Wyoming Governor Signs Nation’s First Ban On Abortion Pills
On Friday night, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon signed the first ban explicitly targeting abortion pills, making it a felony to prescribe, sell, and to use "any drug" for the purpose of performing an abortion. He also allowed new abortion restrictions to become law.
AP:
Wyoming Governor Signs Measure Prohibiting Abortion Pills
Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon has signed into law the nation’s first explicit ban on abortion pills since they became the predominant choice for abortion in the U.S. in recent years. Gordon, a Republican, signed the bill Friday night while allowing a separate measure restricting abortion to become law without his signature. (Gruver, 3/18)
CNN:
Wyoming Outlaws Abortion Pills
Republican Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill making it a felony to prescribe, sell, or use “any drug for the purpose of procuring or performing an abortion.” Violators could face up to six months in prison and a $9,000 fine.The legislation takes effect July 1. A leading abortion-rights advocate said Wyoming’s explicit prohibition of the pills is unique. “There’s no stone that anti-choice extremists will leave unturned as they seek to do everything they can to ensure that abortion is banned across the nation,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Mini Timmaraju said in a statement Saturday. “This first-of-its-kind ban on medication abortion, as well as the total ban, are just the latest proof.” (Croft, 3/18)
Vox:
Wyoming Banned The Abortion Pill And Some States Want To Go Further.
Wyoming has attempted to enact anti-abortion legislation since before Dobbs was decided; Gov. Mark Gordon signed the contested abortion ban into law last March. That law, still held up by the courts, would ban all abortion except in the case of rape or incest, or if the pregnancy posed a serious risk to the mother’s health. In issuing a preliminary injunction, the judge in the case found the law to be too vague, and that it likely violates the state’s constitutional right to healthcare. Wyoming’s ban on mifepristone depends on the Life is a Human Right act, which goes into effect Sunday and circumvents the constitution by claiming abortion isn’t actually medical care — otherwise, it would be subject to the same constitutional critique as last year’s trigger ban. (Ioanes, 3/19)
More on last week's hearing in Texas over the legality of abortion pills —
The Texas Tribune:
Comstock Act Revived In FDA Abortion Drug Case
In an Amarillo courthouse last week, lawyers seeking to move abortion medication off the market focused less on the existential question of when life begins — and more on the procedural question of when a law dies. The lawsuit focuses on the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug. But lawyers for the Alliance Defending Freedom took the opportunity to appeal to a higher power — U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — to resurrect a long-dormant law that would upend abortion access in the United States. (Klibanoff, 3/20)
NPR:
Read The Transcript: What Happened Inside The Federal Hearing On Abortion Pills
Only a few dozen members of the public and the media were allowed inside the small courtroom on Wednesday presided over by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who has longstanding ties to conservative groups. The judge heard four hours of testimony from lawyers for a coalition of anti-abortion-rights groups called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which is challenging the drug's approval, and from government lawyers representing the Food and Drug Administration. Recording also was prohibited in the courtroom, so this transcript is the first chance for most members of the public to learn directly what was said. (McCammon, 3/17)
KHN:
Judge Signals He Could Rule To Halt Sales Of Common Abortion Pill
During a four-hour hearing last week that could eliminate nationwide access to a common and widely used abortion pill, federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, of the Northern District of Texas, signaled his conservative Christian beliefs early and often. Speaking from the bench in a courtroom in Amarillo, Texas, Kacsmaryk repeatedly used language that mimicked the vocabulary of anti-abortion activists. It also reflected the wording of the lawyers seeking to overturn the FDA’s two-decade-old approval of mifepristone, one of the drugs in the two-pill regimen approved for early pregnancy termination. (Varney, 3/20)
In related legal news —
Vox:
Anti-Abortion Lawyers Want To Weaken The Protection Of A Court Injunction
Until very recently, nearly everyone accepted some basic ideas about the American legal system. If a state passes a law, and that law is challenged in court, we should act as if that law is still in effect while the case works its way through the court system. That changes only if a judge issues a “preliminary injunction” blocking the law while the lawsuit plays out or a “permanent injunction” to strike the law down. In that case, we all act as if the law is not in effect. But in recent years, an aggressive wing of the anti-abortion movement has been working to challenge this broadly held idea of legality — a push that has attracted little notice, but is further complicating the debate over abortion access. (Cohen, 3/20)
