The Daily Signal - INTERVIEW | Will Supreme Court Hear Abortion Pill Case? Plaintiffs' Attorney Weighs In

Episode Date: April 12, 2023

On Good Friday, a federal judge in Texas handed down a potentially historic abortion ruling.  The case at hand revolves around the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. In 2000, the FDA approved the use of mifepristone to be used along with the drug misoprostol to terminate a pregnancy. But some medical experts have argued the FDA's approval was rushed and unlawful.  In 2022, a group of pro-life medical professionals and an organization represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal organization, filed a lawsuit against the FDA arguing that it had improperly approved the abortion pill, and federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk for the Northern District of Texas agreed.  “The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly,” Kacsmaryk wrote in his ruling. “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns—in violation of its statutory duty—based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.” Denise Harle, Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel, joins the show today to discuss what the ruling means and the likelihood of the case ultimately rising to the Supreme Court. Harle also breaks down a ruling the same day by a judge in Washington state in favor of continued access to the abortion pill.  Enjoy the show. Follow the links below to learn more about the case: https://www.dailysignal.com/2023/04/11/best-part-of-federal-judges-ruling-against-abortion-pill-comes-down-to-two-words/ https://adflegal.org/ Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Whether it's a pair of running shoes or a new car. You check how well something performs before you buy it. Why should investing be any different? At Fidelity, we get that performance matters most. With sound financial advice and quality investment products, we're here to help with accelerating your dreams. Chat with your advisor or visit Fidelity.ca. Performance to learn more.

Commissions fees and expenses may apply. Read the funds or ETF's prospectus before investing. Funds and ETFs are not guaranteed. Their values change and past performance may not be repeated. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, April 12th. I'm Virginia Allen. On Good Friday, a judge in Texas handed down a potentially historic ruling. The case revolves around the food and drug administration's approval of the abortion pill, Mitha Pristone. Last year, a group of medical professionals and organizations represented by Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit against the FDA, arguing it had incorrectly approved the abortion pill, and a judge in Texas has agreed. But also on Friday, a judge in Washington State issued a ruling that the abortion pill should continue to be made available to women. So are these rulings in conflict, and what is going to happen next? Will the Supreme Court

ultimately weigh in? Alliance Defending Freedom Attorney Denise Harrell joins the show today to break down the case and answer these questions. Stay tuned for our conversation. after this. The reading clerk will now call the roll. Bids. It's money and power that control this town. Bishop of North Carolina. All we're talking about chaos and dysfunction in Washington because Republicans didn't

sit down like Democrats do. Crane. It's like this cul-de-sacca greed and corruption and it just keeps going around and around. Gates. I felt like it doesn't even matter which party wins the majority. because both sides are working for the same lobbyists. Luna. I had a reporter that basically accosted me in the hallway saying really vile stuff.

Perry. One member came up to me and said, your presence disgusts me. Roy. So maybe the American people need to know the truth. And it's extraordinary what happens when you tell the truth in this town. People go, what the hell are you doing? Why would you do that? The fact is, what we want, because we were telling the truth.

What you've just listened to is our brand new exclusive documentary about the 20 House Republicans who fought against the Washington establishment. We sat down with representatives Chip Roy of Texas, Eli Crane and Andy Biggs of Arizona, Anna Paulina Luna, and Matt Gates of Florida, Scott Perry of Pennsylvania, and Dan Bishop of North Carolina about the speaker race and why they chose to take a stand. The documentary is now available on the Daily Signal's YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram pages. We are joined today by Denise Harrell. Denise serves as Senior Counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom

where she is the director of the Center for Life and leads her team's litigation and advocacy efforts to deepen, to defend, excuse me, pro-life laws around the nation. Denise, thank you so much

for your time today. Thanks, Virginia. Well, I want to start by backing up a little bit and going back to last year and talking about some of the background to what we have just seen happen in the courts. There was a lot of news that came on Friday, on Good Friday, about rulings related to the abortion pill, Mitha Pristone. But before we dive too far into those rulings, can you explain the background of the case that challenged the abortion pill and that Alliance Defending Freedom has really been on the forefront of?

Happy to do that. It's really a shocking story when you go to the beginning of what happened with Mithopristone, this dangerous chemical abortion drug. So back in 2000, under pressure from the Clinton administration, the FDA recklessly, unlawfully approved this chemical abortion regimen by ignoring its own regulations. It actually used a special approval process that's supposed to be only for life-saving drugs. And it did so by categorizing pregnancy as an illness, which of course it's not. It's just a natural process that most women experience.

And by claiming that Miphyprisone, this abortion drug, provides a therapeutic benefit. So from the very beginning, the approval was unlawful just on that front alone. In addition to that, the FDA never did the required safety testing, does not have one single research study reflecting the real-world conditions of these drugs that it let onto the market. So in other words, all of the safeguards that were done in any testing on these drugs are not required now.

And these drugs are being given out widely, even male-order abortions, to teen girls and women around the United States. So after nearly 20 years of the FDA stonewalling our clients, we finally brought an action in federal court, and we are thrilled to say that the court agreed with us and in a very thorough ruling, painstakingly walked through all the failures of the FDA in this case and stayed the approval, meaning currently, or when the order goes into effect, FDA approval will be rescinded effectively for this dangerous drug. Okay, so the judge in Texas has ruled in favor of the individuals, the pro-life doctors, the pro-life organizations,

who you all at Alliance Defending Freedom has been representing. What was really the heart behind or the reasoning for those pro-life doctors and organizations to say, okay, we're going to challenge the FDA's approval of the abortion pill? These are busy people. They have a lot of things that they could be doing. Why did they challenge the FDA's rule? Well, two pieces of that, you know, two pieces in response to your question.

One is our clients in this lawsuit today are the same doctors who back right after the approval in 2000 waived the flag, submitted an extensive citizens petition is what the FDA requires, explaining the science and the medicine and the danger of these drugs. These are expert OBGYNs, and the FDA completely ignored that

instead of responding within 180 days, sat on that first petition for 14 years. So this is nothing new in terms of the dangers. But another part of the answer to your question is that what we've seen in terms of escalating harms to women and girls, chemical abortions now account for something like 60%, maybe even more, of the abortions in the United States. In addition, the escalation of FDA's recklessness with these drugs is really shocking. So in 2021, the FDA said that these drugs could just be mailed and that a woman would never even need to see a medical professional in person to have an examination or an ultrasound to rule out ectopic pregnancy, which can be absolutely deadly if given chemical abortion drugs, or to even check the gestational age. These drugs are only supposed to be used up to 10 weeks of pregnancy, and massive complications happen.

when that's not followed. So what our doctors and plaintiffs in this case have seen is the prevalence and spread of chemical abortions now available by telemed are leading to an exponential rise in emergency room visits. And our plaintiff doctors have treated women, multiple women that have gotten these drugs off the internet or by male and are hemorrhaging, They have retained fuel parts. They are undergoing emergency surgeries and blood transfusions. And so the dangers are just getting more and more apparent. And so we are so relieved that the federal court is finally putting a stop to this.

Well, and to complicate things, though, on Friday, shortly after the judge in Texas made his ruling, then we saw a ruling come out from a judge in Washington state issued, he issued a ruling that the FDA, directing the FDA to continue allowing many Americans the ability to access the abortion drug. Explain what exactly the judge in Washington ruled and this other case. What are the similarities? What are the differences? And how does this complicate things moving forward? Yeah, the Washington case is so bizarre. So I'll try to get to the essence. And then I'll explain some of the peculiarities that you might find a little bit interesting. So the Washington case only deals with one FDA action, and that's the January 2023 Biden administration, FDA change in the safeguards, again lifting a safeguard, and now saying that any retail pharmacy can apply or online pharmacy can apply to dispense the chemical abortion drugs, whereas before prescribers had to at least be physicians.

now it can be pharmacists and picked up from retail pharmacies. So that's the only action at issue in that case. That action is not an issue in our case. We actually filed before the Biden administration even did that. So our case deals with the unlawful 2000 approval and all of the subsequent actions where the FDA failed to follow its safety regulations in 2016, 2019, 2021. So in a sense, they're kind of ships passing in the night. So the Washington case says that tentatively the 2023 action can remain in place.

But our federal district judge, after reviewing all of the underlying facts, said the initial approval in the first place was wrong. So that kind of pulls the rug out from under whatever happened in 2023. If effectively that, it's as if that initial approval never happened in the first place. The Washington case is also a little bit odd because what you're seeing is these very pro-abortion state AGs are suing the FDA, which yet they're kind of on the same side on this, right? Because they both want this sort of expansive view of chemical abortion and want these drugs on the market. So I think it was an attempt to try to undo our very valid lawsuit, which they knew had some merit

to it, and they were trying to come up with a way to undermine it. But it's not going to work, and I'm very confident that ours is going to have priority over that order. So how is the Biden administration responding? Well, in our case, the Biden administration filed an emergency motion for stay. In other words, trying to get the appellate federal court, so the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, to stay the order we got. So it would actually be a stay of a stay, meaning that our judge. judge's order would sort of be on pause until the merits are resolved and MIFIPRstone could

continue to be marketed and sold. Is that normal to have a stay on a stay? Is that common in the legal world? It's not uncommon in a high stakes, high profile case. It's just kind of funny because you have to think through it like a double negative, which is a little weird. In Washington, on the other hand, actually DOJ, which is FDA, the Department of Justice is actually FDA's sort of law firm, because they represent the administration. What they did in the Washington case was they filed a notice for expedited clarification, basically asking the Washington court to try to explain its order again, because it doesn't make a lot of sense where the Washington court order says, like, I am ordering, you know, the FDA not to take any action to disrupt the status quo as to the 2023 REMs,

which in light of the Texas order, which came out only like 20 minutes before that, doesn't make a lot of sense. and isn't really possible. So I think they're trying to get a clear answer there just so they know whether they want to appeal or not or whether it would even be, you know, futile. Okay, wow. So what happens next? Because there's a lot of activity happening here

and it sounds a little bit like a legal maze. Yes, I mean, it's fun for those of us who live in this world. So what happens now is in the Fifth Circuit, things are moving very quickly. We're filing our brief today by midnight per order from the Fifth Circuit. And we definitely expect the Fifth Circuit will rule on whether it's going to stay the underlying order before it goes into effect, which, you know, our district court judge put a seven-day delay on the effectiveness of the order just so that this process could play its way out, recognizing sort of the significance of this case. We're very confident, though, that as we continue on the merits of the Fifth Circuit, regardless of what happens. in the stay. Our record is very strong. Our legal arguments are extremely strong. And the district

court did a really good job of detailing those in his decision, just walking through failure after failure, violation after violation of the FDA and all the ways that this has put women and girls at risk, as well as the actual real world data showing that that's the case. And, you know, In response, there's a lot of, there's a lot of sort of concessions by the FDA, I would say, right? So they've conceded that pregnancy is not an illness, which was actually required. It was a prerequisite for them to ever get this drug approved in the way that it was done. They've conceded that they don't have tests that actually match the real world conditions under which women and teen girls are taking these drugs.

So it's sort of, it almost reminds me of when we had the Dobbs case and, you know, the Supreme Court was considering whether to overturn Rowan Casey. And instead of defending Rowan Casey on the merits, what you heard from the pro-abortion side was really more like, yeah, but women are relying on this. We've been doing this for a long time. And in this case, it's just, this is all about the health and safety of women and girls. The FDA has one job, which is to protect Americans from dangerous drugs, which it did not do here. And so that should be the issue, not this sort of vague idea that, oh, well, we've been taking these dangerous drugs for a long time. So, you know, don't take them away now. That, I don't see that standing up in court.

Yeah. Well, and I know one of the arguments that we do hear from those on the pro-abortion side is, well, if this drug can't be sold in front. or if individuals can't get it from their doctor, then women are going to order the pills online. They'll order them from other countries. It might even create a black market for them. What's your response to that? One of the most concerning aspects of this whole thing is how the abortion industry and pro-abortion government officials are openly calling on illegal back-alley abortions now. You may have seen that the state of California has stocked up two million doses of misoprostle,

which is not even approved for abortion in the first place. It's not even illegally approved and has an extremely high failure and complication rate. It's used sort of off-label in third world countries, but the idea that Planned Parenthood would continue to try to sell illegal, dangerous drugs to me just highlights the fact that so much of this, is about selling abortions for profit at the expense of women and girls' health. Why not direct your state resources to helping support women who are facing difficult circumstances, right, in their pregnancy, maybe an unexpected pregnancy. Why not redirect some support to pregnancy help networks or pregnancy centers to make sure

these women can confidently choose to welcome their baby into the world or to supporting foster and adoption care? But instead, we're seeing doctors openly say that illegal, dangerous drugs should continue to be taken without medical supervision by women in their own homes, turning their own bathrooms into abortion clinics. And it's absolutely horrific. And I just am praying and hoping we look back on this and are so grieved by the way we treated our women in this nation. A lot of individuals are anticipating that this case may rise to the level of the Supreme Court. What's the likelihood of that happening and what would the path be moving forward? How long would that likely take if the Supreme Court weighs in?

Yeah, I mean, that's quite the speculation because although it is a major case in terms of the impact and the significance of what this would do in terms of restoring the FDA to its proper. role. The reality is the issues, like I said, you know, they're not in conflict with any other court ruling. They're certainly not in direct conflict with any court ruling. And the Supreme Court is pretty slow to weigh into cases where there's not, you know, a conflict in how courts are acting around the nation or like a direct split between different federal circuits. We always look to sort of different factors that make something a good vehicle for the Supreme Court to take. And the court doesn't just reach out and grab cases just to sort of get involved. And in fact, Supreme Court hears less than 1% of the cases it's asked to take each year. So especially on the

heels of the Dobbs decision, which was a major abortion ruling, I don't see, I wouldn't expect a lot of interest from the justices to reach out and get involved in something if it can be resolved by the Fifth Circuit. or potentially the Fifth Circuit on Bonk, I would hope that we're going to get a resolution there in the Fifth Circuit, and that will be the end of the case. And if that is the case, the Fifth Circuit hears it, what's the timeline we're looking at there? How quickly is the Fifth Circuit going to hear the case?

Do we know? And then how quickly would we get that final ruling from them? Yeah, so sort of walking through the steps, obviously the defendant's DOJ and then, of course, the manufacturer of Mithoprason, this sort of Cayman Islands company that only makes this abortion drug, that's like their whole livelihood. They are trying to move things along very quickly. So I think whether the consideration of the stay will be done within a matter of a few weeks at most. So whether the order is paused, but also whether the order is tentatively overturned, right?

So there's like multiple steps. One, do you immediately pause the order? Then two, do you reverse the order itself after a little more time considering the merits? And then the district court still hasn't done sort of a full trial on the merits. So what would probably happen here is a bench trial where not only would be, would the court be looking at the record, but potentially would hear witnesses and go into more depth and do a full merits hearing, which I would expect if the parties can move things along quickly. would be by the end of the summer that we would have a merits ruling from the district court.

And then, then potentially an appeal or, excuse me, inevitably an appeal to the Fifth Circuit, that again, I think would be moved very quickly. And hopefully we would know by the end of the year, no later than that. What in your mind is the likely outcome? And what's maybe for you all in your mind, what's best case scenario? What's worst case scenario? Yeah, best case. scenario for us is that the Fifth Circuit hears this on the merits, agrees with the lower court.

I mean, we know that there are going to be these sort of interlocutorial appeal and then a final appeal. And then that's the end of the story. And then the Supreme Court declines to weigh in. And I feel very confident. I mean, if you, I would actually encourage anyone who's interested in this case to read through the court's opinion. It's a very easy read. It's very clear. And it's so compelling. to just go through the timeline and all of the places that the FDA violated its own rules without any excuse. I mean, it was a clear text of things that are required with the FDA to do, and it just didn't do them. In addition to the fact that federal law bans the mailing or shipping of abortion drugs, and in 2021, the FDA just said, oh, you know what, we're going to recommend that everyone can

just go ahead and mail these without Congress's... rescinding that law or repealing it or any sort of change on that front. So time after time, the FDA has just bent the rules on this. And it's just more of the same sort of abortion distortion that we've seen in a lot of ways, I think, since Roe v. Wade. So I feel on the merits, I feel very confident about our appeal. And I would just really love a quick resolution because every day that goes by is more women and girls that are harmed and ending up in emergency rooms every single day.

Enough is enough. For anyone who wants to learn more, I encourage you both to check out ADFlegal.org. Lots of great information there. Also, the Heritage Foundation website, heritage. org. Great resources. They are breaking this down further.

Denise, thank you so much for your time today and for your legal expertise and explaining this so well. Thanks, Virginia. I appreciate you sharing the story. Thank you all so much for joining the show today. Again, if you would like to dive a little bit deeper into the details of this case.

We're going to leave some links in the show notes, both from Alliance Defending Freedom and the Heritage Foundation and the Daily Signal that break it down, explain where exactly this case stands further and what could happen next, as Denise has just explained, some of those possible outcomes. But thank you again for listening to today's episode of the Daily Signal podcast. If you have not had the chance before to leave us a rating and review, please do so. We love seeing your feedback and seeing those comments come in, whether on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, CastBox, wherever you like to listen.

Also, if you have not done so, be sure to check out our evening show that is right here in the same podcast feed every day at 5 p.m. We bring you the top news of the day to keep you up to speed and in the know on the news that you need to know. Thanks again for joining us today. We hope you all have a wonderful Wednesday and we'll see you right back here at 5 p.m. for our top news edition. The Daily Signal podcast is brought to by more than half a million members of the Heritage Foundation.

Executive producers are Rob Lewy and Kate Trinko. Producers are Virginia Allen and Samantha Asheris. Sound designed by Lauren Evans, Mark Geinney, and John Pop. To learn more, please visitdailySignal.com.