On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected an effort by anti-abortion doctors to bar the mailing of the abortion pill mifepristone. The case presented a serious challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s authority to regulate medicines.
Biopharmaceutical companies and doctors organizations applauded the ruling but also warned that threats to mifepristone access are far from over.
Daphne Zohar, Seaport Therapeutics CEO:
“Today’s decision ensures patients and drug developers can rely on the rigorous FDA approval process as the scientific and trusted standard for drug approvals. Regulatory certainty is critical to ensuring that new medicines can make it from the lab bench to a patient’s bedside.”
Jim Stansel, general counsel of industry group PhRMA:
“We are pleased to see today’s decision from the U.S. Supreme Court which helps provide innovative biopharmaceutical companies the certainty needed to bring future medicines to patients.”
Evan Masingill, CEO of generic mifepristone maker GenBioPro:
“While the Supreme Court’s ruling maintains access to mifepristone for medical abortions, the threat to mifepristone’s well-established FDA approval and the FDA’s regulatory authority remains. We know politically motivated attacks from extremists against mifepristone will not end here.”
Jeremy Levin, Ovid Therapeutics CEO:
“[There] is no victory in a war that should never have had to have been fought. The mifepristone case … was an attempt to suppress women’s health, women’s rights and overturn the bedrock of the system that drives innovation. We need to be vigilant though, these radicals will continue their efforts to overturn women’s rights and innovation in the USA.”
John Maraganore, longtime biotech executive and investor:
“This is a huge win for the FDA and its authorities, for science and the importance of evidence over religious beliefs, and for women and their rights. Thank God!”
Bobby Mukkamala, American Medical Association president-elect:
“Efforts to second guess the FDA’s scientific judgment and roll back access to mifepristone were based on a sham case that not only lacked standing, but relied on speculative allegations and ideological assertions to undermine decades of rigorous scientific review … substantial evidence shows that restricting access to needed abortion care without justification carries a psychological, physical, and economic toll.”