The majority of U.S.
Supreme Court
justices appeared this morning
skeptical of a nationwide ban
on a popular abortion pill.
Now, the high court today
hearing arguments
centered on mifepristone.
One of the two drugs widely
used to terminate early pregnancies.
It's also utilized to expel remaining
fetal tissue after a miscarriage.
Today's arguments
not only brought hundreds of protesters
on both sides of the issue
is also an incredibly rare event in which
the U.S.
Food and Drug Administration
and the pharmaceutical industry
very much on the same side of things.
This is the first abortion
related hearing
or was the first abortion related hearing
before the Supreme Court
since the conservative majority
eliminated the constitutional right
to abortion.
Nearly two years ago.
CNN's Paula Reid
is here to walk us
through the legal arguments.
And CNN's Meg Tirrell
will give us the medical facts and data.
Paul, to start with you.
Is it too early to say
this is shaping up to be a win
for abortion care advocates
based on what we heard this morning?
Well, based on what
we heard this morning, Phil,
it appears
the justices are going to be unlikely
to restrict access
to mifepristone for now.
A, During the oral arguments and justices
across the political spectrum
appeared skeptical that this group
that brought the lawsuit
even has standing or the right to do so.
This is a group of conservative
medical officials
and advocates,
all anti-abortion advocates
who argue that they may at some point
have to offer medical assistance or treat
someone who's had complications
from the A person.
And that's why they want to restrict
this broadened access to the drug.
But the government pushed back on that,
saying, look,
you haven't actually suffered a harm.
There's no imminent harm.
And there's also,
as some of the justices
pointed out as well,
federal religious exemptions
that you can avail yourself up.
Now, there's another issue
that Justice Gorsuch pointed out.
It's concern
about allowing a small lawsuit
to balloon into some national issue.
So we expect this decision in June,
which, of course, you know,
it'll be the heart of the
presidential campaign season.
Yeah, plenty of
politics involved,
at least outside the Supreme Court.
Explain to people,
how commonly is this drug used?
How does it actually work?
Yeah,
well, increasingly commonly,
we just got new data
showing that a
medication abortion
accounted for 63% of all abortions
accounted for in the formal health
care system in 2023.
There were more than a million abortions
in that year.
So that's more than 600,000 people
who access this medication.
It's a regimen
of two drugs, mifepristone.
And the one at issue here
in this case as well as misoprostol.
This has been approved
by the FDA
since 2000, up to ten weeks of pregnancy.
It is 95 to 98% effective.
It's also used,
as you mentioned,
for care for miscarriages.
Now, in terms of the safety,
which was a lot of
what's being discussed in this case,
studies have shown that there are 0.3%
risk of major complications
using medication. Abortion fails.
So this is a drug
that's been on the market
for 24 years in the United States.
And the record,
researchers say, is strong.
Yeah,
it's critical research as these arguments
and we await
a decision in the months ahead.
Paula Reed, Meg Tirrell,
thank you both very much.
And joining us now
is the president
and CEO of Planned Parenthood,
Alexis McGill.
Johnson, we appreciate your time
this morning.
I want to start where Meg left off,
this case
brought by a group
of anti-abortion doctors that claimed
the first stone is a danger to women.
I want you to listen to how Erin Hawley
described things after the oral argument.
She's a senior counsel
arguing against mifepristone.
Without question,
the FDA's actions have made
taking chemical abortion drugs less safe.
Today, I argued before the United States
Supreme Court on behalf of doctors
and medical associations
who have witnessed these harms firsthand.
The FDA violated federal law
and its duty to keep women safe.
Alexis,
is your organization
or health care providers
that you work with documented
any persistent
or dangerous side
effects of mifepristone?
No.
Josh And look, I mean,
the reality is that we know through
multiple studies
that the FDA
has conducted and been privy to,
that if a person has been used safely
and effectively by over
5 million people in the United States
alone for over 20 years,
70% of Planned
Parenthood patients
choose to use mifepristone
for their abortion care in.
And I think what the you know,
I happened to be in the
in the courtroom today,
which was an incredible honor to hear
the argument
and also to really see
how much the justices were struggling
with the
very hypothetical nature
of the plaintiffs argument for standing
and how that would balance with a remedy
that would,
in essence, effect
all people across the country,
not just in states
where abortion bans
are currently restricting access
to mifepristone,
but in states like New York
and California
and Illinois
that many people
across the entire country
have come on
come to
rely on medication,
abortion for their health care.
And I just
I think it was very,
very surprising,
even now and jarring,
quite frankly, to hear.
The plaintiff's attorney tried to make
an argument once again that they would be
her plaintiffs would be subject to harm
when in fact it is the abortion bans
that have resulted from the Dobbs
decision that, in fact,
are really harming the patients.
And also,
I believe, the providers as well.
So when you walked out of the courtroom
earlier today,
it seems like you were confident
that this case will break your way
when the decision comes.
I felt confident on the arguments.
I felt confident with the questions
and the skepticism that was
that was raised, as I just put.
And I also,
you know,
and so really reminded that
this is the same court
that delivered Dobbs.
This is the same court
that was a conservative supermajority
that was appointed by former
President Trump, who is in self
proclaimed interest
in seeing a national abortion ban.
And that continues to concern me
and I think concerns
should concern us all.
So while I think the
the lack of standing
that seemed to be apparent
through questioning
and the lack of real
and any discussion around the merits,
because the science,
I think, was so convincing,
you know,
it should give us some
some measure of security,
but that only is when we are in
a in a system and a structure
with a
with a court that,
you know, quite frankly,
you know,
I think has
has has demonstrated
that it is willing to go outside
of those various notions
in its rulings.
We only have about 10 seconds left,
but you mentioned that the presumptive
Republican nominee.
Do you feel like this
issue will be a determining factor
in the 2024 campaign?
Oh, it already is, John.
I mean, we are
we have seen abortion
rights be on the ballot
since the Dobbs decision
in earnest nationally.
As you know,
every state where we have had
abortion ballot initiatives.
Reproductive freedom is one.
And we will continue
to fight to make sure that happens.
Alexis McGill, Johnson,
we appreciate your time today.
Thank you. You.