Anti-abortion advocates are manipulating our courts

By Sara Dixon 

In late June of this year, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) is expected to issue decisions on “Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v the Food and Drug Administration” (AHM v FDA) and “Idaho v the United States.” Opponents of sexual and reproductive health care rights seek to undermine trusted medical systems, and give states’ total abortion bans the authority to override not only federal law, but doctors’ judgment as well. 

Historically, anti-abortion advocates have found their goals blocked by legislative and executive checks like ballot measures, and vetoes backed by public support. By playing an insidiously long game, anti-abortion lawmakers and advocates have found a way to bypass the checks and balances that reflect public opinion. Their plan: control the Judiciary. 

By stacking the courts with judges more likely to rule in their favor they have opted to ignore the overwhelming public support of abortion by exploiting the judicial appointment process. In essence, our political system has been hacked, and the court system has been weaponized against us, with no immediate recourse. 

Emboldened by their success in the Dobbs decision, and with confidence in a system manipulated in their favor, extremists looking to further chip away at reproductive health care and abortion access have been intentionally filing waves of lawsuits challenging established medical practice and federal law in the hopes of reaching the same SCOTUS Justices who overturned Roe. 

The reproductive health care cases that have made it to the Supreme Court this year are nothing more than an engineered charade, with no basis in real or reasonable data. However, the enduring public support for reproductive rights has been successfully sidestepped. For now. 

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) is not a legitimate health organization. It was created in Amarillo Texas, in August 2022 for the expressed purpose of filing a suit against the FDA, and drawing a specific federal judge known to be hostile towards reproductive and bodily autonomy rights. AHM has sued the FDA over its approval of mifepristone, one of two medicines most commonly used in medication abortion. Mifepristone was approved more than 23 years ago, after a robust series of clinical trials. It is a safe and effective medication prescribed for abortion and miscarriage management, and is used world wide. 

Supreme Court justices appear split over whether to protect abortion care during emergencies

In a case that never should have progressed, AHM has dragged unsubstantiated claims of safety risks through the courts, with weak arguments, retracted source material, and a lack of clarity on whether they even have the legitimacy to sue in the first place. If SCOTUS agrees with the lower courts, mifepristone will face unnecessary restrictions, further reducing abortion access nationwide. By targeting the validity of established clinical trials, this decision could also subvert the FDA’s authority, potentially leaving medication approvals to the whims of politicians and judges, rather than informed and trained medical professionals and scientists. 

“Idaho v the United States,” is a truly repugnant lawsuit that can, and will, lead to increases in maternal mortality, in the name of “states’ rights.” 

The case looks to unilaterally prioritize Idaho’s broad abortion ban over federal law – a law that was created to save lives. The Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA) is a federal law that requires hospital providers to administer stabilizing treatment to patients experiencing a medical emergency, which can include abortion. 

However, Idaho has a total abortion ban, with three very narrow exceptions for ectopic pregnancy, rape or incest, or to “save the life” of a pregnant patient. As the law currently stands, should a medical professional provide an abortion outside of those named exceptions, they have committed a crime in Idaho, and would be prosecuted. 

The law is intentionally vague, with “imminent death” being the key justifying factor in providing an emergency abortion, with no clarity on how to justify this within the eyes of law enforcement. Unless a patient is facing “imminent death,” doctors cannot provide an abortion, even if the patient is facing otherwise serious and irreversible harm. A patient will be made to wait and to suffer as their condition worsens, even if the doctor knows risks will compound. 

The fact that anti-abortion politicians and advocates are willing to outright risk — and more than likely sacrifice — patients’ lives is profoundly shocking. The consequences of delayed care are harrowing and can last a lifetime. Complications from pregnancies are common, identifiable, and treatable, however delayed care in an emergency situation escalates the risk of death. Without stabilizing treatment, like abortion, patients could face severe sepsis, uterine hemorrhage requiring hysterectomy, kidney failure requiring lifelong dialysis, hypoxic brain injury, or permanent fertility issues. 

When expert medical knowledge can be redefined to fit a judge’s ideology, doctors can be sentenced to prison or lose their medical license for providing emergency care, and patients are forced to endure physical pain and distress until their life is in danger for an unviable pregnancy, what is the measurable “good” in these arguments? 

Put simply, there is nothing wrong with the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, and doctors should be able to treat a patient with appropriate care, before a patient’s life is in danger, without fear or repercussions from the state. These cases, and those following, should be thrown out and called what they are: intentional manipulation of the system, and attempts at dogmatic control of our bodies. 

Anti-abortion advocates, legislators, and judges think they know better than an individual’s circumstances and medical professionals, and it is impossible to convince them otherwise. The stakes in this crisis are relentlessly climbing. These ongoing legal challenges in access to care, compounded with a lack of effective social support systems for those experiencing pregnancy, only serve to exacerbate inequalities throughout the health care system. 

Our lives and futures should not be solely dictated by baseless claims in the courts made by bad-faith actors. Our health care should not be dependent on the beliefs of ideological justices. 

The safeguards of trusted medication testing and approvals, access to health care, and empowered doctors and medical staff free from over regulation and political scrutiny is what saves, preserves, and betters lives. We must continue to push for the sanctity of individual choice and the right of self determination, by amplifying our united voice, or these ideologies will become laws more difficult to overturn, thanks to precedent

Sara Dixon is Public Policy Manager of Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania