�鶹Ů��

The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed likely to preserve access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court’s first abortion case since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago. In nearly 90 minutes of arguments, a consensus appeared to emerge that the abortion opponents who challenged the FDA’s approval of the medication, mifepristone, and subsequent actions to ease access to it, lack the legal right or standing to sue. (Sherman, 3/26)

Supreme Court justices on Tuesday seemed to question physicians’ right to sue the Food and Drug Administration to reinstate restrictions around a commonly used abortion pill — a line of questioning that suggests they are unlikely to restrict access to the pill. (Owermohle, 3/26)

A Supreme Court rejection of a challenge to abortion pill mifepristone could hinge on how the justices assess "conscience objections" raised by doctors who do not wish to treat patients suffering from complications after taking the drug. The court signaled during Tuesday's argument that it could conclude that the plaintiffs — seven named doctors and associated anti-abortion groups — do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit in part because their conscience objection arguments are lacking. (Hurley, 3/26)

Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas repeatedly invoked the Comstock Act during Tuesday’s oral arguments regarding the abortion drug mifepristone, pressing lawyers about whether the 1873 federal law should apply to abortion drugs sent through the mail today. Alito rejected the Biden administration’s argument that the law is obsolete — it has not been applied in nearly a century — with the conservative justice insisting that Food and Drug Administration officials should have accounted for the law when expanding access to mifepristone by mail in 2021. (Diamond, 3/26)

Four of the nine justices who heard Tuesday’s highly anticipated Supreme Court oral arguments on a challenge to a key abortion drug are women, the highest number ever to sit on the high court for an abortion case. All three attorneys who argued the case, on both sides, are also women, a relative rarity in the male-dominated Supreme Court bar. The result appeared to be strikingly candid, specific and non-euphemistic exchanges about women’s health, highlighting the high court’s changing gender ratio. (Kitchener, 3/26)

Hours before the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a major abortion case, advocates on either side of the debate began preparing for what they see as the most consequential court case since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, which ended the national right to an abortion. Police informally estimated that about 600 to 700 individuals gathered outside the Supreme Court in the lead-up to oral arguments in a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s regulation of mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. (Raman, 3/26)

Ms. Hawley represents a group of anti-abortion doctors and an umbrella group of conservative medical associations that claim that the abortion pill — approved more than two decades ago — is a danger to women. The F.D.A. has pointed to substantial scientific evidence that the medication abortion is safe. (Dias and VanSickle, 3/26)

Bearing colorful signs and banners that read “Doctors Not Doctrine” and “Abortion is Health Care,” hundreds of activists chanted, marched and rallied for hours outside the Supreme Court starting Tuesday morning, before the justices weighed the availability of a commonly used abortion pill. Supporters of abortion rights outnumbered those opposing abortion, but the two factions occasionally sparred with rallying calls. (Qiu, 3/26)