SCOTUS Chat: Abortion Win with Troubling Implications

In the latest SCOTUS Chat, Gender Justice Communications Director Noah Parrish sits down with Legal Director Jess Braverman to discuss the ruling and its implications.

The Gender Justice Brief

00:00 /

Host: Noah Parrish, Gender Justice Communications Director
Guest: Jess Braverman, Gender Justice Legal Director

On June 13, 2024, the Supreme Court issued a decision in U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, its first abortion case since the Dobbs ruling reversing Roe v. Wade.

In a unanimous ruling the U.S. Supreme Court maintained the current FDA regulations on mifepristone, one of the two pills used in medication abortion.

This medication, alongside misoprostol, constitutes the primary method for over 60% of U.S. abortions and plays a vital role in reproductive healthcare beyond abortion, including miscarriage management and treating reproductive health conditions.

As reliance on medication abortion surges nationwide, with over three in five abortion patients opting for this method, the Supreme Court’s decision maintains access to a fundamental aspect of reproductive healthcare.

However, while this ruling maintains the status quo for mifepristone access, it contains troubling language suggesting that doctors with religious objections to any medical treatment could potentially opt out, even if it could result in death or severe harm to a patient—even where there are no alternative providers to ensure care (in largely rural areas and healthcare deserts, for example.)