Major breaking news over
the United States Supreme Court
right now.
CNN's Jessica Schneider
is on the scene for us.
What are you learning, Jessica?
Well, Wolf, the Supreme Court
has just handed down
their decision
on the application for that
stay requested
by the Biden administration.
And it is, in fact,
a win for the Biden administration.
The FDA, the Supreme Court here saying
that all of those restrictions
that the Fifth Circuit had wanted
to put on the abortion pill.
They're saying that
all of those restrictions
will not take effect.
So it will continue to be status quo
for mifepristone
in the way it's administered
while the appeals process
plays out in the Fifth Circuit.
This is something we've you know,
this is the third time
the Supreme Court has issued
something related to this case.
It took a little longer.
We were expecting something
perhaps on Wednesday.
And here we are Friday night.
And we're
now seeing
that the reason
it took a little bit longer than expected
is because there was a dissent
from this from Justice
Clarence Thomas
and then also a dissent from Justice
Samuel Alito.
Justice
Alito did
write about four pages of dissent
saying why
he would have let those restrictions
go into effect,
why a stay he believed wasn't warranted.
But the takeaway here is that,
you know, this will help the FDA.
The FDA had warned of chaos and confusion
if the stay had not been continued,
if the stay had not been granted
by the Supreme Court.
So now things will remain, as it's been
for the past weeks and months and years
as this case continues
to play out in the lower courts,
because the lower court here,
the Fifth Circuit, has really fast
tracked this appeal.
They have set a very fast
briefing schedule.
Oral arguments
will be in less than a month on May, 17th
so the underlying issue in this case
as to
whether the FDA went through the proper
procedures to grant approval
for mifepristone.
That case will play out
while everything else is on hold.
So it will be status
quo for this drug until the
the Fifth Circuit,
I'm sorry,
can actually hear these arguments
and then make a decision.
But, Wolf,
it is very likely
that this is not the last time
the Supreme Court
will weigh in on this
after the arguments play out
and are decided in the Fifth Circuit.
It is very likely
that either
party, the party
that loses, will appeal
this to the Supreme Court.
But for now,
a win for the Biden administration
and all things
stay status quo, meaning
women can continue
to access this abortion pill as they have
previously Wolf.
Very significant news indeed.
I want to bring in Joan Biskupic,
who studies
the Supreme Court
for us, knows a lot about it.
Give us your reaction, Joe.
I think this is a really important
signal from the Supreme Court
that we are
in a different kind of lawsuit now.
This is much different than what happened
last June
when the justices rolled back
constitutional abortion rights,
but said that abortion
could still be legal in the states
that so chose.
And if they had gone
in any other direction here,
it would have been backtracking
on their promise of states
being able to do what they wanted.
And one thing I would
stress here is the lower court
judges who acted in this case
were really out on the outer limits here.
They were going
beyond what the Supreme Court
had had said back in June.
Judge, because Merrick, the
who heard the case
originally in Amarillo, Texas,
had really imposed his own moral
and policy decisions here.
I mean,
he acknowledged that he was second
guessing the FDA.
And he acknowledged
he used language that certainly showed
where he stood relative
to abortion rights
straightly against them.
And then the original appellate court
that had
affirmed a portion of that decision
had also shown
that it was willing to engage
in essentially a policy analysis
by putting itself
into the shoes
of the FDA
and its own scientific determinations.
And the Supreme Court has pulled back.
You know, again, as Jessica said,
we don't know what will eventually happen
when it resolves the merits of this case.
But I think what we're seeing now
from the Supreme Court
at this
point is
they are not going to try to extend
kind of this aggressive anti-abortion
movement against what states individually
want to do
and against a federal agency
that approved this drug
dating back to the year
2000 has done its own
scientific determinations
about its safety and effectiveness.
It's not in a position to second
guess that at this crucial
but still temporary pointed the case.
Steve Vladeck, I'm anxious to get your
reaction as well. Go ahead.
Yeah.
Hey, Wolf.
I think John has it exactly right.
And I would just
add, you know,
I think this actually isn't
that big of a surprise
because of the chaos
we would have seen
at midnight tonight
if Judge
Merrick long had gone into effect.
It's not the court
telling us how they might rule eventually
if the question of mifepristone access
reaches them in a normal appeal.
It's not the court saying,
you know, we disagree
necessarily with the reasoning below,
but it is the court saying
that when we balance the equities,
when we look at the potential harm
of letting this decision go into effect,
while the appeal works its way
through the courts
versus keeping it on hold,
that that seems to be very
one sided here.
Critically,
I think this is an important point.
The case now
will proceed
in the Fifth Circuit,
in the federal appeals court
in New Orleans.
And one of the things
we ought to keep an eye on
is whether that court now
looks at tonight's ruling
and says the writing's on the wall,
whether that court actually
is now more skeptical of Judge Kavanaugh.
It's related,
such that
this case
might never even come back
to the Supreme Court
Either way, the headline
for right now
is that mifepristone
access tomorrow is going to be the same
as it was yesterday,
but that's not going to change
any time soon.
And that the appellate process
is not going to run its normal
as opposed to chaotic emergency course.
Elizabeth Cohen is
our senior medical correspondent.
So what does this mean, Elizabeth,
for women and health care providers,
for that matter, here
in the United States?
So, Wolf, I think we can hear
OB-GYNs across the country
breathing a sigh of relief
that this has happened
this way, that for at least a certain
period of time,
they will be able to use mifepristone.
This is a drug that they use
to take care of women
who are having miscarriages,
who are having abortions.
And it is
it has been shown for 20 years,
20 years to be safe.
In fact,
fewer deadly
side effects
than penicillin, fewer than Viagra.
And now they can keep using it.
If this decision had gone the other way
and they weren't allowed
to give mifepristone,
they would have given the other drugs
that this is used with.
It's called might a possible.
They would have had to have used that
on its own.
And that is an inferior treatment.
So talking to doctors
for the past few weeks,
they said,
why in the world
when I want to give my patients
and inferior treatment
that I know
is going to put them at a higher risk
for having
what could be
potentially serious complications?
I should be giving my patients
the best treatment treatment
that's been studied in clinical trials
and approved by the FDA.
So I think there will be
a feeling of great relief,
but also a bit
of a feeling of trepidation.
All right.
What happens after this certain
period of time?
What might change in the future?
Well,
we'll see what happens
down the road, Dana.
Dana Bash is still with us.
Dana, talk
a little bit
about the politics of all of this
and how big of a win
this is for the White House
and for Democrats, for that matter.
Well, it absolutely is a big win.
That's exactly how Jessica Schneider,
when she broke the news, described it.
But Elizabeth talked
about the sigh of relief in India
among obstetricians across the country.
I think that there is definitely
a sigh of relief
that is much less
audible, much more private
among Republicans
and all you need to do is
look at how Republicans
who are either on Capitol Hill
or more specifically,
those who are vying to be the Republican
presidential nominee
have had a lot of trouble
figuring out where to stand
on this issue,
because it's the question of being
sort of anti-abortion
is one thing,
but also being for states
rights is another.
And what the Supreme Court did,
at least for the time being,
is allowed them to continue with it
if they so choose
that consistent argument
that it is up to the states
to deal with abortion
and it should not be a federal decision
to just completely do away
with this medication, which is Elizabeth
just said
has been proven time and time again
for two decades.
To be quite safe
not just for abortion,
but for other medical issues
like dealing with women
who have miscarriages.
And Steve Vladeck,
I saw you nodding, so go ahead.
Give us your thought.
No, I mean, I think that's right.
I mean, I think both.
But the other side
and what Elizabeth said is exactly right.
And, you know,
I think what this really does
is this reminds us of the difference
between how this kind of litigation
is supposed to go
and how it's increasingly going
the way that the legal system
has been acting
in the last couple of years.
It's not normal, Wolf,
for us
to be having these kinds of late
Friday night
fire drills where we're worrying about
in 5 hours is nationwide access
to this vital medication
going to be entirely disrupted.
And so I think it's another possible way
of looking at tonight's rule in that
the Supreme Court, rather
than necessarily
signaling a view
on the crystal question specifically,
is absolutely signal
a view on sort of
letting this work its way
through the courts.
Without disrupting the entire
health system in the process.
You know,
I think that's a return to normal
predictability, as Elizabeth says,
for medical providers
it creates
maybe some more political predictability.
And frankly, Wolf, from my perspective,
it's really a much more realistic
and I think even keeled way.
Right.
For the legal system
to be handling these kinds of disputes.