May, 27 2020, 12:00am EDT

New Lawsuit Challenges FDA Restriction That Imposes Life-Threatening Risks on Patients Seeking Abortion and Miscarriage Care
ACLU, leading medical experts and reproductive justice advocates ask court to block FDA restriction that subjects patients and clinicians to needless COVID-19 risk.
WASHINGTON
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a lawsuit today on behalf of a coalition of medical experts led by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The legal action challenges a U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rule that subjects patients to unnecessary COVID-19 risks as a condition of receiving a medication used for early abortion and miscarriage treatment.
At issue in this case is a restriction on an FDA-approved prescription drug, mifepristone, which is used in combination with another drug, misoprostol, to safely and effectively end early pregnancies and treat early miscarriage. Specifically, the FDA requires patients to travel to a hospital, clinic, or medical office to pick up the mifepristone. Because of this restriction, patients who have already been evaluated by a clinician (using telehealth or at a prior in-person visit) cannot fill their mifepristone prescription by mail. Instead, they must incur unnecessary COVID-19 risk and travel to one of these clinical settings to pick up the pill -- even when they will be receiving no in-person medical services at that time and will swallow the pill later at home (as the FDA permits).
"At every other turn during this pandemic, the federal government is trying to make it easier for patients to get the medical care they need without unnecessary health care visits that jeopardize their safety," said Julia Kaye, staff attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "But when it comes to patients who need to end an early pregnancy or treat a miscarriage, the administration is forcing them to travel to a hospital, clinic, or medical office just to pick up a pill they are already permitted to swallow later at home. This administration apparently would rather subject patients and clinicians to life-threatening medical risks than lift an unnecessary barrier to abortion care."
For years, the medical community has opposed these restrictions on mifepristone as they have no medical basis or patient safety benefit. Despite months of petitioning from leading medical authorities, including the ACOG, the FDA has refused to halt this in-person dispensing requirement even during the COVID-19 pandemic. By contrast, the FDA and other federal agencies have suspended in-person requirements for other medications.
Of the more than 20,000 drug products the FDA regulates, the mifepristone product used to end an early pregnancy or provide miscarriage care is the only medication the FDA requires patients to pick up in-person even though they may self-administer it at home. When used for purposes other than pregnancy termination, the FDA permits mifepristone to be mailed directly to the patient's home in higher doses and quantities.
The failure to lift this in-person dispensing requirement has particularly severe implications for communities of color and low-income communities, who make up the majority of impacted patients and who are already suffering severe complications and dying from COVID-19 at disproportionately high rates.
The plaintiffs in this case are: ACOG, the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology, New York State Academy of Family Physicians, SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, and an individual family medicine physician. The lawsuit is brought by the ACLU and the law firm Arnold & Porter.
Statements from plaintiffs are below:
Eva Chalas, M.D., F.A.C.O.G., F.A.C.S, president of ACOG:
"Our request in this case is simple: The federal government should permit patients seeking safe and effective reproductive health care, which includes care for miscarriage and termination of pregnancy, the same ability to access care and protect themselves from exposure as patients in other contexts are afforded. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the health care community -- from individual physicians to government agencies -- has come together to identify safe, effective ways to provide patients with the care that they need, including through telemedicine. The FDA's decision to maintain medically unnecessary restrictions on mifepristone is a glaring exception, which results in discrimination in access and threatens to harm patients and their clinicians during a time of national crisis. Lifting the barriers to mifepristone will allow women, including those from underserved communities that are disproportionately affected by both COVID-19 and the ongoing maternal health crisis, the ability to obtain necessary and essential evidence-based care without having to risk potential life-threatening exposure."
Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective:
"COVID-19 is causing devastating consequences in every corner of the country, but nowhere more so than in communities of color and Indigenous communities. Because of longstanding disparities in access to and quality of health care and other manifestations of structural racism, Black and Brown people are more likely to have preexisting health conditions that increase the likelihood of severe illness and death from COVID-19. It is unconscionable that the FDA is subjecting women of color, who are disproportionately represented among patients seeking abortion and miscarriage care, to life-threatening viral risks as a condition of obtaining these urgent reproductive health services."
David Chelmow, M.D., president of the Council of University Chairs of Obstetrics and Gynecology:
"The medical community must be able to use all the tools at our disposal, including telehealth care where appropriate, to meet patients' essential medical needs while protecting them from coronavirus. The next generation of health care practitioners must be taught the most safe, effective, and patient-centered care, even during a public health emergency. The FDA's unique restriction on mifepristone prevents clinicians from exercising their medical judgment during this pandemic, limits the ability to provide the optimal medication for miscarriage and abortion care, and needlessly jeopardizes the safety of patients."
Barbara Keber, M.D., F.A.A.F.P., president of the New York State Academy of Family Physicians:
"The COVID-19 crisis has hit New York State particularly hard, with devastating consequences for patients across our state and the family medicine doctors who care for them. The FDA is restricting access to mifepristone in spite of overwhelming medical evidence that it is among the safest drugs in use. There is no medically justifiable reason to restrict use of mifepristone, and certainly not in the current crisis when adhering to these restrictions is only exposing patients and providers to severe and unnecessary medical risk."
In addition to the case filed today, the ACLU has another case challenging a broader range of FDA restrictions on medication abortion care that was filed prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. More information on that challenge can be found here.
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666LATEST NEWS
Nobel Prize for mRNA Researchers Shows Power of Public Funding for Vaccines, Campaigners Say
"Public funding delivers incredible medical advances and that should be a priority for all countries, but pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted to share technology with the world."
Oct 02, 2023
Scientists Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine on Monday for research that paved the way for the messenger RNA vaccines against Covid-19—critical work that, as campaigners quickly pointed out, benefited from substantial U.S. government funding.
Dr. Mohga Kamal-Yanni, policy co-lead for the People's Vaccine Alliance, said in a statement that "this award challenges the claim that it was solely big pharmaceutical companies who saved the world from Covid-19."
"Just like the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, Karikó and Weissman's groundbreaking work on mRNA vaccines received a huge amount of public funding," said Kamal-Yanni. "Pharmaceutical companies have refused to share mRNA technologies with developers and researchers in developing countries."
The Nobel Prize committee credited Karikó and Weissman with fundamentally changing "our understanding of how mRNA interacts with our immune system."
"The laureates contributed to the unprecedented rate of vaccine development during one of the greatest threats to human health in modern times," the committee said.
As The Washington Postsummarized, the pair "discovered how to chemically tweak messenger RNA, turning basic biology into a technology ready to change the world when the pandemic struck. Their discovery is incorporated into the coronavirus vaccines made by Moderna and Pfizer and its German partner, BioNTech, which have now been given billions of times."
But the Post and other major outlets covering Karikó and Weissman's Nobel prize-winning contributions did not emphasize—or even mention—that some of the scientists' work was funded by the National Institutes of Health. Karikó and Weissman patented their findings in 2006 and later licensed the patents to Moderna and BioNTech, Pfizer's coronavirus vaccine partner.
According to an analysis by Knowledge Ecology International (KEI), Weissman "appears as the principal investigator on a total of 42 projects funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between 1998 and 2020, representing $18,323,060 in costs."
"Karikó was the principal investigator of four projects funded by the NIH between 2007 and 2011, totaling $1,234,462 in costs," KEI observed. "In other words, the United States government funded and has certain rights over at least some of the foundational Karikó and Weissman patents directed to mRNA discoveries."
"As governments discuss how to prepare for the next pandemic, they should learn from the story of mRNA."
Throughout the pandemic and into the present, vaccine makers such as Pfizer and Moderna have opposed global calls to share their vaccine recipes and technology with the world, fiercely clinging to their monopoly control over production and using that control to force governments into one-sided contracts favorable to the pharmaceutical industry—even though their vaccines were developed with massive public support.
A
study published in The BMJ earlier this year estimated that the U.S. government pumped nearly $32 billion into the development, production, and purchase of mRNA coronavirus vaccines.
The Biden administration, meanwhile, has declined to use its ownership of key patents or the leverage provided by public funding to force pharmaceutical companies to do everything they can to ensure the equitable distribution of lifesaving vaccine technology.
Kamal-Yanni of the People's Vaccine Alliance said Monday that "fortunately, Weissman is helping a WHO-backed mRNA program which aims to develop mRNA technology in lower-income countries, even while pharmaceutical companies refuse to share their know-how."
"As governments discuss how to prepare for the next pandemic, they should learn from the story of mRNA," said Kamal-Yanni. "Public funding delivers incredible medical advances and that should be a priority for all countries, but pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted to share technology with the world."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Defying Calls to Appoint Barbara Lee, Newsom Chooses Laphonza Butler to Fill Feinstein's Seat
Butler previously served as the head of a major SEIU local. But she also represented Uber as it fought efforts to classify drivers as employees.
Oct 02, 2023
California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced late Sunday that he will appoint Laphonza Butler, president of the Democratic Party-aligned reproductive rights group
EMILY's List, to fill the U.S. Senate seat left vacant by the death of long-serving Sen. Dianne Feinstein last week.
Newsom's selection rebuffs calls from progressives and some Democratic lawmakers—including the head of the Congressional Black Caucus—to nominate Rep. Barbara Lee (D-Calif.) to fill the vacancy. Lee is one of three prominent Democrats running for Feinstein's seat in 2024.
Feinstein had planned to step down at the end of her term in January 2025.
Newsom pledged to fill any early vacancy with a Black woman, but he signaled last month that it would not be Lee, who is running against Reps. Katie Porter (D-Calif.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).
"I don't want to get involved in the primary," Newsom told NBC, stressing that his selection would be an interim pick. "It would be completely unfair to the Democrats that have worked their tail off. That primary is just a matter of months away. I don't want to tip the balance of that."
In a statement late Sunday, Newsom said that "as we mourn the enormous loss of Senator Feinstein, the very freedoms she fought for—reproductive freedom, equal protection, and safety from gun violence—have never been under greater assault. Laphonza will carry the baton left by Senator Feinstein, continue to break glass ceilings, and fight for all Californians in Washington, D.C."
"An advocate for women and girls, a second-generation fighter for working people, and a trusted adviser to Vice President [Kamala] Harris," Newsom added, "Laphonza Butler represents the best of California, and she'll represent us proudly in the United States Senate."
Shortly following news of the governor's decision, journalists
noticed that EMILY's List removed the final line of Butler's bio that said she lives in Maryland with her partner and daughter. Newsom's office confirmed to California reporter Ashley Zavala that Butler moved to the Washington, D.C. area for her role at EMILY's List but owns a home in California, and will reregister to vote in the state before she is sworn in.
Prior to her stint at EMILY's List, which works to elect pro-choice Democrats, Butler served as president of Service Employees International Union (SEIU) Local 2015, the nation's largest home care and nursing home workers union.
But CalMattersnoted Sunday that "despite her previous career, organized labor is likely to split on Butler."
"Many felt betrayed when she represented Uber in 2019 as the company tried to broker a deal that would avoid classifying their drivers as employees," the outlet reported.
Butler also worked as director of public policy for Airbnb.
Politicoreported that "Newsom is making his appointment without putting limitations or preconditions on his pick running for the seat in 2024. That means Butler could decide to join the sprawling and competitive field of Democratic contenders seeking to succeed Feinstein, with special elections now layered on top of the March primary and November runoff."
In a letter to Newsom earlier Sunday, Congressional Black Caucus Chair Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) urged Newsom to appoint Lee to fill the vacant U.S. Senate seat, arguing that her "unparalleled legislative record, longstanding leadership in the Democratic Party, and deep commitment to justice and equality cannot be equaled."
"Barbara Lee has diagnosed a sickness in this country: greed," Horsford wrote. "And, as a former mental health professional, she has a solution: eradicate poverty, exterminate corporate welfare, and end austerity for working families. She is the only person with the courage, vision, and record to eradicate poverty, face down the fossil fuel industry, defend our democracy, and tirelessly advance the progressive agenda."
Lee, for her part, wrote in a social media post that she looks forward to working with Butler to "deliver for the Golden State."
"I am singularly focused on winning my campaign for Senate," Lee wrote. "CA deserves an experienced senator who will deliver on progressive priorities. That's exactly what I'm running to do."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Out-of-Step With American Values': Newsom Vetoes Key Labor Bills
The California governor on Saturday rejected bills that would have given unemployment insurance to striking workers and OSHA protections to domestic employees.
Oct 01, 2023
California Gov. Gavin Newsom vetoed too important pieces of labor rights' legislation on Saturday: one that would have given unemployment insurance to striking workers and another that would have extended protections to domestic employees.
Newsom's vetoes come as both California and the nation have seen a number of high profile strikes this year, including by Hollywood writers and actors.
"This veto tips the scales further in favor of corporations and CEOs and punishes workers who exercise their fundamental right to strike," California Labor Federation leader Lorena Gonzalez Fletcher said in a statement. "At a time when public support of unions and strikes are at an all-time high, this veto is out-of-step with American values."
Senate Bill 799, which passed in September, would have offered unemployment insurance to workers on strike for 14 days or more. It came while both the Screen Actors Guild-American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA) and the Writers Guild of America (WGA) were out on strike in the first writer and actor double-feature work stoppage in 60 years.
In a statement, Newsom said he was vetoing the bill for economic reasons, arguing that the state's unemployment insurance had been governed by the same financial structure since the 1980s, was "vulnerable to insolvency," and already expected to be almost $20 billion in debt by the end of the year.
"Now is not the time to increase costs or incur this sizable debt," Newsom said.
However, The Sacramento Beepointed out that Newsom's veto might have been made politically easier by the fact that the WGA ended its strike Wednesday after reaching a tentative deal with the studios.
Democratic State Sen. Anthony Portantino, who introduced the bill, said he thought the summer's labor actions only showed how necessary the bill was.
"I am disappointed in the Governor's veto," he tweeted. But he said the fight wasn't over.
"The need continues and so will efforts to make this law in CA," he said.
Also on Saturday, Newsom delivered another blow to the state labor movement when he vetoed SB 686 to give domestic workers protections under the state's Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).
"I'm deeply disappointed that the governor doesn't recognize the inherent worth and dignity of those women who care for our homes and families by vetoeing SB 686," tweeted the bill's author Sen. MarÃa Elena Durazo. "That measure would've insured that domestic workers have the same occupational health and safety protections as others."
This is the second time that Newsom has vetoed a Durazo bill along similar lines, the Los Angeles Timesreported. The last was in 2020.
Newsom argued then and now that it is not possible to regulate private homes like businesses. For example, the bill would have required homes that asked cleaners to use bleach to provide eyewash stations.
"I am particularly concerned given that approximately 44% of the households that employ domestic workers are low-income themselves, that this bill creates severe cost burdens and penalties for many people who cannot afford them," he wrote in his veto message.
The bill was backed by the California Domestic Workers Coalition and immigrant rights groups like the Instituto de Education Popular del Sur de California.
Nancy Zuniga, a program manager for that group and a supporter of the bill, said she was inspired by her mother who is still cleaning homes at 63, though Zuniga hopes she can retire.
"If we don’t protect domestic workers, what condition will she be in when she reaches that moment?" she asked the LA Times. "A lot of them will do this until they pass."
According to a 2020 report from the University of California, Los Angeles, 85% of domestic workers live with muscular and skeletal injuries.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Independent, nonprofit journalism needs your help.
Please Pitch In
Today!
Today!