A new lawsuit seeking to restrict abortion is seeking to reinstate tighter restrictions on mifepristone, a drug used for abortion and post-abortion care. What is its argument? More abortions means less population in the state, which hurts states. The lawsuit specifically highlights the lower birth rates among teen mothers ages 15 to 19.
Medical abortion (such as abortion by pill) works using a combination of two drugs: mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone is first taken to stop the progression of pregnancy by blocking the hormone progesterone in the uterus. After one to two days, misoprostol is taken to drain the uterine contents and complete the process. When misoprostol is used alone able If used to induce labor, a combination of the two drugs is currently the standard treatment. Currently, even in states with strict abortion laws, those seeking medical abortions can obtain the medication through telemedicine. These drugs are approved to terminate pregnancy at 12 weeks or the first three months of pregnancy.
Earlier this year, the Supreme Court dismissed a 2022 lawsuit U.S. Food and Drug Administration v. Hippocratic Medical Alliancea program that seeks to reduce the use of mifepristone, which is used in two-thirds of abortions in the United States. In a rare unanimous decision, written by Brett Kavanaugh, the Supreme Court ruled that the coalition lacked standing to bring the lawsuit, although court observers at the time noted that the opinion’s language left the door open for anti-abortion plaintiffs Space to advance similar litigation. Now, months after the ruling, a new lawsuit has indeed been filed in a court that is friendly to anti-abortion cases. If successful, the move would significantly impact access to mifepristone.
On Oct. 11, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho filed an amended lawsuit in the Northern District of Texas, a federal court district that has only Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. Not only did Kacsmaryk publicly express his enthusiastic support for anti-abortion activism, but he also ruled in favor of the 2022 lawsuit.
From classifying the abortion pill as “dangerous” — a claim not supported by regulatory care bodies, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) — to challenging the FDA in 2016 and 2021 to make the drug more accessible decision, the lawsuit sparked numerous debates. It seeks to reverse many of the relaxed restrictions. These include actions such as making the drug available without meeting the prescriber, limiting who can prescribe the drug and revoking the agency’s approval of generic versions of the drug.
Section XXIII of the lawsuit outlines one of its arguments as “sovereign harm to the interests of the plaintiff’s population.” Distantly distribute abortion drugs, they say
“…resulting in a potential population decrease or a potential population increase,” before continuing, “Defendants’ efforts to achieve remote distribution of abortion drugs resulted in abortions for women in the Plaintiff State and resulted in a decrease in the birth rate in the Plaintiff State. This was a sovereign injury to the state itself.
The lawsuit cites a 2023 study on the impact of overturning Roe v. Wade on fertility rates, noting that “decreased expected fertility rates among teenage mothers in the plaintiff states” could result in “a loss of potential population leading to further depopulation.” ”. So does the harm: States then experience “a decrease in political representation” and a “loss of federal funds,” such as “the possibility of losing seats in Congress or qualifying for less federal funds if their population declines or their population growth decreases.”
In other words: teenagers no Childbearing undermines the political power of a country. This isn’t the only time a pregnant child has been used to further a case.
The lawsuit also contends that the foster girl’s actions “damaged the plaintiff’s sovereign interests.” “By seeking to enable teenage girls to obtain abortion pills online by mail, the defendants sought to ‘undermine [the States’] right to consent [their custodial] children medical[.]…Plaintiff State is the legal parent, guardian, or custodian of numerous minor girls in the state’s foster care system or other state facilities. The plaintiff state actively enforced and administered its right to determine whether these children received medical care.
The Department of Health and Human Services highlights a host of negative consequences for teen parents (particularly mothers) and their children, including being less likely to complete high school, more likely to need public assistance, more likely to have lower incomes as adults, Children are more likely to face poor educational, behavioral and health outcomes.
