In 2016 and 2021, the FDA released changes that broadened access to the abortion pill drug, allowing people to obtain over-the-phone prescriptions from a doctor and receive the pill through the mail.
The pill has since been used in about 63% of all U.S. abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
The Biden administration is trying to defend access to mifepristone against anti-abortion and pro-life groups.
The Supreme Court hearing touched on a variety of potential issues, such as whether doctors would be allowed to refuse to participate in abortions based on their personal beliefs.
Dr Christina Francis, CEO of the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists, appeared in court to argue against the current accessibility of abortion pills.
Christina Francis: So I have actually taken care of women in our emergency room, who have come in with complications and had to do procedures to finish, you know, removing the contents of their pregnancy from their uterus. But, you know, again, it’s the FDA’s actions and removing these safeguards that would give women an in person visit. I have been brought down to the emergency room to complete the process that was started by these abortion drugs. And again, this is happening more and more frequently because women are not even receiving in person medical care prior to receiving these high restaurants because of the FDAs decisions.
Amy Hagstrom Miller is the Founder and CEO of Whole Woman’s Health, a clinic that provides abortion and gynecological care services. She believes that the conservative party’s argument is “radical” and “extreme”.
Amy Hagstrom Miller: So this isn’t about safety. This isn’t about medical information. What you heard today was justices actually not understanding science. This is about power, it’s about control. It’s about restricting people’s access to safe medical care. This isn’t about science. It’s about a small group of people’s feelings and beliefs being applied to the majority of Americans who don’t who don’t agree with those beliefs.
The Comstock Act, an 1873 law that made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd,” “lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” materials was also discussed at court. This raised the question of whether mail deliveries of abortion pills violated this law.
Over two thirds of college students report that their “education goals would be negatively impacted” if they had a child, according to the National Institutes of Health. We spoke to women across the USC campus to see what they thought about the hearing.
Ivy Kos: Currently, I believe pregnancy is classified as a disability. So restricting that is, is restricting a person’s right to self defense, essentially, and when we put it in that light, and in that context, which it is what it is, it’s very like it very, it sets a dangerous precedent, if that’s what it’s used for.
Sarina Sharma-Welsh : I think it’s wrong and none of the business of congressmen or congress people to make that decision for women. Just the the principle of the thing knowing that I wouldn’t be able to access something that I believe is my right.
Eva Kracht : I needed that in the future, and I wasn’t allowed access to that. I think that would I get angry with that, especially knowing that the government took that right away from me.
That was Ivy Kos, Sarina Sharma-Welsh and Eva Kracht, 3 USC women who feel that their rights over their own body are being threatened.
As of Wednesday afternoon, no decisions from the hearing have been released.
For Annenberg Media, I’m Tamara Almoayed.