www.nytimes.com
Open in
urlscan Pro
151.101.65.164
Public Scan
URL:
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html
Submission: On March 27 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Submission: On March 27 via manual from US — Scanned from US
Form analysis 2 forms found in the DOM
POST https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083
<form method="post" action="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083"
data-testid="MagicLinkForm" style="visibility: hidden;"><input name="client_id" type="hidden" value="web.fwk.vi"><input name="redirect_uri" type="hidden"
value="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083"><input name="response_type"
type="hidden" value="code"><input name="state" type="hidden" value="no-state"><input name="scope" type="hidden" value="default"></form>POST https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083
<form method="post" action="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083"
data-testid="MagicLinkForm" style="visibility: hidden;"><input name="client_id" type="hidden" value="web.fwk.vi"><input name="redirect_uri" type="hidden"
value="https://nytimes.app.goo.gl/?link=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/26/us/politics/supreme-court-abortion-pill-hearing.html&apn=com.nytimes.android&amv=9837&ibi=com.nytimes.NYTimes&isi=284862083"><input name="response_type"
type="hidden" value="code"><input name="state" type="hidden" value="no-state"><input name="scope" type="hidden" value="default"></form>Text Content
Skip to contentSkip to site indexSearch & Section NavigationSection Navigation SEARCH Politics SUBSCRIBE FOR $1/WEEKLog in Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Today’s Paper SUBSCRIBE FOR $1/WEEK Abortion Pill Case * Supreme Court Arguments * Takeaways * What to Know * A Central Question * Mifepristone, Explained * Who Is Erin Hawley? Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT SUPREME COURT SEEMS INCLINED TO REJECT BID TO CURTAIL ABORTION PILL ACCESS A majority of the justices questioned whether a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations trying to sharply limit availability of the medication could show they suffered harm. * Share full article * * * Read in app The challenge to the abortion pill was brought in the fall of 2022, a few months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.Credit...Kent Nishimura for The New York Times By Abbie VanSickle Reporting from Washington * March 26, 2024Updated 8:24 p.m. ET A majority of the Supreme Court appeared deeply skeptical on Tuesday of efforts to severely curtail access to a widely used abortion pill, questioning whether a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had a right to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication. Over nearly two hours of argument, justices across the ideological spectrum seemed likely to side with the federal government, with only two justices, the conservatives Samuel A. Alito Jr. and, possibly, Clarence Thomas, appearing to favor limits on the distribution of the pill. Describing the case as an effort by “a handful of individuals,” Justice Neil M. Gorsuch raised whether it would stand as “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action.” The challenge involves mifepristone, a drug approved by the F.D.A. more than two decades ago that is used in nearly two-thirds of abortions in the country. At issue is whether the agency acted appropriately in expanding access to the drug in 2016 and again in 2021 by allowing doctors to prescribe it through telemedicine and to send the pills by mail. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The Biden administration had asked the Supreme Court to intervene after a three-judge panel of a federal appeals court favored curbing distribution of the drug. Until the justices decide, access to mifepristone remains unchanged, delaying the potential for abrupt limits on its availability. Even if the court preserves full access to mifepristone, the pills will remain illegal in more than a dozen states that have enacted near-total abortion bans. Those bans do not distinguish between medication and surgical abortion. Subscribe to The Times to read as many articles as you like. Abbie VanSickle covers the United States Supreme Court for The Times. She is a lawyer and has an extensive background in investigative reporting. More about Abbie VanSickle A version of this article appears in print on March 27, 2024 of the New York edition with the headline: Justices Respond With Skepticism To Limits on Pill. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe * Share full article * * * Read in app Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT SITE INDEX SITE INFORMATION NAVIGATION * © 2024 The New York Times Company * NYTCo * Contact Us * Accessibility * Work with us * Advertise * T Brand Studio * Your Ad Choices * Privacy Policy * Terms of Service * Terms of Sale * Site Map * Canada * International * Help * Subscriptions Enjoy unlimited access to all of The Times. See subscription options