Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, Podcasts, radio news. We have some breaking
Speaker 1: news for you here.
Speaker 2: The Supreme Court is upholding full access to mif a
Speaker 2: pristone abortion pill. So this ruling came as the FDA
Speaker 2: had imposed restrictions on the pill that the agency found
Speaker 2: were unnecessary, and a court considered a Biden administration appeal
Speaker 2: of that ruling. And the requirements were things like making
Speaker 2: in person visits to their doctor in order to obtain
Speaker 2: this pill. And it looks like the FDA won this case,
Speaker 2: Supreme Court upholding full access to mif a pristone abortion pill.
Speaker 2: The issue really was about did the FDA overdo it?
Speaker 2: Did they expand when they shouldn't have. We are going
Speaker 2: to be talking about that much more. June Grasso is
Speaker 2: in studio joining us. No, you're ready, You're good, You're good, great, okay, great, Hi,
Speaker 2: thanks for joining you ran here. We appreciate you.
Speaker 1: Yes, thank you. Okay, So walk us through the importance.
Speaker 3: Well, obviously, the importance is that MEPhI pristone is the
Speaker 3: abortion drug that is most used excuse me, in this country,
Speaker 3: So putting restrictions on it would mean problems for a lot.
Speaker 1: Of women in this country.
Speaker 3: In this case, what the Supreme Court did, and this
Speaker 3: is not a surprise decision actually, because after the oral
Speaker 3: arguments in the case, it was pretty much telegraphed by
Speaker 3: the justices that they were going to go off. They're
Speaker 3: not talking about MIFHA pristone, they're not talking about abortion.
Speaker 3: What they're talking about is standing, which is a procedural thing, really,
Speaker 3: and it's a way sometimes for them to get out
Speaker 3: of cases, out of deciding the merits of the case
Speaker 3: by looking at the procedural elements.
Speaker 1: So here they said that the doctors who.
Speaker 3: Challenged it and the groups who challenged it didn't have
Speaker 3: standing because they weren't hurt in any way. One way
Speaker 3: they put it is like, you know, have a dog
Speaker 3: in the fight. So the doctors, they were trying to
Speaker 3: show that they had some injury. What was their injury
Speaker 3: that it was very speculative, you know, if someone came
Speaker 3: into an emergency room and needed an abortion, and it
Speaker 3: just was ridiculous. So at that point the justices all
Speaker 3: seemed to agree that they didn't have standing. So it's
Speaker 3: an off ramp. They haven't decided anything really about abortion.
Speaker 4: Okay, but this, for all intents, this settles The issue
Speaker 4: as it relates to this particular drug, is that the
Speaker 4: case is that where we are right now. I guess.
Speaker 3: I'm not sure because I think we'll see challenges to
Speaker 3: all kinds of abortion, you know, abortion pills and everything else,
Speaker 3: you know, because the lobby is so strong against it.
Speaker 3: So I'm not sure this ends it. This ends this
Speaker 3: particular challenge, but I don't know that it ends any
Speaker 3: challenge to mif for pristone. You know, they still have
Speaker 3: the base. They still have the base challenge, which is
Speaker 3: that the FDA didn't have the authority to put the
Speaker 3: for pristone on the market the way that it had
Speaker 3: through the you know, to get it through the mail
Speaker 3: and things. So I mean, I'm not sure they may
Speaker 3: be able to find a different group that has standing
Speaker 3: and you know, reassert the challenge, but you know, I'm trying.
Speaker 3: I don't know what group they would find.
Speaker 2: So if I just sort of break this down in
Speaker 2: Layman's terms, So the Biden administration made this drug more
Speaker 2: widely available, then the doctor said.
Speaker 1: We don't want this, we want more restrictions. Is that
Speaker 1: what this is one doctor through like one doctor's group.
Speaker 3: A doctor's group that is anti abortion, a conservative Christian
Speaker 3: doctor's group said challenged it, and I mean the way
Speaker 3: these things work is, you know, there are conservative organizations
Speaker 3: and conservative legal groups that go out and look for
Speaker 3: plaintiffs to find when they want to sue on something.
Speaker 3: So this group in particular sued in this case. Some
Speaker 3: states tried to intervene and the Supreme Court didn't allow that.
Speaker 3: So you know, states may be able to come forward
Speaker 3: and say this, this hurts are What they say is
Speaker 3: that this hurts our bottom line because we don't get
Speaker 3: to have, you know, different healthcare choices.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are all different ways.
Speaker 2: Because in the lower court ordered the FDA to impose
Speaker 2: restrictions on the pill that the agency was like, look,
Speaker 2: this is not necessary and these are things like you
Speaker 2: have to make an in person visit to your doctor
Speaker 2: before you.
Speaker 1: Get the pill.
Speaker 2: That is what is no longer there, right Like, that
Speaker 2: is what the Supreme Court ruled and said, nope, you
Speaker 2: can have this free access.
Speaker 1: Right now, I haven't read the case.
Speaker 3: I don't know if they sent this back to the
Speaker 3: Fifth Circuit or not, so I don't have the case
Speaker 3: in front of me. I'm sort of working in the
Speaker 3: dark here.
Speaker 1: I don't know if there's darkness better than us.
Speaker 3: Yeah, good. But I don't know if they send it
Speaker 3: back to the Fifth Circuit for more findings, because this
Speaker 3: came up from a Texas judge and the Texas judge
Speaker 3: had even more restrictions on it, and it went to
Speaker 3: the Fifth Circuit, they dial back some of the restrictions,
Speaker 3: and then it went to the Supreme Court. So when
Speaker 3: I get my hands on the opinion, I may be
Speaker 3: able to tell you more.
Speaker 1: Now, does this affect individuals? How does this affect individual states?
Speaker 2: And women in those states that no longer have access
Speaker 2: to MEPhI princetone.
Speaker 3: So you know it should individual states can do different things. Okay,
Speaker 3: so individual states are looking for a lot of different
Speaker 3: ways to penalize women who leave the state for abortions. So,
Speaker 3: but with MYFI pristone, because it comes through the mail,
Speaker 3: it's much easier.
Speaker 1: For women to get.
Speaker 3: And in fact, some organizations have been stockpiling MIFA pristone
Speaker 3: just in case anything happened with the Supreme Court. So
Speaker 3: what they'll be able to do, I mean, I think
Speaker 3: what this says is for right now, there's full access
Speaker 3: to MIFA pristone. I mean, the states have been ingenious
Speaker 3: in coming up with ways to try to stop abortion.
Speaker 3: I mean you've seen the different ways that they've tried,
Speaker 3: not only you know, to the point where women can't
Speaker 3: even get emergency medical care if they need an abortion.
Speaker 3: And that case is coming up, by the way, that
Speaker 3: Idaho case is coming up. Whether or not if a
Speaker 3: woman is not in fear of her life is not
Speaker 3: on the line, but perhaps some other things are on
Speaker 3: the line, perhaps her organs are in jeopardy or something
Speaker 3: like that, whether they have to give her an abortion
Speaker 3: if that's what is necessary, And that's coming up. That's
Speaker 3: an Idaho case that was heard late in the term.
Speaker 3: So there are ingenious ways to try to stop abortion.
Speaker 3: And I don't know for sure, but in.
Speaker 4: Reality, can can women in all fifty states get this
Speaker 4: via the mail?
Speaker 1: Yeah?
Speaker 4: Yeah, So I mean there's no and I'm not sure
Speaker 4: how is there practical ways you stop that.
Speaker 3: Well, there's an act that hasn't been there's an act
Speaker 3: that hasn't been the Comstock Act that hasn't been used
Speaker 3: for I don't know how long, and that some conservatives
Speaker 3: say that maybe the next avenue that you shouldn't send
Speaker 3: certain things through the mail, so that could be another
Speaker 3: way to attack it. As I said, I mean, I
Speaker 3: don't want this to be the end of the attacks, right,
Speaker 3: just think that it's just been shown that there's so
Speaker 3: many ingenious ways to I mean, this is the law
Speaker 3: you know you have we do you have one argument
Speaker 3: and it turns out there are ten arguments. So but
Speaker 3: this one. You know why it was easy for the
Speaker 3: Supreme Court I'll say easy in quotes, because they found
Speaker 3: an easy way to get out of it. They just said,
Speaker 3: and they do this a lot, right, people will say standing,
Speaker 3: what's standing?
Speaker 1: Standing?
Speaker 3: I had a professor that once said, you know, the
Speaker 3: ingeniousness of lawyers is that you can always find a
Speaker 3: way to turn it into a procedural argument. And that's
Speaker 3: what they do. And in this case, it was pretty
Speaker 3: easy because you didn't see any injury to doctors. What
Speaker 3: injury do they have?
Speaker 2: So you mentioned the Idaho case that's Moyle versus the
Speaker 2: US right and that issue. It seems like, does the
Speaker 2: federal law permit er doctors to perform abortions to preserve
Speaker 2: a woman's health even if stays outlawed that procedure? So
Speaker 2: this is to your point of like, can they save
Speaker 2: the woman or can they help the woman even if
Speaker 2: the state outlaws abortion altogether.
Speaker 3: So Idaho has a law that allows abortions if the
Speaker 3: woman's life is in jeopardy. The Biden administration came in
Speaker 3: and said no, because you're taking money from the federal government, right,
Speaker 3: we have the right to tell you that you have
Speaker 3: to also treat women who come to an emergency room.
Speaker 3: And it's not that their life is in jeopardy, but
Speaker 3: something else is in jeopardy.
Speaker 1: Their organs are in jeopardy. I mean different kinds of things.
Speaker 3: Right, I'm not a doctor, so I thank god I'm
Speaker 3: not a doctor, so I don't know what, but different
Speaker 3: kinds of things. And you have to treat that woman
Speaker 3: and give her an abortion, even if her life isn't
Speaker 3: in jeopardy. So that's the issue, and that case.
Speaker 1: I mean, there was a little more.
Speaker 3: I couldn't tell you how that case is going to
Speaker 3: come out because it wasn't as clear some of these cases.
Speaker 3: You know, we say, oh, we don't know what they're
Speaker 3: going to decide, but it's pretty clear what the going
Speaker 3: to decide. I don't know about the Idaho case how
Speaker 3: that's going to come down.
Speaker 4: So this particular ruling here is is it feels, just
Speaker 4: reading on some of the initial reporting, that it's kind
Speaker 4: of a technical lawyer type thing.
Speaker 1: Yeap procede, That's what I said.
Speaker 4: So, I mean it sounds like, as you mentioned earlier,
Speaker 4: that they can various scripts, can come back and approach
Speaker 4: this issue from other angles.
Speaker 3: Perhaps, as I said, it's ingenious the number of ways.
Speaker 3: I mean, it's sort of like if you remember affirmative action,
Speaker 3: and for many, many years affirmative action, it kept on
Speaker 3: getting you know, the protests to it or the challenges
Speaker 3: to it kept on getting rejected. And then there was
Speaker 3: this man who has who has students for fair admissions,
Speaker 3: and he kept fighting and fighting and fighting and waited
Speaker 3: until the Supreme Court turned more conservative, and then all
Speaker 3: of a sudden, the Supreme Courts you know, reversed itself
Speaker 3: and said, no, you know, we can't have affirmative actions.
Speaker 1: So I mean, that's what I mean.
Speaker 3: They have very well funded groups that are fighting abortion
Speaker 3: on every level, so I don't, you know, rule out
Speaker 3: the fact that there'll be other challenges to it.
Speaker 5: All.
Speaker 1: Right, Hey, June, thank you so much. She literally booked
Speaker 1: in here. We really appreciate that.
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: No, sorry, thank you, Yeah.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much. Jin Gretso Bloomberg joining us there.
Speaker 2: We all want to go to Madelein Meckelberg. She's a
Speaker 2: Bloomberg legal reporter. She also joins us on this news
Speaker 2: And remember, let's just recap here for a moment. The
Speaker 2: Supreme Court has ruled that there will be full access
Speaker 2: to mif A pristone abortion pill. Madeline, can you walk
Speaker 2: us through how this case unfolded?
Speaker 5: Hi, thanks for having me on to talk about this case. So,
Speaker 5: the Supreme Court this morning they overturned a decision from
Speaker 5: a federal appeals court that would have prevented mail order
Speaker 5: prescriptions for MIFA pristone. And this is the case that
Speaker 5: started in Texas.
Speaker 3: It was a.
Speaker 5: Conservative group they challenged access to the abortion pill, and
Speaker 5: we're seeking to have the original FDA approved of the
Speaker 5: pill rolled back. As the case moved through the courts,
Speaker 5: the Federal Appeals Court in New Orleans, that's the Fifth Circuit,
Speaker 5: they basically said they can't go back enough in time
Speaker 5: and undo the original FDA approval, but what they can
Speaker 5: do is turn back some of the more recent decisions
Speaker 5: which would have allowed the pill to be sent through
Speaker 5: the mail and used in a wider number of abortions.
Speaker 5: What the Supreme Court did today was say full access
Speaker 5: has to be preserved.
Speaker 4: So is this the final word for myth of pristone
Speaker 4: and its availability in this country or is it still
Speaker 4: perhaps at risk of some regulation.
Speaker 5: So I think we're still going to see some action
Speaker 5: on this. This case was on kind of a preliminary
Speaker 5: basis at this point, I think we could see it
Speaker 5: come back up again. And what the Supreme Court did
Speaker 5: today was not rule on the merits of the FDA's
Speaker 5: decision to approve myth of pristone. They blocked this lawsuit
Speaker 5: on standing. So they basically said that the individuals that
Speaker 5: brought the challenge they didn't actually have the right to
Speaker 5: sue because they couldn't demonstrate that the FDA's actions harmed
Speaker 5: them directly because federal law protects doctors from providing abortions
Speaker 5: if they have moral objections. So they said these people
Speaker 5: can't sue. But that does mean that there may be
Speaker 5: is a pathway for others to bring a lawsuit if
Speaker 5: they wanted to challenge the same thing.
Speaker 2: When does the Supreme Court term end? And what are
Speaker 2: some other big ones that our audience for Boomberg Intelligence
Speaker 2: Radio will be interested in.
Speaker 5: That's a great question. I know that we're waiting for
Speaker 5: at least one other abortion decision as it relates to
Speaker 5: emergency room access in Idaho. There are a couple of
Speaker 5: big Trump cases on the docket, so we've got a
Speaker 5: couple of weeks left where we're going to expect to
Speaker 5: see some decisions, and we'll be keeping an eye.
Speaker 4: Out, Madlin. How unexpected was this ruling given the makeup
Speaker 4: of the court today.
Speaker 5: I think it's definitely if you're looking just at the makeup,
Speaker 5: this is a surprising decision given what we know about
Speaker 5: this court that is the same one that overturned Roe v.
Speaker 2: Wade.
Speaker 5: But when there was a hearing on this case in March,
Speaker 5: we definitely got a sense from justices that they were
Speaker 5: skeptical about the standing issue that was raised in this lawsuit.
Speaker 5: So while broadly speaking, this is kind of surprising for
Speaker 5: this court based on this case specifically and what we
Speaker 5: heard from justices previously, it's in line.
Speaker 2: We were talking to June about the other abortion case
Speaker 2: that's coming to the fore as well, Moile versus the US,
Speaker 2: and that really centers around Idaho's abortion van considering whether
Speaker 2: a federal law that requires hospitals to provide stabilizing emergency
Speaker 2: care Trump's any abortion restrictions. Does this give us any
Speaker 2: roadmap for that case.
Speaker 5: It's hard to say. There are really different questions. I
Speaker 5: think that what we know is that the Court is
Speaker 5: considering any abortion question that comes before it pretty carefully.
Speaker 5: In light of this road decision that sought to return
Speaker 5: things to the state. These are two examples where we're
Speaker 5: seeing them having to deal with the consequences of that
Speaker 5: decision and them weighing in on these regulations. They're kind
Speaker 5: of different issues, but I think that we can expect
Speaker 5: to see maybe some nuanced perspectives from the court on this.
Speaker 4: All right, madam, thank you so much. We appreciate that.
Speaker 4: Madelin Meckelburgh, legal reporter for Bloomberg News. She's based in Austin, Texas,
Speaker 4: and it's just you know, when you get a piece
Speaker 4: of news like this coming across it maybe is not
Speaker 4: in our typical remit. We have some experts literally around
Speaker 4: the corner in June Grass, so literally a phone call
Speaker 4: away in Madeleine Meckelburg to help us understand what which.
Speaker 1: We very much appreciate.
Speaker 4: Which we very much appreciate, makes it sound a lot smarter.