The ongoing lawsuit seeking to ban the abortion pill mifepristone in the United States has predominantly focused on issues of drug safety and the approval process.
However, the ultimate decision may hinge on a different matter altogether: whether the doctors involved, including Ingrid Skop, an anti-abortion physician from Texas, have the right to sue in the first place.
Lawsuit Over Abortion Pill Ban Centers on Doctors’ Right to Sue
The concept of standing, a legal principle that requires plaintiffs to demonstrate they have suffered harm or face imminent injury attributable to the defendant, comes into play.
In this case, the defendant is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), responsible for approving the pill in 2000.
The contentious issue of abortion rights has regained national attention following last year’s US Supreme Court decision to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion nationwide.
Since then, 14 states have enacted near-total bans on abortion.
Along with 10 other doctors, submitted their testimony when the case began in November.
Skop argued that her professional duties were adversely affected by the FDA’s expansion of mifepristone access, as she encountered complications from the drug in the emergency room where she treated numerous women.
She contended that this diversion impacted her primary practice of caring for women in labor and might force her to perform elective abortions, infringing upon her conscience rights as a doctor.
Read more: Virginia’s Summer P-EBT Benefits For School-Age Children
Doctors’ Right to Sue and the Implications for Future Challenges
Some legal experts argue that Skop’s rationale and that of the other doctors involved do not meet the threshold for standing, as the alleged harm is too far removed from the FDA’s approval of the pill.
They warn that accepting the plaintiffs’ argument could set a precedent where emergency room doctors could sue over almost any regulation that affects their workload, ranging from gun control to alcohol regulations to teen driving restrictions.
Leah Litman, a professor at the University of Michigan Law School not involved in the case, emphasized that the plaintiffs have not sufficiently established standing and hope it will play a decisive role in the case’s outcome.
Representing the plaintiffs, attorney Erin Hawley from the Alliance Defending Freedom legal organization asserts that abortion sets this case apart.
She claims that doctors are being compelled to participate in emergency situations that make them feel complicit in terminating the lives of unborn children without any medical necessity.
Read more: AI Tool Advancement: Accelerating Dementia Diagnosis
