VIDEO: The Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Abortion Pill. Here’s Why That Matters. - The American Spectator

Just two years after overturning Roe v. Wade, the U.S. Supreme Court is set to release another controversial decision on an abortion issue — this time on the abortion pill, mifepristone.

On Wednesday, the court announced that it had agreed to hear Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a case originating in the 5th Circuit Court. The case, which was appealed by the Biden administration, challenges the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. (READ MORE: Kellyanne Conway’s Contraception Gambit)

“Every court so far has agreed that the FDA acted unlawfully in removing common-sense safeguards for women and authorizing dangerous mail-order abortions,” Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erin Hawley said. “The FDA has harmed the health of women and undermined the rule of law by illegally removing every meaningful safeguard from the chemical abortion drug regimen…. [I]ts removal of common-sense safeguards—like a doctor’s visit before women are prescribed chemical abortion drugs—does not reflect scientific judgment but rather a politically driven decision to push a dangerous drug regimen.”

Meanwhile, the Biden administration has claimed that the case is simply an attempt to limit women’s health care — ignoring the argument that the drug is being administered unsafely. White House press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre promised that the administration would continue to support the FDA’s decision to approve and administer mifepristone via mail, claiming that the 5th Circuit Court’s decision “threatens to undermine the FDA’s scientific, independent judgment and would reimpose outdated restrictions on access to safe and effective medical abortion.” (READ MORE: Shane Dawson and Ryland Adams’ Use of Surrogacy Showcases the Practice’s Grotesqueness)

The case is about much more than just whether women can receive an abortion pill in the mail. It could be the first step in holding the FDA accountable for its decision to expand access to a drug at the center of a highly politicized issue — despite the evidence that it may not be safe.