It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy.

[link removed]
[link removed]
Photo by Michael Nigro/Sipa USA

It’s Tuesday, the traditional day for elections and for our pause-and-consider newsletter on politics and policy. We think of it as a mini-magazine in your inbox.

THE STAKES ARE HIGH IN THE SUPREME COURT ABORTION PILL CASE
By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

The same justices who overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022 are considering a case that could further limit abortion access and reproductive rights in the United States.

The abortion medication mifepristone was at the center of oral arguments Tuesday. The pill is part of a two-drug combination ([link removed]) used in medication abortions, which now account for about two-thirds of all abortions ([link removed]) in the country, according to the Guttmacher Institute. It is also sometimes used in miscarriage care.

The case challenges the Food and Drug Administration’s moves to broaden access to mifepristone, which is sold under the brand name Mifeprex. A generic version is also available.

[link removed]
Listen to the oral arguments in the player above.

The justices’ decision could not only affect access to the drug in states where abortion is legal, but also the FDA’s authority over other drugs.

Here’s what to know.

First, some background

Since the FDA approved the drug 24 years ago, reams of research have shown mifepristone to be safe ([link removed].) and effective. A legal brief filed with the court said medical professionals called mifepristone “among the safest medications” ever approved by the agency.

For decades, patients could only get mifepristone during an in-person medical appointment. The FDA began broadening access to the pill in 2016 by authorizing the use of mifepristone until 10 weeks of pregnancy rather than seven. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the FDA relaxed its rules to allow mifepristone, among other drugs, to be prescribed by telemedicine and sent by mail.

[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.

That increase in accessibility is a major reason why mifepristone has become a prime target for anti-abortion groups after the Roe ruling.

Who brought this case?

The plaintiffs — the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine — want to block or limit the use of mifepristone.

The group of anti-abortion medical associations, founded months after the Roe ruling ([link removed]) , claims the drug is dangerous. It filed a lawsuit in Texas saying the FDA erred in approving the drug in 2000. To support its argument, the group cited two specific studies (out of five referred to in this case ([link removed]) ) that claim abortion pills increase emergency room visits and the risk of hospitalization. The scientific journal that published the studies has since retracted them ([link removed]) .

Still, those studies were cited as evidence in the Texas court ruling ([link removed]) that paved the way to the case before the Supreme Court. Under that ruling, the federal judge — a Trump appointee — suspended FDA approval ([link removed]) of the drug, saying the agency “acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns.”

The decision was notable because there’s no legal precedent for a single judge to override the FDA’s decision to approve a drug.

In the case before the Supreme Court, the argument focuses on the FDA’s efforts to broaden access to the abortion drugs. The alliance argues that the FDA pulled back on “crucial safeguards” that “could have prevented many of these emergency events.”

What the drugmaker says

Pointing to the retracted studies used by the plaintiffs, the lawyer representing Danco, mifepristone’s manufacturer, said she had “significant concerns” about justices parsing medical and scientific studies.

“Those sorts of errors can infect judicial analyses precisely because judges are not — they are not experts in statistics, they are not experts in the methodology used for scientific studies for clinical trials,” Jessica Ellsworth said.

The federal government noted that medical complications are rare. (Just how rare?A 2015 study ([link removed]) , cited by medical organizations as part of the case, found that the rate of major complications — such as excessive blood loss and hospitalization — among patients who had medication abortions was about 0.3 percent. That study included more than 54,000 abortions.)

One key question: Can the anti-abortion doctors sue?

The plaintiffs’ lawyers were asked a fundamental legal question in oral arguments: Do the anti-abortion doctors have standing to sue?

The issue of standing, or the right to challenge the conduct of another party, was repeatedly raised in Tuesday’s arguments.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said there was a “significant mismatch” between what the plaintiffs say has been their experience, and the remedy they’re seeking in the case.

The plaintiffs claim that while they oppose abortion, they have “no choice” ([link removed]) but to treat patients who have come to emergency facilities with medical complications from the abortion drugs.

The justice said these medical professionals allege an injury of conscience, as in, they’re being forced to participate in a medical procedure that they object to.

The “obvious, commonsense remedy,” Jackson added, would be an exemption that allowed them to opt out of providing that care, rather than an order that prevents anyone from having access to the drugs.

This exemption already exists in federal law, Jackson said, adding that the plaintiffs are asking for something more.

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar echoed the idea that the plaintiffs’ objections can already be remedied with a federal statute.

Prelogar said the plaintiffs don’t “come within 100 miles” of having the legal right to sue.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, commenting on the lawsuit, said it is “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on FDA rule or any other federal government action.”

The bottom line: If the Supreme Court ultimately rules that the anti-abortion plaintiffs don’t have standing to sue, the justices could dismiss the case without addressing the merits.

What’s next: A ruling is expected as early as late June. There’s also a second abortion-related case ([link removed]) on the Supreme Court’s docket that involves medical exceptions to abortion bans.
More on politics from our coverage:
* Watch: Doctors and patients share what’s at stake ([link removed]) for access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
* One Big Question: What are the political implications of this case? NPR’s Tamara Keith and USA Today's Susan Page discuss ([link removed]) .
* A Closer Look: California’s Prop 1 homelessness measure passed by a hair. Here’s what both sides are saying ([link removed]) .
* Perspectives: Former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer on the debate over how to interpret the U.S. Constitution ([link removed]) .

A TRUMP TRIALS UPDATE

[link removed]
Watch the segment in the player above.

By Joshua Barajas, @Josh_Barrage ([link removed])
Senior Editor, Digital

Former President Donald Trump had a big day in court at the start of the week. By Monday’s end, he received a pair of rulings: a reprieve and a trial date ([link removed]) .

The civil fraud case. Trump was ordered earlier this year to pay hundreds of millions in penalties for a decadelong scheme that fraudulently and dramatically inflated his assets. This week, a New York appeals court granted the former president a partial victory and reprieve. Trump will only have to come up with $175 million for now, compared to the judgment that has ballooned to $457 million. He has 10 days to secure that bond money, and it’s widely expected he’ll meet the deadline.

In the hush-money case, involving an alleged scheme from Trump that sought to silence allegations of extramarital affairs, a judge ruled that jury selection in that trial will begin April 15. A day later, the same judge issued a gag order ([link removed]) that prevents Trump from making public statements about witnesses, jurors and prosecutors.

Trump and his legal team have used a strategy of delay ([link removed]) in the four criminal trials against him. But with the hush-money case set for next month, barring any further disruptions, Trump will become the first former U.S. president to stand criminal trial.

What to watch next: It’s unclear whether any of the other three criminal cases will occur before November’s election. The trial for the classified documents case in Florida was initially set for May, but the judge held a hearing earlier this month to revisit its timing ([link removed]) . The judge has yet to set a new date for this trial.

The PBS NewsHour created this guide ([link removed]) to all the trials Trump will face this year. It will be updated with the latest developments as the cases continue to unfold.

#POLITICSTRIVIA
By Ali Schmitz, @SchmitzMedia ([link removed])
Politics Producer

For his upcoming criminal trial in New York City, former President Donald Trump is being represented by a high-powered legal team, led by defense attorney Todd Blanche.

Our question: Which former Trump associate did Blanche previously represent? (Hint: It’s a name often evoked during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.)

Send your answers to [email protected] (mailto:[email protected]) or tweet using #PoliticsTrivia. The first correct answers will earn a shout-out next week.

Last week, we asked: The last U.S. presidential election rematch took place in 1956, between President Dwight D. Eisenhower and this Democrat. Who was he?

The answer: Adlai Stevenson ([link removed]) . In 1956, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower defeated the Democratic governor of Illinois for a second time. Eisenhower beat Stevenson in a landslide victory four years earlier.

Congratulations to our winners: Stephen Carl and Al Marcus!

Thank you all for reading and watching. We’ll drop into your inbox next week.
[link removed]
Want more news and analysis in your inbox?
Explore all of the PBS NewsHour's newsletters ([link removed]) .
[link removed]
[link removed]

============================================================
Copyright © 2024 WETA, All rights reserved.

Our mailing address is:
3620 South 27th Street
Arlington, VA 22206

** unsubscribe from this list ([link removed])
** update subscription preferences ([link removed])