Dobbs<\/em>, the right to abortion would have stood in the way of this lawsuit. But now the conservative legal movement feels empowered.\u201d<\/p>\nThe lawsuit is the latest effort by opponents of abortion rights to stymie the use of abortion pills, which many people seeking abortion prefer because it allows them to control their own health care and affords privacy for a process that involves cramping and bleeding, similar to a miscarriage.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhen you have medication abortion, part of the process happens at home. And a lot of people like that,\u201d said Hagstrom Miller, of Whole Woman\u2019s Health. \u201cPeople can be at home with their loved ones and can sort of schedule the passing of the pregnancy around their work schedule or their child care schedule.\u201d<\/p>\n
Harle, however, said that the FDA used a provision to approve the drug that should be used only for medications that treat illness, and that pregnancy is not an illness, but a condition.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey didn\u2019t meet the standards of federal law,\u201d she said.<\/p>\n
Mifepristone\u2019s approval was investigated in 2008 \u2014 during the Republican administration of George W. Bush \u2014 by the Government Accountability Office, a congressional watchdog, which found that the process was consistent with FDA regulations.<\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s hard to think of a drug that\u2019s been under more scrutiny than mifepristone,\u201d said I. Glenn Cohen, a Harvard Law School professor and one of 19 FDA scholars who filed an amicus brief opposing the lawsuit. \u201cWe don\u2019t think there\u2019s a problem here statutorily or medically. It\u2019d be very dangerous to allow a single judge sitting in Amarillo to essentially order a drug that\u2019s used by many women in America off the market.\u201d<\/p>\n
But Harle said that no amount of scientific data would be enough to convince her that mifepristone should be on the market.<\/p>\n
\u201cI think chemical abortion does great harms to women and their unborn children,\u201d she said. \u201cAnd that\u2019s what this lawsuit is really about.\u201d<\/p>\n
Abortion care providers like Hagstrom Miller are bracing for the ruling. \u201cI think people know that what happens in Texas doesn\u2019t stay in Texas,\u201d she said. \u201cSome of the most progressive states in the country will face restrictions if this lawsuit is successful.\u201d<\/p>\n
If that\u2019s the case, her clinics and OB-GYNs across the country will be forced to use only misoprostol for miscarriage and early abortion care, something that will reduce the efficacy of the method: While taking the two pills together is 99.6% effective in terminating early pregnancy, misoprostol alone \u2014 although still extremely safe \u2014 is about 80% effective.<\/p>\n
Hagstrom Miller also notes that side effects from misoprostol can be more intense, including nausea, diarrhea, and severe cramping and bleeding.<\/p>\n
\u201cAnd that matters, right?\u201d she said. \u201cPeople should have access to the highest level of medical care.\u201d<\/p>\n