WASHINGTON — Medication abortions, which have become increasingly popular in the state, will continue in Minnesota, even if a legal challenge to mifepristone, a drug used in the procedures, prevails.
Planned Parenthood clinics and other facilities that provide abortion services in Minnesota have been preparing for an adverse ruling by Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk by assuring patients that medication abortions will continue to be offered – even if they no longer involve the drug mifepristone.
The future of mifepristone was cast into doubt when Kacsmaryk, a judge in Amarillo, Texas, on Friday invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s 23-year-old approval of mifepristone with his ruling. Kacsmaryk said in his decision on a case brought by anti-abortion groups that the FDA underreported adverse reactions to mifepristone and the drug is unsafe.
About an hour after the ruling, a judge in Washington state issued a ruling in another case that contradicts the Texas decision, ordering the FDA to make no changes to the availability of mifepristone in the 18 states, including Minnesota, that filed the lawsuit.
The Biden administration said it will appeal Kasmaryk’s decision.
“If it stands, it would prevent women in every state from accessing the medication, regardless of whether abortion is legal in a state,” President Biden said in a statement.
Ultimately, whether mifepristone remains on the market in the United States may be determined by the Supreme Court because of the dueling court rulings.
Medication abortion, available only for patients in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, became legal in the United States in 2000, when the drug mifepristone was approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Medication abortions most commonly involve the taking of mifepristone and another drug called misoprostol 24 to 48 hours apart. The first drug stops the development of a pregnancy and the second causes contractions and bleeding like those caused by a miscarriage.
If mifepristone is taken off the market, medication abortions in Minnesota would involve misoprostol and only misoprostol.
“It would be somewhat less effective … and it makes the process more drawn out and painful,” said Paulina Briggs, executive director of the WE Health clinic in Duluth. “We’ll just educate our patients to be prepared for this.”
The popularity of medical abortions spiked during the pandemic, when in-person appointments with doctors were difficult to get and telemedicine provided a way for patients to seek prescriptions of mifepristone and misoprostol at home.
According to data from the Minnesota Department of Public Health, there were 6,179 surgical abortions and 3,711 medication abortions in the state. Two years later, in 2021 and in the midst of the pandemic, there were 3,976 surgical abortions and 6,154 medication abortion in the state.
Briggs said the popularity of medication abortion has continued. Patients can take the medication in the comfort of their own homes. And they can get help from a doctor or clinic remotely, which cost less than treatment in a clinic. A remote procedure cost $412 at the WE Health clinic. Meanwhile, a surgical abortion for a patient in the first 11 weeks of pregnancy and in in-house medication abortion at the clinic, both procedures that include an ultrasound, each cost $700.
The drugs needed for a medication abortion can be obtained by mail or in person at a clinic or at a drug store, although Walgreens stopped dispensing mifepristone in 21 states where Republican attorneys general threatened legal action against pharmacies that distribute the medication. That did not affect Walgreens stores in Minnesota, where the attorney general is a Democrat who has vowed to protect abortion rights.
Like others who decried the effort to ban mifepristone, Emily Bisek, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood-North Central States, said the drug has been in use in the United States for more than 20 years and proven to be safe.
“Medication abortions were safe, effective and convenient,” Bisek said. She called efforts to ban mifepristone “irresponsible and wrong.”
“Taking mifepristone off the market is a political attack,” Bisek said.
The new, one-pill medication abortion protocol involves taking one tablet of misoprostol every three hours for a total of three doses.
“Each patient’s experience will be different after that,” Bisek said.
Paul Stark, a spokesman for Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, said the anti-abortion group backed removing mifepristone from the market because of concerns about its safety and the approval process used by the FDA. He said abortions would continue without access to mifepristone and that opposition was based on concerns about “the health of the mother.”
“We want to protect everyone,” Stark said.
Meanwhile, Kacsmaryk’s ruling was blasted by abortion rights advocates, including Sen. Tina Smith, D-Minnesota, a former Planned Parenthood executive.
“I’m furious,” Smith said. “A single ultra-conservative activist judge just attempted to strip away access to safe and effective medication abortions for millions of women nationwide. This ruling is nothing but an extremist, anti-democratic national abortion ban.”
The American Medical Association also slammed the ruling as “reckless and dangerous” judicial interference in the provision of health care that “flies in the face of science and evidence.”
“The court’s disregard for well-established scientific facts in favor of speculative allegations and ideological assertions will cause harm to our patients and undermines the health of the nation,” AMA President Jack Resneck said.
Right-wingers are saving the rest of us so much time and effort! Who needs an FDA when its research and policies can be vetoed by a single judge?
Well, now we can see the results of the refusal by Biden (and the Dems) to have even a rhetorical plan to deal with the raft of lawless Trump/McConnell judges crammed onto the nation’s courts. One approach would be to have branded all of them (including the three Trump justices who will now decide this critical issue) as democratically-illegitimate, all having been placed in power against the wishes of a majority of citizens, using the most anti-democratic mechanisms of the failed 18th Century constitution.
Apparently the “plan” is to (rightly) decry this lawless ruling by an obviously biased and partisan anti-abortion judge, appeal the ruling to the equally-Trumpified appeals court and hope for the best. What should actually be done is to declare the judge biased and partisan, and that his ruling will be accordingly be considered null and void by the FDA. There are some Dems advocating for this, and they are correct.
The enormous problem (for both Biden and the country) of endless partisan rulings by lawless “conservative” Trump judges is not going to go away, and acting like an appeal to the illegitimate Repub Supreme Court is the “answer” is most definitely not going to solve it. Expanding the Supreme Court is the only solution.
Thanks for the light humor and illegitimate court speech on the Monday after Easter.
My pleasure!
No one seems to be reacting to the underlying threat to the FDA itself. What do we even have an FDA for if any old judge can invalidate their decisions? Thalidomide, here we come!
https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-thalidomide-fda/fact-check-fda-did-not-approve-thalidomide-for-pregnant-women-in-1950s-or-1960s-idUSL1N2PY2F7
That’s a huge theoretical problem as well. Of course, the reality is that the law of FDA drug approval will only be bent against drugs “conservative” judges want off the market. Conservative activist Kacsmaryk isn’t about to apply his baseless standard to, say, Viagra.
So you shouldn’t imagine that these conservative activist judges apply whatever made-up rules they announce in some principled manner, using them in neutral manner to decide all similar matters. Bush v. Gore demonstrated that almost a quarter century ago now…
BK, I disagree with some of what you say. I saw Congresswomen AOC last Saturday on CNN advocate this idea that the Biden Adm and the FDA should just ignore this Judge’s ruling. I thought it was the dumbest thing I have every heard a federal elected official say. It was clear in watching her she didn’t know what she was talking about, just some more Far Left crazy stuff that is going to come back and haunt Dems. It’s this year’s equivalent of “Defund the Police”. You want some place to lay the blame for this situation. blame Bernie Sanders and the Far Left. They are the ones that cost us the 2016 presidential election. Just think of where we would be today if HRC had gotten the support of all of the Far Left in 2016, 77,000 in three state and she would have been president. No right-wing Supreme Court, no right-wing federal judges.
Hi Ken. Unlike the stolen election of 2000, I see no evidence that the far left somehow cost us the 2016 election. I know that’s a theory out there, but it’s highly unpersuasive to me; it mostly seems an unfortunate attempt to generate bitterness against other Dems.
The reason we have an illegitimate far right Supreme Court (and a myriad of lower courts) is because a power-mad minority political faction forced them upon an unwilling nation using the most anti-democratic mechanismsof the constitution. And if the Dems can’t do better than hope and pray that some of the democratically-illegitimate Trump/McConnell judges rein in some of the even more crazed ones like this Christianist Kacsmaryk, then there’s little hope of raising the populace against the Trump Court. “Business as usual” will spell total defeat.
So if you think ignoring utterly lawless rulings by an obviously biased unethical “conservative” judge is the stupidest idea ever, perhaps you’ll tell us your strategy for dealing with conservative judges who are committed to willfully abusing their power. I’m all ears…
Senator Ron Wyden said the same thing, but he’s a man and not part of the popularly demonized left that will, until the end of time, continue to be blamed for the 2016 election.
The FDA has some discretion as to how it enforces laws. If it chooses to look the other way when mifepristone is prescribed or dispensed, that is within its discretion. It may not be wise, but it would not be unlawful.
Even if Rep. Ocasio-Cortez did suggest it.
No, unilaterally disarming in the face of enemy aggression is the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard ANYONE say. Beyond ignoring his unlawful stupidity, the judge needs to be removed from the bench, by whatever means available.
Who does he think he is – a drug czar or the Pope. This aspect of our legal system is crazy.
The newsletter in a typo called him a “drug” but an accurate description would be a Texas Trump tyrannical pro-life male supremacist bigot impersonating a judge.
His basis -the drug is unsafe. There is not a scrap of evidence of that and even if there was, he is no more qualified than Trump to make such s judgment. This action shows how our system of appeals is a total joke.
Thankfully another judge made a different ruling. If the Supreme Court sides with Texas two-step, they show their true colors. After the lies that got three of them approved and Thomas’ corruption, they are skating on thin ice. Don’t mess with our healthcare.
A baseless ruling like this from a committed anti-abortion “judge” (who is obviously wholly biased on the issue) is a willful and extreme abuse of power. The only adequate remedy to protect against such abuses in future by this Kacsmaryk character is impeachment and removal from office.
Senate Dems should hold a hearing examining this utterly lawless ruling, and what should be done with a judge who lets his religious-based partisan ideology totally govern his legal “thinking” and conclusions.
It should be noted that Kacsmaryk’s decision doesn’t prevent medical abortions — it makes them painful.
Sadistic.
Right up until they go after misoprostol.
Yes.
The cruelty is a feature, not a bug.
Exactly. As I said, sadistic.
Black market
That tends to involve a lot more trouble and a major hike in prices. As well as serious danger when talking about a drug.
I would be nice if commenters would actually comment on and debate the facts of the ruling instead of the emotional hysteria and name calling that permeates such discussions these days.
Here, I’ll start…
In the original FDA approval of mifepristone, it’s my understanding that pregnancy was categorized as an “illness.” during the process.
Is pregnancy an “illness” that needs to be treated with drugs like mifepristone?
Actually, there are other issues more important than your semantic quibble:
Do the plaintiffs have legal standing to bring this case?
The drug was approved 23 years ago, and there have been no unusual health concerns documented. Is it appropriate to challenge approval at this late date?
Is it appropriate to challenge approval through a lawsuit, rather than through administrative procedures?
Is it appropriate for a judge to substitute his analysis of the science for that of the agency?
Why is the judge citing opinionated blogs as authority?
Why is the Comstock Act still on the books, and why is this unconstitutional law being relied upon?
Those are just for starters. There are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of by OAN and NewsMax.
Yes, I’ll add another:
If the FDA approval of the drug (23 years ago) was such a clear error, why did anti-abortion groups need to go judge-shopping in backwater Amarillo, Texas to the most publicly and zealously anti-abortion judge in America to bring their wholly meritorious case?
Because I’m sure these anti-choice groups knew the worst federal judge in America would never let his personal religious views affect his ruling!
In reality, this case and decision is national scandal of the highest order. The “conservative” corruption of the federal judiciary is now laid bare for all to see.
This case should initiate a broader conversation about amending the Judiciary Act to limit the power of a single judge to enjoin the nationwide enforcement of a federal law by requiring a multiple-judge panel, or by restricting venue, but that’s another matter.
If true, so what? Do you imagine the FDA didn’t know what the condition of pregnancy was? Is male pattern baldness an “illness”, Nack?