Here’s what’s at stake in the Texas abortion drug case

WASHINGTON. On Wednesday, a federal judge heard arguments in a lawsuit that jeopardizes the nationwide availability of a popular abortion drug. The hearing comes as a conservative Christian group tries to overturn the federal approval of the drug mifepristone.

The two-pill combination of mifepristone and another drug is the most common form of abortion in the US, and the decision will affect both states that allow abortion and those that don’t. The case raised concerns about court transparency and so-called judge shopping.

Here is a look at some of the legal issues involved in this case:

Anti-abortion advocates who helped overturn Roe v. Wade filed a lawsuit in November asking a judge in Texas to overrule mifepristone’s approval.

Research shows that medical abortions are safe and effective, and they have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for over 20 years.

But the Alliance Defending Freedom group argued in a lawsuit that the FDA’s process was flawed regarding mifepristone. It also targets more recent changes that have made it easier to access the drug.

The lawsuit was filed in Amarillo, Texas, meaning it went to U.S. District Judge Matthew Kachsmaric, a former Christian law firm lawyer who had previously criticized Rowe. He was nominated by former President Donald Trump and confirmed despite fierce Democratic opposition.

According to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, medical abortion is the most common form of abortion in the US. It has become more affordable since the FDA has allowed it to be prescribed online and mailed. Demand continued as states began banning abortions after Rowe was lifted and more women traveled for access or searched for drugs online.

If Kaczmarik withdraws his approval of mifepristone, it could limit access to it throughout the country. Such a decision would be an unprecedented challenge for the FDA, which approved mifepristone in combination with a second pill, misoprostol, as a safe and effective method of terminating a pregnancy in 2000.

It would be “nothing less than a disaster,” the Democratic-led 22-state group said in court documents filed in the case. Another group of 22 Republican states filed briefs in support of the repeal. They argue that mail-order pills undermine their anti-abortion laws.

Kaczmarik is a federal judge, and one of the primary concerns of the US judiciary has always been to decide whether laws and policies are constitutional. This means that any judge hearing a case challenging federal law or policy can make a decision that will affect the entire country.

However, lawyers on both sides of the case can appeal the decision, and federal appeals courts can block or reverse the decision. In this case, the appeal will be filed with the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which also holds conservative views. He upheld Kaczmarik’s decision in another high-profile case requiring the Biden administration to continue Trump’s “Stay in Mexico” immigration policy. This decision was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

The case has also raised concerns about “judge buying,” a term for parties seeking to sue judges they believe are sympathetic to their cause. It’s a tactic used by groups across the ideological spectrum, but the number of cases filed before Kachsmarik and other Texas judges has raised concern among experts.

Kaczmarik scheduled the first hearing in the closely watched case in a conference call with lawyers. According to the court transcript, he also asked them “kindly” not to release the pending arguments.

He said he planned to postpone the public hearing until the evening before, which made it difficult for many to attend because Amarillo is hours away from major cities. Such a delay is highly unusual in the American judicial system, where notices of hearings are usually made public quickly and are often issued weeks or months in advance.

After the call was reported on the news, the hearing was made public one and a half days before the scheduled date.

The case may be decided at any time after the conclusion of the arguments. The decision against the FDA will almost certainly be quickly appealed by the Justice Department.

The decision to rescind the approval 20 years later is almost unprecedented, so it’s not clear what exactly will happen next and how quickly access can be restricted. Clinics and doctors prescribing the combination say that if mifepristone is removed, they will switch to misoprostol alone, another drug in the two-drug combination, which is slightly less effective.