New Issue: Science’s Impossible Questions. Read Now

Supreme Court Preserves Access to Abortion Pill, pending Appeal

The nation’s highest court paused a lower court’s decision to nullify approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, keeping the medication available while an appeal moves forward

Editor’s Note (8/17/23): An appeals court ruled in favor of restricting access to the abortion drug mifepristone by mail this week. The decision will not go into effect until the Supreme Court issues a final ruling on the case. This article from April 2023 discusses what’s at stake in the case and how the Supreme Court’s ruling could affect access to the most widely used abortion pill in the country.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday halted a Texas district judge’s ruling that would have restricted access to mifepristone, one of two drugs used together in medication abortion. The halt will last until the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals can hear an appeal in May. The outcome of that case could have major implications for abortion access in this country and—more broadly—for drug development and the pharmaceutical industry.

The justices’ decision to halt the lower court’s ruling “is a signal that they understand the implications of this decision and its impact not only for reproductive health but for the pharmaceutical industry as a whole,” says Ameet Sarpatwari, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and assistant director of the Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law at Harvard and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. But the pill’s ultimate fate and people’s widespread access to it remain in jeopardy. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, Jr., dissented to Friday’s ruling.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In early April U.S. district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Amarillo, Tex., ruled in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine—a group of antiabortion organizations and doctors demanding the withdrawal of mifepristone’s two-decade-old approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Department of Justice and the drug’s manufacturer, Danco Laboratories, quickly appealed the decision. Last week the Fifth Circuit Court issued a stay on the Texas ruling. This maintained mifepristone’s approval, but the court restricted its distribution by mail—and effectively rolled back a 2016 FDA guideline. The Supreme Court issued a pause on the appeals court’s ruling earlier this week, which it later extended until Friday evening.

On the same day as the Texas ruling, a district judge in Washington State issued a competing ruling that the FDA should keep mifepristone available in 17 states and Washington, D.C.

Mifepristone and misoprostol are prescribed together in the U.S. to end a pregnancy of up to about 10 weeks. Mifepristone blocks progesterone, a key hormone needed to sustain a pregnancy, and misoprostol induces cramping and bleeding that expels the contents of the uterus. Mifepristone is also used to manage miscarriages. The FDA approved the drug in 2000, and hundreds of studies have shown it to be safe and effective.

Despite these findings, the plaintiffs in the original Texas case had argued that the FDA’s mifepristone approval did not adequately take into account reports of women being harmed by mifepristone, and that the agency failed to follow proper procedures in approving the drug. The doctors in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine claimed they had legal standing to bring a case because they would be harmed if they had to care for women whose medication abortions were unsuccessful. This, they said, would give them less time to care for other patients. They also claimed they represented patients who may have been harmed by the drug—an assertion based on a 2021 study of 98 anonymous blog posts on a website called AbortionChangesYou.com.

The DOJ and the drug’s manufacturer argued that the plaintiffs’ claim of standing was weak because the doctors involved do not prescribe mifepristone. In addition, the DOJ and Danco Laboratories—along with hundreds of pharmaceutical companies—have contended that the decision to remove the FDA’s approval of mifepristone sets a dangerous precedent that could threaten the agency’s authority to regulate any drug. The process of drug development is expensive, and it takes years to bring a medication to market. If a single district judge can overturn its approval, that would inject enormous uncertainty into the industry, drug developers say.

Without mifepristone, misoprostol can be prescribed on its own to end a pregnancy, and many providers had said they were likely to switch to a single-drug protocol for abortions if mifepristone’s approval was revoked. Some states, including California, have been stockpiling misoprostol in case providers need to switch to using only that drug. But misoprostol is slightly less effective when used alone than when combined with mifepristone, and it is somewhat more likely to cause symptoms such as nausea and heavy bleeding.

If the Fifth Circuit Court rules in favor of restricting access to mifepristone, that will likely make it harder for women to access safe and effective medication abortions, including in states where they are legal.

Tanya Lewis was formerly senior desk editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. She wrote and edited stories for the website and print magazine on topics ranging from COVID to organ transplants. She also appeared on Scientific American’s podcast Science Quickly and wrote Scientific American’s weekly Health & Medicine newsletter. She held a number of positions over her nearly 10 years at Scientific American, including health editor, assistant news editor and associate editor at Scientific American Mind. Previously, she has written for outlets that include Insider, Wired, Science News and others. She has a degree in biomedical engineering from Brown University and one in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz. Follow her on Bluesky @tanyalewis.bsky.social

More by Tanya Lewis

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe