Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill while lawsuit proceeds

Added: 2026-05-15

[00:00:03]Following breaking news at this hour. It involves the US Supreme Court. It involves also uh the court preserving access to a widely used abortion pill while the lawsuit plays out. Of course, we're talking about Miff Pristone.

[00:00:16]Scripts News legal affairs correspondent Avaj Bernett joins us now live in in Washington. Evo Joy, what are you finding out?

[00:00:23]>> Hey there, Dal. Well, this is something that we have been waiting for for the entire day. The deadline was supposed to be at 5:00 p.m. and we're now learning from the Supreme Court that they will continue to allow access to this drug mythopristone for people who may not have those in-person visits when they want an abortion. Uh the backstory here is the state of Louisiana wanted to prevent people from gaining access to mephrist if it's mailed to them from another state. Louisiana has a near total ban on abortions. Um, and Louisiana had a favorable ruling from lower courts where they sided with the state of Louisiana saying that these drugs, this drug specifically, mephristone, should not be mailed across state lines into the state of Louisiana so that women would be able to get abortions because remember right now they're not allowed to get abortions in the state of Louisiana. The drug makers, however, they went up to the US Supreme Court and asked the high court to step in here uh because they had concerns that women would not be able to get access to this vital drug uh if they really needed it for healthc care reasons. Uh in their briefs to the US Supreme Court, they talked about the chaos that this could really cause for women who were relying on this drug methone, especially if they were already given the prescription by their doctor and then that access was suddenly cut off. Uh there was some back and forth and briefings. We were supposed to get a decision earlier this week from the US Supreme Court and now we have it where the justices they are allowing this drug to continue to be mailed into the state of Louisiana while this case makes its way through the lower court system. Uh this for many people could be a significant update for now because women will continue to gain access to the drug. If there was a different decision from the high court, we could have possibly seen a ripple effect where other states that allow abortions or that do not allow abortions, they would then take the steps to ban this drug from being mailed within their state lines. So, this is a significant development from the high court. Uh something that they've been grappling with for quite some time now. remember back in 2022 uh they passed this landmark decision which pretty much said there's no constitutional right to an abortion and then what we saw after that is many states started a rush Republican le states they started a rush to ban abortions within their state lines except for some very narrow circumstances but on the flip side of that we saw that there were other states uh Democrat-led states they started to allow broader access to this drug methristone. And one thing that the Biden administration did while the Supreme Court made that decision that there was no constitutional right to an abortion, they made it easier for people to be able to virtually speak with a doctor and then that doctor would be able to have that prescription mailed to the folks within states that no longer allowed abortion. And so this is why we're now at this particular uh position in our society where there are some states that allow it and then there are states that do not allow it. And then you have this mega battle between the state of Louisiana and the drug makers who want to continue uh to allow women to get access to this drug while there are officials in state like Louisiana who want to block it. One of the things that Louisiana talked about is the fact that uh women who are getting this abortion, they believe because the women who are using this drug to obtain abortions, Louisiana believes because they're not getting those in-person doctor's visits, those women may be more prone uh to getting hurt during those abortions. Of course, the drug makers have argued that this drug is safe and that as long as someone is able to speak with a medical professional, they should be able to get access to this drug. Uh, this is something that is coming down right as we speak. And I was able to get in contact with an official there in the state of Louisiana and they told me that it is shocking that the Supreme Court would block this common sense return to medically ethical practices and oversight. DOJ did not defend big pharma which is profiting from the illegal and unethical distribution of abortion pills. We will keep fighting. This is coming from the attorney general for the state of Louisiana. This is brand new information that is coming in. One of their officials texted this information to me. So now we're getting this reaction from officials in the state of Louisiana. So Dal, a major decision from the US Supreme Court. Of course, this battle is not over because this case will continue to be fought in the lower court system and we know that many states, drug companies, even the administration will be watching and waiting to see how it all plays out.

[00:05:24]>> Eva Joy, um, twofold question for you because I know the information is just coming in. One is that it's dangerous to to try and read into what the court may be thinking, but in this case, is this a pretty good tea leaf? And and the other is we are now in in in the world of of tele medicine where so many people get their advice online from a doctor. Has that changed the narrative with regards to merist stone because you can get it across state lines now just by reaching out for a doctor for instance who might practice in New York?

[00:05:57]>> Yeah, great question. Let's start out with the first question first. Uh it's really dangerous to try to predict what the US Supreme Court justices uh are ultimately thinking especially in instances where they do not give a lot of details into their thought process.

[00:06:12]This is something that elevated to the high court uh on an emergency basis meaning that we did not have full arguments uh where we were able to hear the arguments from both sides in front of the justices. instead uh it was written, their arguments were written and then submitted to the the the justices there. Uh usually in cases like that, we don't get uh scores of pages of their decisions and their reasoning behind the decisions that the Supreme Court justices make. So, it's really hard to predict what they could do in the future if this case ultimately gets back to the high court. If we don't have their really lengthy opinions that detail their thinking, it's really difficult to predict what they will do in the future if this case heads back to the US Supreme Court. On the issue of teleaalth, uh it's very possible that the justices were thinking about this new age that we are now in. We know that this issue of teleaalth with um me for pristone came about after the co 19 pandemic when so many people were really getting access to their doctors through their computers and through their phones and it's something that never really went away. Uh but in this this issue that's also very politically charged. We also know that people are using teleaalth to be able to circumvent laws in states that uh don't agree with what they want to do. So if someone wants to be able to get an abortion in the state of Louisiana, they're really legally able to go to another state uh via teleaalth and get the access to the drugs that they may need. So in this new era where we have uh access to online doctors, virtual doctors, that's something that the justices and maybe not even the justices but other members of the legal system will also have to consider. Dell, >> our legal affairs correspondent, Ava Joy Bernett, for a very brief brief, you provided one heck of a lot of information.