investigated the FDA\u2019s approval of mifepristone<\/a> and concluded the process was consistent with FDA regulations.<\/p>\nIn the courtroom, Baptist acknowledged that no court had ever ordered the FDA to remove a drug from the market over the agency\u2019s objections, and legal observers say there remains a huge question whether the court can order the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, who oversees the FDA, to do so.<\/p>\n
But Laurie Sobel, an associate director for women\u2019s health policy at KFF, who listened to the hearing in a Dallas courtroom, said anti-abortion attorneys argued that the mailing of abortion medications strips states of their ability to protect women and children. (The hearing, which Kacsmaryk did not, initially, publicly announce, was not streamed to the public, and the court has yet to release a transcript.)<\/p>\n
But Jessica Ellsworth, an attorney representing Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of mifepristone, told the court that abortion remained legal in all states because it was allowed for preventing a patient\u2019s death or serious bodily injury. Using mifepristone is the safest method of abortion, she argued, noting the judge\u2019s decision in the case could ban it in every state.<\/p>\n
\u201cIf Kavanaugh said, \u2018We\u2019re going to send it back to the states to be decided by their elected representatives,\u2019 this is the exact opposite,\u201d said Donley.<\/p>\n
Kacsmaryk appeared ready to grant a preliminary injunction in favor of anti-abortion groups, asking ADF\u2019s Baptist what kind of remedy he was seeking.<\/p>\n
Baptist responded, \u201cThe court has an interest in preventing dangerous drugs from entering the marketplace.\u201d He added, \u201cAny relief you grant must be complete.\u00a0The harm of chemical drugs knows no bound.\u201d<\/p>\n