Indiana, other states seeking SCOTUS amici status in COVID-19 chemical abortion case

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The office of Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill is asking the United States Supreme Court for permission to intervene in abortion litigation seeking to uphold chemical abortion procedures during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hill, Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry and eight other states on Friday filed a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in Food and Drug Administration, et al. v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, et al. In the case, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is seeking to require abortion clinics to follow standard procedures for chemical abortions during the pandemic.

 Last month, Indiana, Louisiana and nine other states filed an amicus brief supporting the FDA’s motion for a stay pending appeal after a district court lifted certain medication-assisted abortion drug regulations. Specifically, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ruled that the FDA must suspend several of its normal rules during the pandemic — including a requirement that mifepristone, an abortion drug, be dispensed only in a clinic, medical office or hospital.

A federal appeals court denied the motion to stay.

Indiana, Louisiana and other states have laws similar to the FDA protocol at issue, but they have previously been denied formal entry into the case as parties, Hill’s office said in a Monday news release. As a result, the states are now asking to participate as amici curiae.

“The rules governing chemical abortions are designed to protect women’s health,” Hill said in a statement. “They are fully enforceable and safe to follow during the current pandemic. Federal courts should not use COVID-19 as an excuse to interfere with the FDA’s long-established and well-considered procedures.”

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}