decide what is safe and what is not. This should never have been the decision of the judge."
Kyleen Wright of the Texans For Life Coalition agrees with the judge's ruling. "Obviously, we're pretty excited about what Judge Kacsmyrk has done."
the FDA didn't fully consider safety concerns about the drug when they initially approved it.
In an interview with CBS News Texas, Wright said, "They don't really care what happens just as long as they protect the status quo and that's what this judge had the courage to upend."
On Monday, the Biden administration sharply criticized the judge's ruling and asked the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to block it by noon Thursday, and that if not, it would ask the Supreme Court to intervene.
If the judge's ruling is allowed to take effect, it could ultimately end the supply of the drug that's often used to terminate a pregnancy.
Another federal judge, an Obama appointee in Washington State, also issued a ruling on the medication abortion Friday.
It said the FDA could not curb sales of Mifepristone in 17 states and Washington, DC.
In Texas, the drug is banned along with most abortions, with the exception to save the mother's life.
But during the pandemic, the FDA allowed Mifepristone to be delivered in the mail.
Both Sanchez and Wright accuse the other side of the abortion debate to place politics over science.
The two rulings come nearly one year after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade and sent it back to the states.
SMU Constitutional Law Professor Dale Carpenter said, "It's highly unusual that you have two conflicting opinions on an issue like this in such short order."
He said the rulings about Mifepristone aren't about Constitutional rights, but about the regulation of a federal agency and the FDA's decision to approve the drug 23 years ago. "It's highly unusual for a court to take the posiiton that now that decision was erroneous and has to be halted. That could raise questions of whether the judges are now intruding themselves into policy making and the role of the Executive Branch. That would be a violation of sepration of powers."
Sanchez said her biggest worry is that the challenges to abortion won't end anytime soon. "We are very, very concerned and it's very, very frustrating that our rights to our bodily autonomy continue to be under attack."
Carpenter said he believes there's a lot of uncertainty in the law in the months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and sent it back to the states.
