Mock Trial Podcast: Should SCOTUS Restrict Access To The Abortion Pill?

 

On May 9, 1960–64 years ago today - the FDA approved the world's first commercially produced birth-control pill. Timed to that anniversary, nonpartisan public radio show Open to Debate is releasing a mock trial on the question "Should Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?"

 

The Open To Debate podcast plays a critical role in our society today.The mission of Open to Debate is to restore critical thinking, facts, reason, and civility to America’s public square. Open to Debate is a platform for intellectually curious and open-minded people to engage with others holding opposing views on complex issues.

The full episode was released on May 9th (look for it here, on NPR stations, or via the Open to Debate podcast). Below are three clips on YouTube:

• Watch: Conscience vs. Complications in Medication Abortion

• Watch: Legal Remedies for Medication Abortion Policies

• Watch: Personal Perspectives on Abortion Rights

In a post-Roe v. Wade world, mifepristone, a medication that 63% of women undergoing an abortion use, is under consideration by the Supreme Court. Mifepristone was approved as a two-drug regimen for use up to seven weeks of pregnancy and initially required in-person clinical visits, but changes by the FDA were made in 2016 and 2021 to expand accessibility via telehealth and the length of its administration. FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine seeks to address whether the FDA's approval process was thorough and whether the drug should continue to be available.

Those in favor of restrictions argue that the FDA approved mifepristone without adequate consideration of long-term health impacts, failing to adhere to stringent regulatory standards. They also consider restricting access to abortion pills a moral imperative, forcing some doctors to treat patients for a procedure against their beliefs.

Arguing in favor of restrictions is Catherine Glenn Foster, Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. She has worked on topics from euthanasia and assisted suicide to abortion and maternal health, health and safety regulations, conscience protections, and constitutional aspects of the right to life and has authored and testified on numerous domestic, foreign, and international legislation and initiatives, appearing on multiple occasions before the Senate, the House, and other federal and state bodies.

Those against restrictions point out the approval was based on extensive research and clinical trials, which should not be undermined without substantial scientific evidence. They also argue access to mifepristone is essential for women's health, providing a safer alternative to surgical abortion and enabling privacy and autonomy in healthcare decisions.

Arguing against restrictions is Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. She was lead counsel in two lawsuits that led the FDA to allow patients to obtain mifepristone through telehealth and pharmacy dispensing. She has also led or co-counseled litigation in numerous states challenging abortion bans, mandatory abortion delay requirements, laws preventing qualified nurse practitioners and midwives from providing abortion or birthing care, and other political interference with patients’ health and autonomy.

 

 Listen to Open to Debate wherever you get podcasts, or watch the video version at opentodebate.org.