The chapter delves into a federal district judge issuing a universal injunction against a government policy on the abortion pill, focusing on the need for thorough FDA review for women's safety. It criticizes the extreme remedies sought by anti-abortion doctors and debates the FDA's justification for altering regulations. The speakers share personal motivations regarding abortion rights, urging for informed decisions and access to essential healthcare like the abortion pill.
The Supreme Court will soon decide on a case surrounding a medication used for abortion, mifepristone, and whether the drug should continue to be available based on claims of safety and ethical considerations. Those in favor of restrictions argue that the FDA fast-tracked its approval without considering health impacts. Those against restriction argue the FDA made its decisions based on safety and efficiency, and it’s being targeted to further infringe on women’s rights. Now we debate: Should the Courts Restrict Access to the Abortion Pill?
Petitioner: Julia Kaye, Senior Staff Attorney at the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project
Respondent: Catherine Glenn Foster, Senior Fellow in Legal Policy at the Charlotte Lozier Institute
Judge's Chair: John Donvan, Moderator-in-Chief and Emmy award-winning journalist
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices