The Guttmacher Institute and several of its senior scientists have joined two amicus briefs in the ongoing legal fight to protect mifepristone—specifically mail, telehealth, and pharmacy provision of mifepristone—from politically motivated attacks.
In the first brief, organized by the ACLU, The Center for Reproductive Rights and Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Institute joins more than 160 other reproductive health, rights and justice organizations in outlining the harms that restricting access to mifepristone via telehealth would have on patients across the country. In the second, Guttmacher scientists join more than 350 leading reproductive health researchers in signing on to a brief organized by UCLA’s Center on Reproductive Health, Law and Policy, affirming the demonstrated safety and efficacy of medication abortion using mifepristone—including via telehealth.
Submitted to the US Supreme Court, the briefs refute the baseless claims made by the state of Louisiana in their case against the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to compel the agency to reinstate the medically unnecessary in-person dispensing requirements for mifepristone. Anti-abortion policymakers in Louisiana initiated this litigation in order to eliminate access to medication abortion using mifepristone via telehealth, an increasingly important way that people access abortion care, especially in restrictive settings. As made clear by the evidence laid out in the two briefs, this goal is rooted in political ideology, not scientific evidence.
“These amicus briefs highlight the large body of rigorous scientific evidence that mifepristone is safe and effective when dispensed in person or via telehealth, mail, or pharmacy." says Dr. Blair Darney, vice president for domestic research at the Guttmacher Institute. “If the Court wishes to support evidence-based policy and practice, there is only one sound decision it can make: allow mifepristone to remain available via mail, telehealth and pharmacy provision. Any other course of action would be one guided by politics, not facts.”
Excerpt from research amicus brief
“Plaintiffs have not identified any sound or reputable peer-reviewed scientific studies that would provide any basis for a court to second-guess FDA’s expert judgment in deciding to remove the in-person mifepristone dispensing requirement. Plaintiffs rely on a self-published report by the Ethics and Public Policy Center (“EPPC”), but this report is riddled with methodological flaws that render its conclusions unreliable. Indeed, EPPC has refused to disclose its underlying dataset, its methodology for identifying medication abortions, or the codes used to generate the study cohort and analyze the data—preventing any independent verification of its conclusions. EPPC also inflated its serious adverse event figures by misclassifying outcomes such as follow-up treatment in cases where the medication was not fully effective, emergency room visits not requiring treatment or intervention, and normal post-abortion bleeding as “serious adverse events.” This methodologically flawed study provides no basis for this Court to displace FDA’s expert judgment to remove the in-person dispensing requirement.”
Excerpt from organizational amicus brief
“Barring patients from obtaining mifepristone by mail and at pharmacies imposes devastating and medically unjustified burdens on patients’ access to mifepristone. Preserving patients’ ability to obtain care through telehealth is critically important, particularly for people in rural areas, low income communities, communities of color, and survivors of intimate partner violence, who already face the steepest barriers to in-person care. Reinstating the in-person dispensing requirement undermines access to abortion and miscarriage care—and patients’ health and autonomy—nationwide. If the Court does not step in to block this request by a single state, it will impact people across the country.”