After Abortion Pill Ruling, What’s Next For Abortion Access in the US?

Last week, a federal judge ruled that mifepristone, a key abortion drug, was improperly approved by the FDA in 2000. The ruling and subsequent appeal resulted in speculation on the future of both the drug and abortion access in the United States.

From The Left: A writer in HuffPost (Left Bias) argued that the ruling was part of a larger effort to enact a nationwide ban on abortion. The writer determines the judge is laying the groundwork for a “prenatal personhood” argument, stating that “they will not accept anything less than a full nationwide ban.” The New York Times Opinion published a piece from a former deputy commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration arguing the judge’s decision was “shocking and irresponsible,” stating, “If judges can interfere with legitimate and well-supported F.D.A. action, there is no reason to believe that the consequences will be limited to abortion medications.”

From The Right: A writer in the Washington Examiner (Lean Right Bias) sided with pro-life advocates’ efforts, but determined that the abortion is costing Republican candidates at the ballot box. The writer concludes that instead of working for change on the legislative level, “the pro-life movement should be out with voters changing hearts and minds.” The National Review Editorial Board argued that the abortion pill received “favored regulatory treatment” from the beginning and stated that “drugs approved by the FDA are not intended to take a human life. No court can or should be blind to that reality.”