🔖Landing Page: Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA

Access to all of rePro-Truth's coverage of the Mifepristone case

Next week, on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, at 10:00 am (ET), the United States Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will affect access to mifepristone nationwide. rePro-Truth has been covering important aspects of this case. This landing page compiles links to all of rePro-Truth’s coverage for you to explore and utilize.

🔊Listen to the oral arguments at the Supreme Court

📝 Arguments Transcript

✳️ Part 1: If case 'were about anything other than abortion,' plaintiffs would 'have no chance'

In this newsletter:

1. A very brief overview of the case

2. A list of the anti-abortion groups/individuals suing the FDA, including an overview of their affiliations

3. A time-line of the case.

✳️ Part 2: Mifepristone safety record 'beyond reproach'

In this newsletter:

1. Information about mifepristone 

2. The many different medical uses of mifepristone 

3. The safety record of mifepristone 

✳️ Part 3: Intent to deceive: The “Invent-Your-Own-Facts Approach”

In this newsletter:

1. Anti-abortion groups’ creation and use of pseudoscience to influence the courts

2. A brief discussion of the flaws of one of the key anti-abortion studies used in the lawsuit 

✳️ Part 4: Time-line: FDA 'exhaustively analyzed a massive body of evidence’ on mifepristone safety prior to regulation changes

In this newsletter: 

1. A time-line of the mifepristone regulations by the FDA

2. Explanations of key regulatory changes

3. In-text links to further explore the data supporting the FDA’s regulations of mifepristone

✳️ Part 5: 'Experts – not judges – are best equipped to determine' drug safety

In this newsletter: 

1. Why medical experts - not judges - must remain to be the authority in regulating medications

2. The likely consequences upon pharmaceutical innovation should the Supreme Court rule against the FDA

3. The likely politicization of other medications and therapies should the Supreme Court rule against the FDA

✳️ Part 6: Anti-mifepristone studies retracted by academic journal

In this newsletter: 

1. A list of three anti-abortion studies recently retracted over serious flaws, including two cited in the lawsuit

2. The reasons why the two studies cited in the lawsuit have been retracted by the academic publisher

✳️ Part 7: It was never about safety: Cracking the anti-mifepristone plaintiffs' advantageous façade

In this newsletter: 

The anti-abortion plaintiffs’ lawsuit, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, is disguised as a dispute over drug safety. In reality, the plaintiffs’ professed saccharine devotion to and cloying concern for the safety of women and girls are merely an advantageous façade. 

1. The plaintiffs’ desired supreme court ruling would triple the patient dose of a medication that the plaintiffs say is so dangerous that it should be severely restricted or pulled from the market altogether. 

2. Plaintiffs wish to deny stabilizing medical care to emergency room patients.

✳️ Part 8: Conscientious Malpractice

At the Supreme Court, the anti-abortion doctor group suing to ban mifepristone argued for the ability to refuse medical care to ER patients.

✳️ Part 9: Republican states want to raise the teen birth rate

Idaho, Kansas, and Missouri, in an attempt to keep the mifepristone lawsuit alive by joining the suit as plaintiffs, submitted a new court filing in which the states argue that mifepristone is “depressing expected birth rates” for teenage girls “in Plaintiff States,” which injures Plaintiff Sates by depriving said States of increases in population — as if teenage girls, which the States refer to as “teenaged mothers,” exist for the purposes of churning out new citizens for the States.