May, 27 2020, 12:00am EDT
![ACLU](https://assets.rbl.ms/32012694/origin.png)
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
US Leads Global Surge in Oil and Gas Expansion, Analysis Finds
"The U.S. has become a petrostate and is still, even under President Biden, permitting new drilling," John Sterman of MIT said. "The developed countries don't show any significant efforts to limit drilling."
Jul 24, 2024
Five wealthy countries including the United States have led a global surge in oil and gas development in 2024, threatening international climate goals, according to an analysis published by The Guardian on Wednesday.
The U.S., United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Norway together are projected by the end of 2024 to have issued licenses for fossil fuel projects that will emit 11.9 billion metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes—far more than in any of the previous five years, and roughly equal to a full year of emissions from China, the world's highest emitter—according to industry data analyzed by the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD) and shared with the newspaper.
The five states are responsible for more than two-thirds of all oil and gas licenses issued globally since 2020, with the U.S. alone accounting for half of the world total. President Joe Biden's administration increased oil and gas licensing by 20% over Trump-era levels, and issued a record 758 new extraction licenses in 2023, according to the analysis.
"The U.S. has become a petrostate and is still, even under President Biden, permitting new drilling," John Sterman, a climate policy expert and professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology's business school, told The Guardian. "The developed countries don't show any significant efforts to limit drilling."
Sterman pointed to a "fundamental contradiction" between rich countries' international commitments and their ongoing fossil fuel expansion. "We can't keep going on like this," he said.
Revealed: wealthy western countries lead in global oil and gas expansion
Surge by world’s wealthiest countries – such as the US and the UK- threatens to unleash 12bn tonnes of planet-heating emissions.
By @olliemilman & @ninalakhani https://t.co/esY5IuIfi9
— jonathanwatts (@jonathanwatts) July 24, 2024
The industry's grip on U.S. politicians has made significant policy change in Washington difficult. In the past decade, fossil fuel companies have spent $1.25 billion on federal lobbying and more than $650 million on campaign contributions, according to OpenSecrets data.
The Conservative-led U.K. government issued a surge of North Sea licenses in the first half of this year, but lost power to the Labour Party following a general election earlier this month. It's not yet clear if Labour will be able or willing to rescind licenses already issued. Currently the U.K. is set to finish 2024 with 72 licenses for projects that would create 101 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions over their lifetimes—a 50-year high, according to the IISD analysis. Norway and Australia are also seeing major upticks this year.
Capital expenditure at the world's largest oil companies is up 60% since 2020, with $302 billion projected to be spent on well development this year, The Guardian reported. The fossil fuel expansion continues even though the reserves in rich countries are generally hard to reach, as more accessible reserves have already been tapped.
The expansion also comes in spite of disturbing climate news—2023 was hottest year on record, June was the 13th consecutive hottest month, and Monday was the hottest day, having broken a record set the previous day—and dire warnings from leading international institutions. No new fossil fuel projects can proceed if the world is to meet the 1.5° Paris agreement target, the International Energy Agency declared in 2021.
In December, at the United Nations COP28 climate summit, the world's nations agreed to transition away from fossil fuels, though the agreement was viewed by climate campaigners as weakly worded and ridden with loopholes.
Delegates from wealthy Western nations often present themselves as change-seekers in international climate negotiations, but the IISD analysis adds to evidence that such nations are in fact a big part of the problem.
"Fossil fuel corporations, and the governments that support them, will never stop unless forced to," Bill McGuire, a climate scientist at University College London, said on social media in response to the analysis. "Neither has any interest in the future of the climate, our world, or their own kids."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Arkansas Supreme Court Orders State to Count Abortion Rights Signatures
The limited ruling was called "a good start" by one pro-democracy group, as advocates hope to include an abortion rights amendment on November ballots.
Jul 24, 2024
Abortion rights advocates in Arkansas were cautiously optimistic Tuesday evening that the state government would count the signatures of more than 100,000 residents who signed petitions in support of an anti-forced pregnancy constitutional amendment, after the Arkansas Supreme Court issued a limited order calling on the secretary of state to begin the process.
Secretary of State John Thurston, a Republican, moved earlier this month to disqualify the petition that advocates had spent months gathering signatures for, claiming organizers had failed to provide information about paid signature-gatherers who had worked on the campaign run by Arkansans for Limited Government (AFLG).
On Tuesday evening, the court ruled that Thurston must begin "the initial count of signatures collected by volunteer canvassers according to A.C.A. 7-9-126(a)," but said nothing about whether signatures gathered by paid workers needed to be counted.
The order did not indicate whether Thurston is required to begin the second stage of the tallying process, in which his team would verify that the signatures are accurate and belong to Arkansas voters.
That stage would begin a "cure" period during which AFLG would be allowed to continue collecting signatures.
"We are heartened by this outcome, which honors the constitutional rights of Arkansans to participate in direct democracy."
AFLG turned in more than 101,000 signatures in time for the July 5 deadline, including an estimated 87,382 that were collected by volunteers and 14,143 gathered by paid workers, according to the Arkansas Times.
The state requires a petition for a constitutional amendment to have at least 90,704 signatures to qualify for the November election ballots—so if Thurston is required to count only the signatures collected by volunteers and does not have to initiate the cure period, AFLG's petition may fall short.
The state Supreme Court did leave open the possibility of an additional ruling on the matter, saying the panel "reserves the right to issue further orders and proceed in accordance with state law."
Despite the uncertainty, AFLG said in a statement that "the will of the people won" this round of the fight to ensure Arkansas residents can vote for abortion rights in November.
"On behalf of 101,000 Arkansas voters, 800 volunteers, and the AFLG team, we thank the court for upholding democracy in Arkansas," said the group. "We are heartened by this outcome, which honors the constitutional rights of Arkansans to participate in direct democracy, the voices of 101,000 Arkansas voters who signed the petition, and the work of hundreds of volunteers across the state who poured themselves into this effort."
The amendment proposed by AFLG would state that the Arkansas government "shall not prohibit, penalize, delay, or restrict abortion services within 18 weeks of fertilization" or in the cases of rape, incest, or "fatal fetal anomaly."
The pro-democracy group For AR People said the court's ruling was "a good start" and noted that at least three of the court's seven judges—Justices Courtney Hudson and Karen Baker and Chief Justice Dan Kemp—seemed "favorable to AFLG's arguments" that the count, the verification process, and the cure period should commence.
Matt Campbell of the Arkansas Times pointed out that AFLG could legally continue gathering signatures as they would during the cure period, before one officially begins.
"Just because a cure period was not explicitly granted doesn't mean AFLG cannot currently be gathering signatures," said Campbell. "The cure period just officially starts the clock, but signatures can be collected before that clock starts and still be valid."
AFLG said that although the matter is not entirely resolved, the court's decision was "reflective of our state motto: 'The People Rule.'"
"We look forward to that principle guiding the rest of the signature verification process," the group said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Israeli Forces Have Killed 366 UN Workers and Family Members in Gaza: Leaked Report
Confidential figures shed additional light on what's been the deadliest-ever war for United Nations staff.
Jul 24, 2024
A leaked report obtained by Drop Site estimates that Israeli forces have killed at least 366 United Nations staffers and their family members in the Gaza Strip since October, an indication of the grave threat Israel's ongoing assault poses to humanitarian relief workers and the enclave's broader civilian population.
Drop Site's Ryan Grim reported Wednesday that the confidential figures, assembled by the U.N.'s Crisis Coordination Center, show that three family members of World Food Program staffers and four dependents of U.N. Children's Fund workers were among those killed by Israeli forces. The total number of U.N. staffers killed so far is 195, according to the data.
The U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the primary aid agency operating in Gaza, has seen the largest impact on staffers and their family members. The leaked report estimates that Israeli forces have killed 158 dependents of UNRWA staffers since October.
Israel's devastating military campaign in Gaza, aided by U.S. weaponry and diplomatic support, is by far the deadliest-ever war for U.N. personnel, who have repeatedly been targeted by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).
Over the weekend, Israeli soldiers fired on a U.N. convoy heading toward Gaza City. UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini said that "the teams were traveling in clearly marked U.N. armored cars and wearing U.N. vests."
"While there are no casualties, our teams had to duck and take cover," he added. "Like all other similar U.N. movements, this movement was coordinated and approved by the Israeli authorities."
Targeting humanitarian relief personnel is a war crime.
#Gaza
Heavy shooting from the Israeli Forces at a UN convoy heading to Gaza city.
While there are no casualties, our teams had to duck and take cover.
This took place yesterday. The teams were traveling in clearly marked UN armoured cars & wearing UN vests.
One vehicle…
— Philippe Lazzarini (@UNLazzarini) July 22, 2024
Grim noted that the leaked report is just "the latest in a series of alarming findings regarding Israel's actions in Gaza," much of which is facing famine conditions due to what U.N. experts recently described as a "targeted starvation campaign" by Israel.
During a 12-hour period earlier this week, Israeli forces killed at least 70 Palestinians and wounded around 200 others—mostly women and children—in a barrage of attacks on the city of Khan Younis, according to the Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor.
The confidential U.N. data emerged hours before Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled address to a joint meeting of the U.S. Congress on Wednesday afternoon. Dozens of Democratic lawmakers are expected to boycott the prime minister's speech.
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the lone Palestinian American in Congress, argued Tuesday that Netanyahu "should be arrested and sent to the International Criminal Court," alluding to that body's request for an arrest warrant for the Israeli prime minister.
On Tuesday, hundreds of demonstrators were arrested on Capitol Hill during a peaceful Jewish-led demonstration against Netanyahu's visit and U.S. complicity in the IDF's mass atrocities in Gaza.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular