WASHINGTON — A Supreme Court rejection of a challenge to abortion pill mifepristone could hinge on how the justices assess “conscience objections” raised by doctors who do not wish to treat patients suffering from complications after taking the drug.
The court signaled during Tuesday’s argument that it could conclude that the plaintiffs — seven named doctors and associated anti-abortion groups — do not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit in part because their conscience objection arguments are lacking.
Several justices asked about the nature of the injury suffered by the doctors by the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions to lift restrictions on mifepristone, including one that allowed it to be accessed by mail.
Under well-established precedent, when people file a lawsuit they have to show that they have been injured and that their injury can be redressed by the person or entity they are suing.
But as justices pointed out, under federal law doctors can already raise a conscience objection in a situation in which they are asked to treat a patient in an abortion-related context.
“So I just want to be clear, the federal government’s position is that though a doctor would have conscience objections … it is your position that such doctors would have recourse to the conscience protections of federal law?” conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett asked Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, who represents the FDA.
“Yes, absolutely,” Prelogar responded. The conscience protections “shield a doctor who doesn’t want to provide care in violation of those protections,” she added.
Fellow conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh and liberal Justice Elena Kagan asked similar questions.
If the court were to conclude that the doctors can already bring conscience objections, there would be no need to rule on the bigger question of whether the FDA acted lawfully in lifting the restrictions.
“The questioning showed significant consensus that plaintiffs’ primary harm was…
Read the full article here
