[music]

Brigid Bergin: It's the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. I'm Brigid Bergin, senior reporter in the WNYC in Gothamist Newsroom, filling in for Brian today. On today's show, we'll talk about a proposal for how the city might fill the thousands of open municipal jobs. Plus, speaking of jobs, for women's history month, we're hearing from women who work in industries that have traditionally been male dominated. Today we'll talk to women in the trades, women plumbers, construction workers, and electricians, we want to hear from you. The head of Irish Art Center will be here for a little pre-Saint Patrick's Day celebration of Irish culture.

First, nationwide access to one of the most common drugs used for medical abortions may rest in the hands of a Trump appointed judge in Texas. It all stems from a lawsuit filed last year by a coalition of anti-abortion medical groups and doctors. They sued the Food and Drug Administration back in November saying the FDA should never have approved the drug, Mifepristone. It's generally been used as part of a two drug protocol to end pregnancies in the first trimester, which is the first 13 weeks of pregnancy. Yesterday, attorneys for the Justice Department were in accord in Amarillo, Texas on behalf of the FDA, along with attorneys for the anti-abortion advocates.

There's a lot going on with this case in terms of what it means for reproductive healthcare in the aftermath of the US Supreme Court's decision last summer of returning Roe v. Wade and the restrictions that could be placed on deep blue pro-choice places like right here in New York by federal judges across the country. Joining me now to explain more about this case and what happened in yesterday's hearing and what that means for your ability to access reproductive healthcare is NPR's national correspondent Sarah McCammon who is in Texas this morning. Good morning, Sarah. Welcome to WNYC.

Sarah McCammon: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Brigid: Let's start with what happened at yesterday's hearing. What was it all about? Who was there and what are they asking the judge to do?

Sarah: Well, as you would expect with a hearing, there were-- Both sides had two hours each to present their case. This case centers around a lawsuit filed by a coalition of anti-abortion groups, their medical groups and individuals who oppose abortion rights. What they're asking, the food and drug or what they're asking the judge to do is to order the Food and Drug administration, essentially to take mifepristone off the market. We should explain that mifepristone was approved by the FDA more than 20 years ago. Many major medical groups say it's very safe, has a long track record now having been used by millions of people of safe and effective use.

This group is challenging the approval process, the way the FDA approved it, as well as some subsequent rule changes surrounding the regulation of mifepristone since 2000 when it was first approved. They had a chance to make their case. Lawyers for that group are represented which is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a conservative legal group based in DC, they made their case and the lawyers with the Department of Justice argued on behalf of the FDA who point to, again, the long history of widespread use of this drug as evidence of its safety.

Brigid: Sarah, you're a reporter, not a doctor, but can you just tell us a little bit more about how mifepristone works and why it's become so commonly used in these medical abortion procedures?

Sarah: Sure. Well, what it is essentially a progesterone blocker and progesterone is a critical hormone produced by the female body. It sustains pregnancy and without it, a pregnancy cannot progress. According to the protocol approved by the FDA back in 2000, when a person initiates a medication abortion usually under the FDA protocol, with the help of a physician, they begin by taking the first pill, which is mifepristone, that stops that progesterone, stops the pregnancy from progressing. That is followed by another pill. It's similar sounding, but it's called misoprostol and it's very different.

What misoprostol does is essentially bring on contractions, bring on the end of the pregnancy. The patient takes several of those misoprostol pills, and we can get into this later if you want, but there is another protocol used across much of the world that's just misoprostol. However, when you use mifepristone, it has a higher efficacy record. It's a little bit more effective. Doctors tell me, generally more comfortable for the patient, less intense cramping, less intense bleeding sometimes and just more predictable that how the process will play out.

It's the gold standard. Using that mifepristone pill first as the gold standard in the United States. According to the Guttmacher Institute, 98% of medication abortions involved mifepristone as of a couple of years ago. It's used in the vast majority of medication abortions here. It's also worth knowing that more than half of abortions in the US are now medication abortions. This is a very important drug for many people who are choosing to terminate a pregnancy and I should say it's approved for within the first trimester up to about the first 10 weeks.

Brigid: Sarah, you said this already, but I really want to put a fine point on it. This hearing is not related to questions over the drug safety, correct?

Sarah: Well, it is in the sense that the plaintiffs, this coalition of anti-abortion groups called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, they are challenging many, many aspects of the way the FDA approved the drug. Again, some of the changes that have been made over the years. Without getting too into the weeds, this pill has been controversial and politically fraught since it was first approved and it took several years to get it approved. There was a lot of opposition at the time from anti-abortion groups.

There has continued to be, and over the years, as more and more patients have used it and the safety information has become more certain, the FDA has made some changes to some of the rules surrounding dispensation of the drug. When it was first approved, there were many layers of rules on top above and beyond a typical prescription drug. Those involve things like how it's dispensed, who can dispense it, where it can be dispensed. Over the last couple of years, the Biden administration in particular has lifted some of those, although not all, and the plaintiffs are taking issue with all of those actions, there are about six different things that they're objecting to.

They argue that the drug is not safe. They point to complications and examples of women coming into emergency rooms with cramps and bleeding after taking the drug. Now, it's important to understand, that is part of the process of taking a drug like this. It terminates a pregnancy, it induces essentially a medically induced miscarriage, so that's what happens. There's been a lot of concern expressed by these anti-abortion groups about the safety of women. Doctors I talk to say, if it's prescribed correctly, if the patient is counseled properly, if she understands where she is in her menstrual cycle, it can be very, very safe.

There are complications sometimes that does occur, that occurs with any drug. Major medical groups, as I mentioned, including the American Medical Association and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists have been calling for years for easy access to this pill, pointing to the safety record and so the overwhelming consensus among the medical community is that it is safe, not a hundred percent safe but it has a very strong safety rating and that's what the FDA of course is arguing as well.

Brigid: Listeners, we want to bring you into this conversation. Do you have a question about this case, what it means about access to mifepristone going forward? Are you concerned about other aspects of your healthcare that might be threatened by a decision like this? Or do you have another question for my guest, NPR's Sarah McCammon? Give me a call at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692, or tweet @BrianLehrer. Sarah, I want to take a moment to talk about the judge in this Texas case. This is a federal court in Texas. I said in the intro that he was a Trump nominated judge. Who is he and what is his background?

Sarah: His name is Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. He's a federal judge based here in Amarillo, where I still am today after yesterday's hearing. He was appointed by former President Trump, who as you may recall in addition, there was a lot of focus on the Supreme Court. In addition to putting three conservative justices on the US Supreme Court, former President Trump during his time in office, appointed quite a number of lower court judges including federal judges like Matthew Kacsmaryk. Kacsmaryk has a long history of ties to conservative activists.

He worked for a time for a conservative Christian legal firm in Texas. Since becoming a federal judge, that has played out just recently, just last year he sided with a father, a man who cited his Christian faith in objecting to the Title X Family Planning Program. That's a federal family planning program that provides contraception and reproductive healthcare for lower-income people. He filed a lawsuit objecting to the provision of birth control to minors without parental consent. He said that the possibility that his daughters, his teenage daughters, could get birth control without his knowledge and consent violated his religious beliefs.

That case is still unfolding, but the judge sided with him in that case. Legal experts as well as reproductive rights advocates I've talked to accuse the plaintiffs in this case, this abortion pill case, of judge shopping. Liz Sepper, who's a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, says because of the way that the judicial system works here, the federal courts work here in Texas, by filing in Amarillo, they were virtually guaranteed to get Judge Kacsmaryk who they believe would be favorable to their cause.

Brigid: Can you talk about what he could decide to do in this case?

Sarah: There's a wide range of possibilities, and some of it gets technical really fast. What the plaintiffs want him to do is to immediately order that the FDA pull the drug off the market nationwide. That would mean at a minimum that the FDA says, this drug is no longer approved by us for prescription, for medication abortion. How exactly that would play out is not totally clear. There are a couple of different ways he could do that, too. He could initiate essentially a formal withdrawal process or order the FDA to initiate one. There's an existing process, as I understand it, for taking drugs off the market that involves public comment.

It would take some time or he could take a more immediate action and force its removal right away. Now, I talked to one lawyer with the ACLU in Texas yesterday, and he said that it's even unclear what that would mean, though. Who would it apply to? Would doctors have to immediately stop prescribing it? Would pharmacies who may still have it have to stop providing it? Those are just certified pharmacies. There's still some restrictions in place for who can dispense it but would those who are licensed to dispense it be able to continue dispensing it while they have it?

There are a lot of unanswered questions and abortion providers I've talked to around the country say they're preparing to switch to that other regimen I talked about, misoprostol alone if they need to. There are also some other half-measures the judge could take. He could simply roll back or re-institute some of the rule changes that the Biden administration made. I mentioned the Biden administration has made it a little easier to get the drug, for example allowing it to be shipped through the mail. That was a pandemic-era policy that was initially going to be temporary.

Then the Biden administration in 2021 made that change permanent and said these drugs can now be prescribed by providers and sent in the mail, which made it a lot easier for people to get them. He could roll that, we'll change back. There's a wide range of ways this could go and ways it could play out. Everyone I've talked to said when the decision is issued, whatever it says, they'll be reading it very closely and just trying to figure out what it means for not just the FDA, but drug makers, pharmacies, prescribers, and of course for patients.

Brigid: You're listening to the Brian Lehrer Show. I'm Brigid Bergin from the WNYC and Gothamist Newsroom filling in for Brian today. I'm speaking with NPR's Sarah McCammon about a really important case coming out of Texas that could have national implications for access to reproductive healthcare and specifically the drug, Mifepristone. We want to hear from you.

Any questions that you have about this case and the implications for it beyond Texas, give us a call at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692, or Tweet @BrianLehrer. Sarah, I'm curious about the scene at the hearing yesterday. I heard that access was somewhat restricted. I would've thought, given the national implications that it could have drawn really huge crowds. What was it like?

Sarah: Access to the hearing was pretty contentious to begin with, Brigid. First of all, the Washington Post reported over the weekend that Judge Kacsmaryk had privately scheduled the hearing for Wednesday morning during a meeting, I believe on Friday of last week but had asked the lawyers involved in the case to be discreet. He hadn't put a gag order on them, but he asked them to keep it close to the vest. He cited security concerns, concerns about protests because of the high-profile nature of this case. That information leaked out in a group of media organizations on Monday.

Sent a letter to the court, essentially demanding that they publicized this information as soon as possible. The information about the hearing, the details, time, location, everything was posted to the public docket on Monday not even 48 hours before the hearing was scheduled. That made it tough to get here for a lot of people. For journalists for sure, we were flying in on Tuesday, most of us. The hearing was at 9:00 AM local time on Wednesday. Amarillo is hours from the major cities, it's hours from Dallas or Houston and not an easy place to get to on short notice.

That was compounded by the fact that the judge denied a request from a watchdog group, a public interest watchdog group to livestream the proceedings. They were streamed to an overflow room in Dallas, but that was only for those people who could make it to that room. It was not broadcast publicly, no recording was allowed. Really, until the transcript is released, the only way to know what was happening in that room was for those of us who could get in there to take notes by hand. No recording devices, nothing like that. Even with such a high-profile case, those were the rules.

A lot of other reporters and I were lined up outside the courthouse yesterday morning. I was there at 5:00 AM in the dark. We do our job. That's what we do. We waited for hours to be let in and about, I think it was 19 reporters and 19 members of the public were allowed in. There's a small courtroom, not a lot of space, and that was it. Right now the only information is what's been released by those of us who were in the room scribbling furiously for four hours.

Brigid: We're grateful for you, for being there, doing your job, and bringing us a view from inside that courthouse yesterday. I want to go to one of our callers. Let's go to Adam in North Woodmere. Adam, welcome to WNYC.

Adam: Hi, good morning. I've got a three-part question. I'm very confused here. I want to know whether or not there's a challenge that the plaintiffs don't actually have standing to bring the lawsuit, and how does the court have subject matter jurisdiction? Lastly, if the plaintiffs do prevail, what are the chances that the Circuit Court is going to stay or reverse this decision?

Sarah: The standing was a big part of the case. The first batch of arguments from the plaintiffs was about why they believe they do have standing. Erin Hawley is a lawyer with Alliance Defending Freedom. She also happens to be the spouse of Missouri Republican Senator, Josh Hawley. She argued that the reason her clients have standing, the doctors and the medical groups bringing the case is because they're affected. Their practice is affected by women coming in, needing follow-up care after taking mifepristone. Again, sometimes, according to the studies I've seen, over 96% of patients do not need follow-up care and the chances of a severe complication are tiny, less than 1%.

There are cases where people come in with either questions about what's going on or extended cramping and bleeding and may need a follow-up procedure, a surgical procedure. These doctors are claiming that they've been harmed by having to provide that kind of care, say if they're working in a hospital setting and a patient comes in, they say it's diverted time and energy and resources away from other things they would normally do and that they've had to participate in these abortions despite their deeply held religious beliefs. The FDA via the DOJ, of course, argues that that is not a valid argument for standing.

They say that the doctor's relationship to this drug is incidental and that that whole chain of events is speculative and relies on a patient being prescribed a drug by another doctor, being in the small percentage of people that has a need for follow-up care, having to come into this hospital emergency room hypothetically, and then being treated by a particular doctor who objects to it. There was a lot of discussion about standing. As far as subject matter jurisdiction, I'd have to ask you to clarify exactly what you're asking there. In terms of appeals, it's widely believed that whatever this judge decides, there will be an appeal.

It would go to the Fifth Circuit, which is known as a very conservative federal circuit. It's not clear exactly what they would do, and of course, it depends on what the ruling says. I think there's a decent chance this case ends up before the US Supreme Court. Not only because of the uncertainty around this ruling itself, but there's a competing case we could talk about in federal court in Washington that was brought by Democratic Attorney General, who are trying to actually, basically push in the opposite direction and make it easier to access mifepristone.

Brigid: Adam, if you want to really briefly clarify the question that Sarah asked you to explain again.

Adam: Sure. My question regarding subject matter jurisdiction, I don't understand how the court, this judge could have the knowledge to overrule the FDA since the FDA is the one that conducted numerous studies and came to a conclusion that the drug is effective and safe. It just seems arbitrary and capricious for a federal judge who knows nothing about this to suddenly based on one hearing come down and possibly make this drugs illegal for the purpose for which it's prescribed.

Brigid: Adam [crosstalk]

Sarah: This is a-- I'm sorry. Do you need to take a break, Brigid?

Brigid: Just after your answer, we'll do it right after that.

Sarah: Quickly. This is definitely something that's come up to some extent in the courtroom, but certainly in the analysis of this case. I've been hearing a lot of concerns about what this might mean on a larger scale for review of decisions by the FDA. Of course they're entrusted with a lot of decisions based on their scientific expertise. Could a judge undermine other decisions in the future if this judge is allowed to roll back access to this drug?

Brigid: My guest is NPR's Sarah McCammon, and we're talking about a case in Texas that could have major implications for access to medical abortions across the country and what's happening to reproductive care as a result. Sarah, not surprisingly, we have a lot of callers who want to talk to you. Let's go to Margaret in Manhattan. Margaret, welcome to WNYC.

Margaret: Good morning. I'm a labor and delivery nurse, and my concern is that this would affect doctor's access to the use of misoprostol to prevent maternal hemorrhage, which is a leading cause of maternal death, and it's one of the three drugs that doctors use routinely to prevent hemorrhage. I'm very concerned that this would affect doctor's access.

Brigid: Margaret, thank you for calling and for taking some time from what I'm sure is a very busy work to share that concern. Sarah, where does that concern fall in the context of this case?

Sarah: Margaret, first of all, thank you for your work. Labor and delivery nurses are amazing, having had two experiences with them, and you raise a really good point. misoprostol, which is not the focus of this case, but it is the second drug used in the FDA approved protocol, and it is the drug as I'd mentioned earlier, that in many parts of the world and to a small extent in the US is used alone by some people to induce abortion. It's also used for a lot of other purposes in gynecology which you could tell me much more about as a labor and delivery nurse. In circumstances like you described, and I've also been told by doctors, it's sometimes used for things like IUD insertion to ease that process and other uses.

From my reporting, the best thing I can understand is that this does not target misoprostol. I asked the plaintiff's lawyers that. They say they're focused on the FDA protocol, but that misoprostol or other uses, non-abortion purposes is not the focus and would not be affected. It's always impossible to predict what ripple effects might come from a decision or a rule change. I don't think the plaintiffs are looking for the judge to block access to misoprostol. One question I've had in my reporting is simply about supply. If the drug becomes more heavily relied upon for abortion, will that affect supplies for other purposes?

I don't know the answer to that. I think that's a question for the manufacturer. The abortion providers I've spoken to say they're taking steps to order it and be prepared to have it if they need it. It's also worth noting that basically when you take misoprostol alone, it's only, as I understand it, a couple more pills than when to substitute from mifepristone. It depends on the patient, depends on their body size and other factors, but it's not a massive change from what I've been told. I guess I have to say I can't fully answer that question. It's hard to know exactly what will happen, but again, this lawsuit is targeting mifepristone not misoprostol.

Brigid: Margaret, thank you so much for your call. Sarah, just when do we expect to hear the judge's ruling in this case?

Sarah: It could come anytime. Yesterday the judge said as he ended the hearing, that he would take all of this under advisement and would issue a ruling as soon as possible. Those are his words. I don't know how soon is as soon as possible. It could be today. He may take some time to write an opinion, but I think anytime is the short answer.

Brigid: With that, let's take another caller. We'll go to Monique in Terrytown. Monique, welcome to WNYC.

Monique: Hi. Thank you for taking my call. I come from that generation that saw abortion to be legal, safe and rare. My concern is, first of all on a safety issue, like any hormonal manipulation should be under some medical care and also long-term implications, but more importantly, the idea of rare. Because my concern is that this could be seen as a substitute for birth control, but more importantly, it's a really easy way and convenient way to cover up abuse of women, either it being rape or forced prostitution or all those other things that if there's a process, it can be uncovered. That's where, how are those ideas, I know they're bigger than just are those issues being addressed?

Sarah: Those are a lot of issues, but they're good questions and they're things that I hear about in my reporting as well. I'll try to just address a couple of them. First of all, I would say that the terminology around safe, legal and rare is controversial. It's among the abortion rights movement, there are some people who like that terminology and others who don't. There's been a movement, I think we all remember the Clintons using that terminology to talk about abortion, the modern abortion rights movement, there are segments of it that feel that that language is stigmatizing.

I think there's also an understanding by a lot of people that preventing unwanted pregnancies is always a good goal from a healthcare perspective. Prevention is always better than having to cure something. That's my sense of the political debate around that language. When it comes to a substitute for birth control and a concern about increasing abortion rate, I would just say that the trajectory for many years has been a downward trend in abortion, particularly over the last 15 to 20 years.

I'd have to check the exact timeline, but there's been a large uptick in use of long-acting contraception like IUDs, which are highly effective and lasts for many years, and women don't even have to think about them if they tolerate them, not everybody does, but interventions like that have helped to bring down the abortion rate. The teen pregnancy rate has gone down. We have seen a little uptick here and there in the last couple of years, and it's not entirely clear what that's due to, but the overarching trajectory is toward less unintended pregnancy and fewer abortions, which means that taken together.

I think there's some pretty good evidence that the Affordable Care Act, which required most insurers to provide low cost or free access to contraception, but that helps also increase the use of contraception among a lot of women. The overall trajectory seems to be that people are having fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions. Would this access to this pill change that? I think what abortion rights advocates tell me is that, this is an option for people who would maybe otherwise seek surgical care or in many cases maybe live in rural places, live in underserved areas and struggle with access to contraception and have found themselves pregnant for whatever reason.

There's a host of reasons why people seek abortions of course. Will it increase the abortion rate? I don't see evidence of that so far, but again, this is such a rapidly shifting landscape legally that it's hard to totally predict what will happen. The question about abuse is a difficult one. I don't know if I'm really equipped to answer that. I would have to study it more to really be able to talk about the correlation between those issues.

Brigid: Monique, thank you for calling and raising some different ideas and concerns as part of this conversation. Sarah, this case is clearly not happening in a vacuum. Of course, last summer's Supreme Court decision in the Dobbs' case effectively overturning Roe v. Wade tossing out decades of precedent is really what set the stage for it, and that has up till now created something of a divide in this country. On the one hand, you have places like New York, we've got lots of callers who have expressed frustration that this case in Texas is going to have implications for potentially their access to medication here in New York.

Places like California, which have also tried to protect abortion access with Governor Gavin Newsom just a couple of days ago, taking steps to both admonish and then sever ties with the pharmacy chain Walgreens over decisions that they have made that seem somewhat related to this case, to the ability to access medical abortion pills. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Sarah: We've seen a lot of pushback. I mentioned earlier the Republican Attorneys General from 22 states who have filed an Amicus brief supporting this effort to take mifepristone off the market. On the other hand, a group of democratic attorneys general from states like New York and California have been pushing in opposite direction. You mentioned the Walgreens situation, that was California that pushed back when Walgreens said they might not provide abortion pills at pharmacies in some states where abortion is legal.

We've seen legal action. I touched on this earlier, but 12 attorneys general just a couple of weeks ago led by the Attorney General of Washington State filed a lawsuit in Washington in federal court basically point directly at this case and asking a federal judge there to order that the FDA cannot take this drug off the market. Now, that is in the early stages, and it hasn't been litigated nearly as far as this case here in Texas, but from legal experts I've talked to, what that could set up is potentially a conflict between dueling federal court decisions.

If you have one federal judge in Texas, potentially, essentially saying take this drug off the market or severely restrict it, and you potentially could end up with a judge in Washington State saying do the opposite, that's difficult to resolve. I've been told it could even mean that different rules are in place in different parts of the country for a while before it again might ultimately go to the Supreme Court.

Brigid: Sarah, you also reported this week on another really troubling case out of Texas where a Texas man is suing his ex-wife's friends for helping her get abortion pills. When I heard this Monday morning on Morning Edition, it literally stopped me in my tracks. Can you talk about what's happening in that case?

Sarah: To recap for those who aren't aware of it, this is a case involving a man named Marcus Silva in Galveston County, Texas. He filed a lawsuit, and he's being represented, I should mentioned by Jonathan Mitchell, who is a well-known conservative lawyer based in Texas. He's probably best known as the architect of SB 8 which is the abortion law that was allowed to take effect back in 2021. Even before Roe was overturned, there was this law that allowed private citizens to bring lawsuits against anyone accused of helping someone get access to an illegal abortion under the law which restricted abortion after about six weeks.

Jonathan Mitchell has been very active in often conservative religious causes including this case. He and others are representing Marcus Silva. Silva claims in this lawsuit that three women, two it appears who were friends of his wife and a third, who helped them get abortion pills. He claims that they assisted her in getting these pills last July. After the two of them had begun the process of a divorce, his wife became pregnant, and according to the lawsuit concealed the pregnancy from him, reached out to her friends. They helped her get abortion pills because again, at this point, July of 2022, you had multiple abortion bans in place in Texas.

Surgical abortion was not an option. She terminated her pregnancy in that way. He somehow found out about it. It's not clear. Submitted with this lawsuit were screenshots of text messages between his ex-wife and her friends, talking about her decision-making process about what to do, thanking them for their help and support, talking about how they could get pills and how they could take them. She also expressed concern that if Marcus knew she was pregnant, he would try to use that information to pressure her to stay in the marriage.

Their divorce was just finalized in February of this year, and the lawsuit was filed just days ago. It has a lot of different potential implications. There's the obvious one of this question of, could a man use anti-abortion laws to punish a woman for her decisions about her reproductive health? I think there's also a larger strategy in place here from talking to lawyers including one of Silva's attorneys and legal scholars. The case seems to be trying to, not necessarily set precedent for criminal prosecution, but at least create the idea in the public mind that these kinds of cases, illegal use and obtaining of abortion pills can be treated like killing a person.

It's a wrongful death lawsuit, which I probably should have said at the beginning, but this lawsuit is actually not primarily focused on an abortion ban. It cites these abortion bans as evidence that causing abortion is a murder. It use the word "Murder," and it describes this as a wrongful death. It's trying to build the case that abortion should be viewed in this way. One of the attorneys I talked to for Mr. Silva said he believes criminal prosecutors should also take notes. It could have a lot of implications, certainly for the defendants, certainly for people who find themselves pregnant while in difficult relationships, but also more broadly.

Brigid: Setting the legal groundwork for criminal charges is a incredibly-- We are moving very far down this continuum. Sarah, in just our last couple of minutes, we got a tweet from a listener about the first case that we've been talking about that said, as much as this is about this specific case, isn't it also about eroding the FDA's authority to make decisions about the safety of drugs on its own, doesn't it undercut other medication as well? We've been focusing, obviously primarily on the impact on medications related to reproductive health, but there's a larger question here at issue as well.

Sarah: Sure. I think that actually goes to that caller's question a little while ago about the implications for FDA authority and how a judge could make a decision about the FDA's scientific determination. The advocates for this lawsuit, the abortion rights opponents, and their supporters accuse the FDA of being politicized. I think what's clear is that there are a tremendous amount of politics surrounding all of these conversations.

I think it does raise questions that if a precedent is set here, that a judge can reverse more than 20 years of decision-making by a federal agency who's charged by Congress with making these assessments based on their medical and scientific expertise, what else can it mean? The judge asked in court yesterday, he asked the plaintiff's attorney, has this ever happened before? Is there an example of another drug that's been on the market for a similar amount of time with similarly widespread use being removed in this way? The lawyers for the plaintiffs acknowledge that there is not.

Brigid: We're going to have to leave it there for today. I want to thank NPR's national correspondent, Sarah McCammon. We will definitely be following your reporting in the days and weeks ahead. Thanks so much for joining us.

Sarah: Thank you. My pleasure.

Copyright © 2023 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.