�������ýҕ�l

Abortion rights supporters expressed relief on Friday after the U.S. Supreme Court preserved access to a widely used abortion pill but warned of a long fight ahead as a legal challenge to the medication continues. The move by the court to halt new restrictions on the drug set by lower courts was welcome news less than a year after its conservative majority upended U.S. abortion access by overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that had legalized abortion nationwide. (Bernstein, 4/24)

President Joe Biden pledged to continue fighting “politically-driven attacks on women’s health” after the Supreme Court on Friday preserved access to a widely-used abortion drug until a lower court rules on the legal fight. (Sink and Rozen, 4/21)

The court’s order seemed to vindicate a commitment in last year’s decision in Dobbs: to leave further questions about abortion to the political process. (Liptak, 4/22)

For patients, there’s been confusion “about whether or not they can access their appointments,” said Dr. Becca Simon, a family medicine doctor in Pennsylvania who provides abortions. “We’re trying to just calm people.” ... Doctors and clinic operators worry that the decision earlier this month by a federal judge in Texas blocking the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the medication — and media coverage about it — have led some people to question the drug’s safety. “The language in the opinion that was used is very, very disturbing,” said Texas OB-GYN Dr. Ghazaleh Moayedi. (Ungar, 4/21)

The court’s action Friday almost certainly will leave access to mifepristone unchanged at least into next year, as appeals play out, including a potential appeal to the high court. The next stop for the case is at the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, which has set arguments in the case for May 17. (Sherman, 4/21)

The federal judge who issued a nationwide ruling blocking the approval of a common abortion medication redacted key information on his legally mandated financial disclosures, in what legal experts described as an unusual move that conceals the bulk of his personal fortune. In his 2020 and 2021 annual disclosures, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk wrote that he held between $5 million and $25 million in “common stock” of a company – a significant majority of the judge’s personal wealth. The name of the company he held stock in is redacted, despite the fact that federal law only allows redactions of information that could “endanger” a judge or their family member. (Tolan and Chapman, 4/21)

The claim: “This case is about protecting women and girls from the dangers of chemical abortion drugs … The fact is these drugs are dangerous — 1 in 5 women will suffer a complication.” — Erica Steinmiller-Perdomo. Steinmiller-Perdomo is the attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom, the Christian legal group representing anti-abortion groups and doctors in the Texas lawsuit that seek to take the abortion pill mifepristone off the market. Politifact rating: False. (Putterman, 4/24)