At the Height of the Pandemic, the Supreme Court Is Making Abortion Even Harder to Access

The ruling reinstating a restriction on medication abortion is the first abortion-related decision since Justice Amy Coney Barrett was confirmed.

Activists protest outside the Supreme Court on March 4, 2020, as it hears oral arguments regarding a Louisiana law about abortion access. Caroline Brehman/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The Supreme Court issued its first abortion-related ruling since Justice Amy Coney Barrett took the bench in the fall, and it’s a win for abortion foes. The justices ruled to reinstate a federal restriction on medication abortion, one that requires women pick up the medication in person; the regulation had been temporarily lifted in July to reduce the potential spread of the coronavirus.

The Supreme Court’s timing couldn’t really be worse: The United States is experiencing a new horrible peak in the pandemic right now, as the United States has begun to average 3,000 deaths per day due to the virus. 

Now, people seeking medication abortion will once again have to go in-person to a health center to pick up the medication and sign a disclosure form. The order was brief and unsigned, with Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissenting. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the majority that the Court was not considering whether the federal restriction constitutes an “undue burden” on those seeking an abortion, but rather “whether the District Court properly ordered the Food and Drug Administration to lift those established requirements because of the court’s own evaluation of the impact of the COVID–19 pandemic.” Essentially, Roberts said, this should fall under the purview of public health experts who are more intimately familiar with the pandemic, rather than the Court. Sotomayor’s dissent, which was joined by Kagan, argues that the restriction is an undue burden and that the government has failed to demonstrate “irreparable harm” caused by the temporary allowance, which should be the standard for reinstating the policy during the pandemic.

Sotomayor also took the government to task for the way in which it argued its case for the restriction. She writes:

What rejoinder does the Government have to the possibility that refusing to suspend the FDA’s in-person requirements for mifepristone during the COVID–19 pandemic will cause some women to miss the 10-week window [in which medication abortion is legal] altogether? No cause for concern, the Government assures this Court, because even if the FDA’s in-person requirements cause women to lose the opportunity for a medication abortion, they can still seek out a surgical abortion. What a callous response.

The timing of the Court’s decision is particularly stunning given the state of the COVID-19 crisis, as ICUs fill back up and medical staffs are once more overwhelmed. Early on in the pandemic, telemedicine was hailed as a simple solution to providing day-to-day care without putting more people at risk for infection. Then, abortion providers and advocates called for more access to medication abortion administered via telemedicine, which studies show is just as safe as in-person services. As I reported:

There’s the obvious social distancing it allows (though states have different regulations regarding where telemedicine appointments can take place and who must be present to preside over them). But Dr. Daniel Grossman, the director of the research group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, points out another key, though less readily apparent benefit: In a pandemic, hospitals in particular are forced to prioritize infected patients, which may mean abortion care gets de-prioritized, despite the time-sensitive nature of the procedure. Telemedicine allows abortion providers to bridge the gap.

In an interview, Grossman called telemedicine “the perfect solution” for women looking to terminate early pregnancies. “Unfortunately, it’s burdened by the restrictions in 18 states that completely ban telemedicine abortion care and then it’s also restricted due to the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for mifepristone, which limits the possibility of doing direct to patient telemedicine,” Grossman said, referencing the Food and Drug Administration’s classification of mifepristone, the first of two medications taken to induce abortion, as a high-risk drug, despite its extraordinarily high safety profile.

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

AN IMPORTANT UPDATE

We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals and we can’t sustain coming up short on donations month after month. Perhaps you’ve heard? It is impossibly hard in the news business right now, with layoffs intensifying and fancy new startups and funding going kaput.

The crisis facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. And neither is Mother Jones, our readers, or our unique way of doing in-depth reporting that exists to bring about change.

Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and joined forces with the Center for Investigative Reporting, a team of ace journalists who create the amazing podcast and public radio show Reveal.

If you can part with even just a few bucks, please help us pick up the pace of donations. We simply can’t afford to keep falling behind on our fundraising targets month after month.

Editor-in-Chief Clara Jeffery said it well to our team recently, and that team 100 percent includes readers like you who make it all possible: “This is a year to prove that we can pull off this merger, grow our audiences and impact, attract more funding and keep growing. More broadly, it’s a year when the very future of both journalism and democracy is on the line. We have to go for every important story, every reader/listener/viewer, and leave it all on the field. I’m very proud of all the hard work that’s gotten us to this moment, and confident that we can meet it.”

Let’s do this. If you can right now, please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate