U.S. Repro Watch, March 8

U.S. Repro Watch provides periodic updates on news of interest on U.S. reproductive rights. Here are a few recent items you won’t want to miss:

1. Walgreens and CVS announced that they will begin dispensing abortion pills in states where it is legally allowed.

• The move by two of the nation’s largest pharmacy networks promises to expand the availability of the abortion drug mifepristone.
• Last year, the FDA changed its regulations on mifepristone to allow pharmacies to become certified to dispense the medication to patients with a prescription. 
• Anti-abortion activists are challenging the availability of mifepristone in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, which will be argued at the U.S. Supreme Court on March 26.

2. Alabama lawmakers passed a so-called “IVF protection” bill, but it doesn’t address the court’s ruling granting personhood to embryos. 

• In February, the Alabama Supreme Court issued an alarming ruling that frozen embryos should be considered “children,” causing multiple fertility clinics and the state’s largest hospital system to stop in vitro fertilization (IVF) services out of fear of liability. 
• Lawmakers and legal experts acknowledged that the new law, enacted March 6, did not address existential questions raised by the court about the definition of personhood. While two major clinics are now moving to restart IVF treatments, another said it was not assured about the scope of protections and would wait for “legal clarification.” 

3. Native Hawaiian midwives sued the state over a midwifery restriction law preventing them from serving their communities. 

• The lawsuit, Kahoʻohanohano v. State of Hawaiʻi, asks state court to block a midwifery restriction law to restore access to safe, respectful, and culturally informed maternal care in Hawaiʻi communities. 
• The law, which prevents pregnant people in Hawai‘i from using skilled midwives who trained through traditional and apprentice-based pathways, has been particularly devastating for Native Hawaiian midwifery practitioners and families of color.
• The Center and its partners brought the lawsuit on behalf of nine plaintiffs—including midwives, midwifery students, and women who are pregnant or plan to become pregnant and grow their families.

4. Kate Cox, the Center’s client, was a guest at the President’s State of the Union address. 

• Kate Cox, who was denied an emergency abortion in Texas after her pregnancy was diagnosed with a lethal fetal condition that endangered her health and future fertility, was a guest of the President’s March 7 address before Congress.

5. Three research studies cited in a case attacking abortion pills were retracted due to unreliable findings.

• Academic publisher Sage said the studies were funded and produced by a well-known anti-abortion organization despite the authors citing no conflicts of interest.
• These now-discredited research studies were used as evidence in the case attacking abortion pills that will be heard by the Supreme Court March 26.  

6. In international news, French lawmakers voted overwhelmingly to enshrine the right to abortion in its constitution.

• Lawmakers approved the measure in a 780-72 vote in the Palace of Versailles.  
• Last year, French President Emmanuel Macron pledged to make abortion a constitutional right in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision overturning Roe v. Wade and eliminating the half-century-old right to abortion.
• Abortion enjoys wide support in the country, where it’s been legal since 1975.
• “Such an explicit constitutional guarantee for abortion freedoms will be the first of its kind, not just in Europe, but globally,” said Leah Hoctor, the Center’s vice president for Europe. 

OB-GYNs flee Idaho: The state has lost 22% of its OB-GYNs since it banned abortion in 2022, according to a new report by the Idaho Physician Well-Being Action Collaborative.

More than 50 OB-GYNs have stopped practicing in Idaho since the state’s abortion ban took effect, while only two new OB-GYNs moved to the state in that time. The report also notes that two hospitals have closed their obstetrics programs altogether, and a third is at serious risk of closing.

Performing or assisting with an abortion in Idaho carries a prison term of up to five years, making OB-GYNs fearful to provide abortion care. “Idaho laws that criminalize the private decisions between doctor and patient have plunged our state into a care crisis that unchecked will affect generations of Idaho families to come,” Dr. Caitlin Gustafson, an OB-GYN and the board president of the Idaho Coalition for Safe Healthcare Foundation.

Only half of the counties in Idaho have access to any practicing OB-GYN. Many pregnant people are now living in maternity care deserts and have to drive many hours for obstetrics care.

March 26: U.S. Supreme Court arguments in the case threatening nationwide access to abortion medication.

• The lawsuit, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, was filed by anti-abortion advocates to challenge the FDA’s initial approval of the abortion medication mifepristone as well as the FDA’s more recent actions to increase access to the medication.
• An audio feed of the argument will be live-streamed on the Supreme Court’s website, and the Court is expected to post the audio of the arguments later that day. 

April 4: Hearing in Tennessee’s abortion ban “medical exceptions” case.

• The Center filed the case, Blackmon v. State of Tennessee, in September 2023 on behalf of women who were denied abortions while experiencing dangerous pregnancy complications. The hearing will take place at the Tennessee Twelfth Judicial District Court at 9 a.m. CT/10 a.m. ET.

April 24: U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Idaho EMTALA case.

• In this case, Idaho v. United States, the Department of Justice is arguing that Idaho’s near-total abortion ban conflicts with the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA)—a federal law requiring hospital emergency departments to provide “stabilizing treatment”—since it prevents Idaho hospitals from stabilizing patients in need of abortion care. The lawsuit will decide whether Idaho hospitals are obligated to treat these patients.