U.S. Supreme Court asked to preserve abortion pill access rules

A drug manufacturer asked the Supreme Court on Friday to preserve access to its abortion drug free from restrictions imposed by lower court rulings, while a legal fight continues.

Still, the appeals court did not entirely withdraw FDA approval of mifepristone while the fight over it continues. The 5th circuit narrowed an April 7 ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, whose far-reaching and virtually unprecedented order would have blocked FDA approval of the pill. He gave the administration a week to appeal.

Adding to the uncertainty, a separate federal judge in Washington on Thursday clarified his own order from last week to make clear that the FDA is not to do anything that might block mifepristone’s availability in 17 Democrat-led states suing to keep it on the market.The Texas lawsuit was filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that also argued to overturn Roe v. Wade, and is representing anti-abortion doctors and medical organizations.

The two judges who voted to tighten restrictions, Kurt Engelhardt and Andrew Oldham, are both appointees of former President Donald Trump. The third judge, Catharina Haynes, is an appointee of former President George W. Bush. She said she would have put the lower court ruling on hold entirely for now to allow oral arguments in the case.

Use of medication abortion jumped significantly after the 2016 rule expansion, according to data gathered by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. In 2017, medication abortion accounted for 39% per cent of abortions but by 2020 had increased to become the most common method, accounting for 53% of all abortions.When the drug was initially approved, the FDA limited its use to up to seven weeks of pregnancy.

Law Law Latest News, Law Law Headlines

Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.

Ian Mulgrew: Supreme Court of Canada ducks on providing needed guidance on medicareOpinion: Supreme Court\u0027s decision in health\u002Dcare case is a win for lack of accountability in the public sector
Source: VancouverSun - 🏆 49. / 61 Read more »

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Quebec man who refused breathalyzer testCanada\u0027s highest court has upheld the acquittal of a Quebec man who refused to provide a sample of his breath to officers who didn\u0027t have immediate access to a breathalyzer test. Good. Alcohol doesn’t drive cars, people do. He should be acquitted. How can you ask someone who is walking for a breathalyzer sample?
Source: TheTorontoSun - 🏆 23. / 68 Read more »

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Quebec man who refused breathalyzer testCanada\u0027s highest court has upheld the acquittal of a Quebec man who refused to provide a sample of his breath to officers who didn\u0027t have immediate access to a breathalyzer test.
Source: calgarysun - 🏆 63. / 52 Read more »

Battle over Simon Fraser football program heads to B.C. Supreme CourtSFU Alumni Society president says decision to end program is a breach of contract Change the name Red Leaf’s and I will care. Perhaps SFU should not have abandoned CIS (now U Sports) in pursuit of fame in the NCAA. Regardless, get these student athletes back into a program. Just end it
Source: globeandmail - 🏆 5. / 92 Read more »

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Quebec man who refused breathalyzer testCanada\u0027s highest court has upheld the acquittal of a Quebec man who refused to provide a sample of his breath to officers who didn\u0027t have immediate access to a breathalyzer test.
Source: ottawasuncom - 🏆 4. / 92 Read more »

Supreme Court upholds acquittal of Quebec man who refused to give breath sampleOTTAWA — Canada’s highest court on Thursday upheld the acquittal of a Quebec man who refused to provide a breath sample to officers who didn’t have immediate…
Source: OttawaCitizen - 🏆 21. / 68 Read more »