Asked if he believes the Supreme Court should limit the distribution of a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed — Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy said he agrees the court should rule on the power of the Food and Drug Administration.
The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider a case that concerns restricting access to the drug mifepristone. When coupled with another drug, it is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.
The Biden administration and a manufacturer of the drug are asking the justices to reverse a federal appeals court decision that, if allowed to go into effect, would restrict access to the drug. At the same time, groups and doctors that oppose abortion want the justices to go even further than a conservative federal appeals court did and hold that the initial 2000 approval of the drug was also unlawful.
“This is a case about administrative law. This is less about the abortion question and it's more about, did the FDA exceed the scope of its statutory authority when it approved mifepristone on the emergency basis?” Ramaswamy said.
Pressed by CNN’s Abby Phillip on if the court should ban mifepristone, Ramaswamy said it should “put the FDA back in its place” and the Supreme Court should rule on the law that approved the drug in the first place.
Asked to clarify if that meant the drug would be banned nationwide as a result, Ramaswamy said, “I believe it will result in mifepristone being taken off the market until they go through the process that’s ordained for every other drug that doesn’t go through emergency approval.”
Some context: Mifepristone was initially approved by the FDA in 2000, but in 2016, 2019 and 2021, the FDA put in place modifications that would make the drug more easily accessible. Those modifications were related to issues such as dosing and in-person dispensing requirements. The changes also allowed the drug to be taken later in pregnancy.
Challengers – including doctors and groups who oppose abortion — argue that the FDA did not do enough to study the safety implications of the drug when it approved its use and made it more easily accessible in subsequent years.