Supreme Court Grants Trump Administration Request to Endanger Abortion Patients During the Pandemic
In its First Abortion Decision Since Justice Barrett鈥檚 Confirmation, the Court Allowed the Trump Administration to Subject Abortion Patients to Needless COVID-19 Risk
WASHINGTON 鈥� In its first ruling on abortion with Justice Amy Coney Barrett on the bench, the Supreme Court today reinstated a federal policy that requires patients seeking a medication used for early abortion care to incur unnecessary COVID-19 risks by traveling to a health center for the sole purpose of picking up a pill and signing a form.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) policy requires patients seeking mifepristone to pick up the pill in person at a hospital, clinic, or medical office, even when the patient has already been evaluated by a clinician using telehealth or at a prior in-person visit and will be receiving no medical services at the time. During the pandemic, this travel exposes patients to needless COVID-19 risks relating to transportation, childcare, and other interpersonal contact. With today鈥檚 decision from the Supreme Court, the in-person pill pick-up requirement will go back into effect immediately.
The court鈥檚 ruling will be particularly harmful for people of color and people with low incomes, who make up the majority of impacted patients and who are suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates. The Biden-Harris administration could quickly resolve this matter by issuing guidance indicating that it will not enforce the mifepristone in-person requirement during the COVID-19 public health emergency, in line with the government鈥檚 treatment of other medications during the pandemic.
The following is a statement from Julia Kaye, staff attorney at the 老澳门开奖结果 Reproductive Freedom Project:
鈥淭he Court鈥檚 ruling rejects science, compassion, and decades of legal precedent in service of the Trump administration鈥檚 anti-abortion agenda. It is mind-boggling that the Trump administration鈥檚 top priority on its way out the door is to needlessly endanger even more people during this dark pandemic winter 鈥� and chilling that the Supreme Court allowed it. The Biden-Harris administration must right this wrong on day one and hold firm to its commitment to support both evidence-based regulations and reproductive freedom.鈥�
The Supreme Court鈥檚 order, which was issued over a strong dissent, reverses three lower court decisions blocking the mifepristone in-person requirement, including a ruling last month from the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland rejecting the Trump administration鈥檚 recent argument that the in-person requirement should be reinstated because the 鈥渞isks and burdens鈥� of the pandemic have all been 鈥渆liminated or mitigated.鈥� In its Dec. 9 ruling, the district court found that the grave health risks to which the FDA鈥檚 policy subjects patients have in fact worsened profoundly since the injunction was first issued in July, with the nation now facing the 鈥渕ost deadly phase of the pandemic鈥� and 鈥渦niformly dire conditions鈥� nationwide. The court noted that the policy imposes particularly severe risks on Black and Latinx patients between the ages of 25 and 34, who are more than more likely to die from COVID-19 than white people in that age range.
Of the 20,000 drugs the FDA regulates, this medication used for abortion care is the only one the FDA requires patients to pick up in person at a health center even though they may take it later at a time and place of their choosing. During the pandemic, the government has other kinds of in-person requirements for far less safe medications, including allowing patients to obtain opioid drugs like fentanyl and OxyContin through telemedicine.
The following are statements from the plaintiffs:
Eva Chalas, M.D., FACOG, FACS, president of American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:
鈥淒espite the Administration鈥檚 claims, the facts in this case remain clear: mifepristone is a safe, effective medication for termination of pregnancy, and its use should not expose patients or clinicians to added risk of COVID-19 infection. We are gravely disappointed that our members and their patients will now be faced with an unnecessary increase in risk of exposure to COVID-19 as the virus rages across the country. Access to reproductive health care should not come with a caveat.鈥�
Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective:
鈥淲ith today鈥檚 ruling, the Supreme Court told people of color that unnecessary risk of exposure to a virus that is disproportionately killing our communities is a fair price to pay for access to abortion. Black, Brown and Indigenous folks should not have to endure yet another form of state violence while we are fighting for our lives in this pandemic. It鈥檚 up to the Biden-Harris administration to not only undo this damage they are inheriting, but also take bold affirmative action to advance reproductive justice.鈥�
David Chelmow, M.D., president of the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
鈥淲e are deeply disappointed that the Supreme Court has ignored the medical expert consensus and put patients at needless risk. As Chairs of Ob-Gyn departments at medical schools and hospitals across the country, we have seen firsthand the harm attacks on reproductive health care cause our patients. It is time for the new administration to remove these unnecessary and harmful restrictions, during the pandemic and beyond.鈥�
Jason Matuszak, M.D., FAAFP, President of New York State Academy of Family Physicians:
鈥淚t is disgraceful and frankly frightening that instead of listening to expert medical and scientific consensus about the safety of medication abortion and the risks imposed by these unwarranted restrictions, the Supreme Court chose to listen to politicians with an anti-science, anti-abortion agenda. It鈥檚 past time for the FDA to eliminate these baseless restrictions鈥攏ot only during the pandemic, but for good.鈥�
The plaintiffs in the case are the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, and an individual family medicine physician. The litigation is supported by the American Medical Association.
Reproductive Freedom
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Reproductive Freedom
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Learn More 老澳门开奖结果 the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Planned Parenthood Files Lawsuit to Restore Abortion Access, on Heels of Voters Approving Right to Reproductive Freedom InitiativePlanned Parenthood Files Lawsuit to Restore Abortion Access, on Heels of Voters Approving Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative
KANSAS CITY 鈥� Following the passage of Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, Missouri鈥檚 two Planned Parenthood providers filed suit to restore abortion access in the state. The lawsuit seeks to enjoin Missouri鈥檚 numerous abortion bans and countless burdensome, medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion that do not improve care or protect patient health. Missouri will be the first state with a post-Dobbs total abortion ban to approve and implement a state constitutional amendment making abortion a fundamental right. The lawsuit was filed by Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, represented by Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri, and the 老澳门开奖结果. In the lawsuit, reproductive health care providers seek to block a number of state laws that are now in conflict with the Missouri Constitution. The lawsuit, which was filed in the 16th Circuit Court of Jackson County, requests a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of some of the restrictions while the case proceeds, including: Multiple outright abortion bans, including: The first total abortion ban triggered by the Dobbs decision Cascading gestational age bans Bans that stigmatize and limit abortion care based on a patient鈥檚 reason for having an abortion TRAP laws that unfairly target abortion providers, including: Unnecessary facility requirements Hospital admitting privileges requirements Biased and medically inaccurate counseling requirements Forced delay periods that require patients to make multiple trips to a clinic for care A ban on the delivery of medication abortion by telemedicine A physician-only law that prevents qualified medical professionals from providing abortion care Criminal penalties for abortion providers If the requested preliminary relief is granted, Planned Parenthood鈥檚 health centers would be able to begin providing abortion in Missouri once more 鈥� restoring access to this constitutionally protected health care. "Missourians have spoken and we're ready to deliver," said Emily Wales, president and CEO of Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains. "There are many restrictions to challenge before access can be fully realized, but we're proud to continue this fight to make sure everyone in this state can have the safe, legal abortion care they deserve. And soon, when Missourians ask where they can get care, we鈥檒l have a simple answer: right here at home." 鈥淢issourians have voted to build meaningful abortion access in their state, and our lawsuit is the next step toward that goal. Our patients and their access to the care they need have long been our north star; we see how abortion bans, TRAP laws, and political attacks have blocked them from care for far too long, said Richard Muniz, interim President and CEO of Planned Parenthood Great Rivers. 鈥淥ur organization was the last abortion provider in the state before the Dobbs decision, which then forced patients to take on the additional burden of traveling out of Missouri to see our providers in Illinois 鈥� where abortion is legal, safe, and free of excessive barriers. Our patients deserve every right to control their bodies, lives, and futures 鈥� and soon, they won鈥檛 have to cross state lines to do so. We are ready to provide safe, legal abortion in Missouri again.鈥� 鈥淲ith this lawsuit, we are continuing the work of rebuilding abortion access in Missouri,鈥� said Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. 鈥淢issourians have lived under layers of abortion restrictions for decades, including abortion bans that disproportionately endangered Black and Latino people in the state. Now is the time to peel those layers back and ensure that Missourians can make reproductive health decisions without politicians getting in the way. Planned Parenthood Federation of America is proud to fight alongside our affiliates in restoring abortion access, and we will continue to push for reproductive freedom for all Missourians.鈥� The case, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. State of Missouri, was brought within 24 hours of Missouri voters passing the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, which appeared as Amendment 3 on the 2024 General Election ballot. The amendment creates and protects the fundamental right to reproductive freedom, which is the right to make and carry out decisions about all matters relating to reproductive health care, including prenatal care, childbirth, postpartum care, birth control, abortion care, miscarriage care, and respectful birthing conditions. 鈥淵esterday, Missourians voted to end Missouri鈥檚 abortion ban and protect reproductive freedom. Today鈥檚 lawsuit is the next step to fulfill the promise of the amendment,鈥� said Tori Schafer, Director of Policy and Campaigns at the 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri. 鈥淭his is a testament to all of the people who joined our grassroots coalition of organizations and volunteers, who tirelessly collected signatures, phone banked, and knocked on doors to give Missourians the opportunity to pass Amendment 3 at the ballot box.鈥� Following the United States Supreme Court鈥檚 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women鈥檚 Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, Missouri became the first state to enforce a total abortion ban, with no exceptions for rape, incest, or the woman鈥檚 health. However, a web of medically unnecessary restrictions, like a mandated 72-hour waiting period, invasive and unnecessary pelvic exams, and hospital-like facility requirements, had severely limited access to abortion in the state even before the Dobbs decision. For years Missouri had only three health centers in the state providing abortion care until unnecessary restrictions became too cumbersome, leaving just one health center at Planned Parenthood Great Rivers in St. Louis to provide abortion care from 2018 until the Dobbs decision triggered Missouri鈥檚 abortion ban. Read the full petition. -
MissouriDec 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. MissouriComprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains & Planned Parenthood Great Rivers v. Missouri
The 老澳门开奖结果, 老澳门开奖结果 of Missouri, and Planned Parenthood Federation of America are representing Missouri鈥檚 two Planned Parenthood providers. Following the passage of Amendment 3, the Right to Reproductive Freedom Initiative, Comprehensive Health of Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, filed suit to restore abortion access in the state. The suit seeks to enjoin Missouri鈥檚 numerous abortion bans and countless burdensome, medically unnecessary restrictions on abortion that do not improve care or protect patient health. If the requested preliminary relief is granted, Planned Parenthood鈥檚 health centers would be able to begin providing abortion in Missouri once more 鈥� restoring access to this constitutionally protected health care. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Federal Appeals Court Affirms Decision Blocking Enforcement of Idaho Attorney General鈥檚 Prohibition on Out-Of-State Abortion ReferralsFederal Appeals Court Affirms Decision Blocking Enforcement of Idaho Attorney General鈥檚 Prohibition on Out-Of-State Abortion Referrals
BOISE, Idaho 鈥� Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a federal district court decision blocking enforcement of a 2023 legal opinion, issued by Idaho Attorney General Ra煤l Labrador, that claimed Idaho鈥檚 abortion ban prohibits health care providers from referring patients for abortions out of state. The lower court鈥檚 preliminary injunction, issued in August 2023, protects health care providers so they can continue to offer comprehensive counseling and assistance to their patients without fear of being penalized by the attorney general for providing information about health care that is legal in other states. The Ninth Circuit also held that the health care providers were likely to succeed on their claim that the attorney general鈥檚 interpretation of the state鈥檚 abortion ban violates their First Amendment rights to communicate with their patients about abortion. In states like Idaho with total abortion bans, referrals are a critical tool for providers to help patients access a full range of essential care, and a lifeline for patients who need abortion care. This is particularly true in Idaho, where the attorney general has fought to limit emergency care for pregnant patients facing complications and where OB-GYNs are fleeing the state because of fears of being penalized. Joint statement from Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥檌, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky; Planned Parenthood Federation of America; 老澳门开奖结果 of Idaho; and 老澳门开奖结果: 鈥淲ith this ruling, the Ninth Circuit affirmed what we have said all along: that Attorney General Labrador鈥檚 opinion poses a clear threat to Idahoans鈥� health, their lives, and their freedom. Preventing health care providers from serving as trusted resources for patients would endanger Idahoans and recklessly encroach on their rights. Providers shouldn鈥檛 face the threat of punishment for helping their patients obtain the abortion care they need in states where abortion is legal. 鈥淲hile we are relieved that this decision keeps this harmful interpretation enjoined, we know these egregious efforts to limit Idahoans鈥� freedom won鈥檛 stop here. We will continue to fight for every Idahoan鈥檚 freedom to make reproductive health decisions, without unqualified politicians interfering with their care.鈥� The Ninth Circuit鈥檚 opinion comes after the Idaho attorney general appealed an August 2023 federal district court ruling which said that his interpretation of Idaho鈥檚 ban infringes on health care providers鈥� First Amendment right to refer their patients for abortion care. Health care providers鈥� inability to provide crucial medical information while the motion was pending put Idahoans in need of this vital information at risk. Under the terms of the preliminary injunction, Idaho鈥檚 attorney general cannot sanction or prosecute health care providers for referring, counseling about, or otherwise offering information to patients who seek abortion outside of Idaho鈥檚 borders. This lawsuit, Planned Parenthood Great Northwest, Hawai鈥檌, Alaska, Indiana, Kentucky v. Labrador, was filed by attorneys from Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Idaho, and the law firms Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Bartlett & French LLP, and Stris & Maher LLP on behalf of PPGNHAIK, Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, and Dr. Darin L. Weyhrich. The complaint and brief in support of their request for immediate relief are available to view. Attorneys also filed declarations from PPGNHAIK CEO Rebecca Gibron, Dr. Gustafson, and Dr. Weyhrich. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
Reproductive Freedom
Arizona Health Care Providers File Lawsuit Challenging Abortion Ban and Resume Providing Care Across the StateArizona Health Care Providers File Lawsuit Challenging Abortion Ban and Resume Providing Care Across the State
PHOENIX 鈥� Arizona health care providers filed a lawsuit today challenging a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, which is in violation of the state鈥檚 new constitutional amendment protecting the fundamental right to abortion. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and providers have signed a stipulation stating that the ban is unconstitutional and that the state will not enforce the ban until 30 days after final resolution of the litigation, which has allowed doctors across the state to begin providing abortion care after 15 weeks of pregnancy once again beginning today. The case, filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, asserts that the ban is unconstitutional because it denies Arizonans access to abortion care in violation of the new constitutional amendment passed by the voters. Last month, voters overwhelmingly approved Proposition 139, the Arizona Abortion Access Act, putting the power to decide whether to end a pregnancy back in the hands of Arizonans. Following the vote, the amendment was certified and officially added to the state constitution on November 25. The case was brought by Dr. Eric M. Reuss, M.D., M.P.H., Dr. Paul A. Isaacson, M.D., and Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc., represented by the 老澳门开奖结果, the 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and Perkins Coie LLP. Statement from Dr. Eric M. Reuss, M.D., M.P.H., obstetrician and gynecologist, Scottsdale Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C.: 鈥淚 am proud to participate in this lawsuit, which will mark the first step in following through with Arizona voters鈥� desires when they adopted new constitutional language protecting the right to abortion. For two years, physicians鈥� hands have been tied when a patient needs to end a pregnancy after 15 weeks, including when they face serious pregnancy complications. But today we can once again provide care to people who want to end their pregnancy. We hope the courts will quickly recognize the harms of Arizona鈥檚 ban and strike it down once and for all. This is a great day for my patients. I am thrilled to see their freedom to make their own healthcare decisions without state interference restored.鈥� Statement from Dr. Paul Isaacson, M.D., obstetrician and gynecologist, Family Planning Associates Medical Group 鈥淎s a physician, I see firsthand the devastating impact restrictive abortion laws have on my patients and their families. I joined this lawsuit because I believe that health care decisions should be made in the exam room鈥攂etween a patient and their doctor鈥攏ot dictated by political agendas. The constitutional amendment voters approved last month made it clear that Arizonans value the right to access safe, compassionate care, including abortion. Yet, the 15-week ban forces us to withhold essential care from patients, even when their health or future is at risk. My patients deserve better. I am hopeful that the courts will honor the will of the people and restore their right to make deeply personal decisions about their own bodies.鈥� Statement from Dr. Jill Gibson, chief medical officer, Planned Parenthood of Arizona: 鈥淎rizonans resoundingly voted to enshrine abortion access in the state constitution when they voted YES on Prop 139 and made it clear they do not support bans on abortion. As a doctor, I know first-hand how abortion bans and restrictions force people to carry forced pregnancies, seek to self-manage their abortion when they would have preferred to access care within the health care system, or bear the financial burden of traveling hundreds or thousands of miles for care. Abortion bans not only negatively impact individual lives, they impact families and generations, and perpetuate other systems of oppression. Our community deserves the right to make our own decisions about our bodies and our health. And Planned Parenthood Arizona will not stop fighting for our patients and our health care staff.鈥� Statement from Rebecca Chan, staff attorney, 老澳门开奖结果 Reproductive Freedom Project: 鈥淎rizona voters sent a clear message that pregnant people should have the right to make their own personal decisions about abortion and to control their bodies and their lives. But this ban denies people that fundamental right. We have gone to court to ask the court to strike down the law to vindicate the will of the people and ensure that people can get the care they need in their own community. We applaud Arizona abortion providers for their strength in navigating this unjust law for two years and continuing to provide as much care as they were permitted to provide. We are relieved that patients who are more than 15 weeks pregnant can once again get the care they need. This case is the first step towards fulfilling the amendment鈥檚 promise.鈥� Statement from Lauren Beall, staff attorney, 老澳门开奖结果 of Arizona: "For decades Arizona lawmakers chipped away at the rights of people who can become pregnant and tied the hands of their healthcare providers. Voters made it clear that they鈥檝e had enough. Today, we are asking the court to end Arizona鈥檚 dangerous 15-week ban and to affirm the will of the people. We are proud to stand by our state鈥檚 resilient abortion providers and partners to ensure everyone gets the care they need and deserve." Statement from Alexis McGill Johnson, president and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America: 鈥淲ith their vote on Proposition 139, Arizonans said definitively that the only people qualified to make pregnancy decisions are patients and their health care providers, not politicians. It鈥檚 time for the state鈥檚 abortion law to reflect that belief and the values enshrined by the Arizona Abortion Access Act. Today, we ask the court to end Arizona鈥檚 abortion ban so that patients can get vital health care in their communities. In the coming months, Planned Parenthood Federation of America and our partners will continue to fight for Arizonans鈥� access to abortion, without government interference.鈥� Statement from Nancy Northup, president and CEO, Center for Reproductive Rights: 鈥淰oters made it clear on November 5 that, when it comes to abortion rights, Arizona is not a battleground state. Arizonans voted overwhelmingly to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. We are going to court to challenge the state鈥檚 15-week abortion ban and ensure that these constitutional rights are vindicated. The health and lives of pregnant Arizonans and their health providers鈥� ability to provide critical health care depend on it.鈥�