Numerous media outlets erroneously reported the Supreme Court “ruled in favor” of access to the abortion pill mifepristone, but in reality the court dismissed the case without addressing the merits of pro-life activists’ argument, opening the door to future challenges.
The reports follow the conclusion of the FDA’s appeal to the Supreme Court against the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s (AHM) challenge to mifepristone’s approval. A U.S. District Court had suspended the approval, but the Supreme Court reversed their ruling.
Attorney Andrea Picciotti-Bayer, director of The Conscience Project, explained that the technical decision related to the parties legally involved, rather than the substance of the pro-life argument.
“In many respects I can understand and I appreciate the value [of] the main point of the opinion, which had nothing to do with the FDA shenanigans and everything to do with judicial restraint,” Picciotti-Bayer told The Federalist in an interview.
A variety of media outlets amplified the decision as “certainly a win” for abortion access, as claimed by Planned Parenthood Medical Officer Colleen McNicholas in an appearance on MSNBC.
An ABC affiliate reported in Washington, D.C., that the “Supreme Court rule[d] in favor of access to abortion pill,” billing the Court’s opinion as a setback for the pro-life movement.
The Washington Bureau of Fox 8 also called the ruling a victory for abortion advocates,” stating that the “Supreme Court rule[d] in favor of abortion rights.”
The ruling, however, was not a “blow for anti-abortion advocates” or a rejection of their objections to mifepristone, as reported by NBC.
Understanding of the case
