{"id":27415,"date":"2025-05-08T14:40:17","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T18:40:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/?p=27415"},"modified":"2025-05-08T14:40:17","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T18:40:17","slug":"why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion","title":{"rendered":"Why the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"<\/a>
Left: Adobe Stock | Right: The White House<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed motions with a federal court Monday in the so-called \u201cabortion pill case,\u201d seeking to dismiss the case on technical grounds.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At its core, the DOJ\u2019s position is not supportive of abortion; rather, it supports the authority of federal agencies, which are a part of the executive branch. Instead of supporting a dubious challenge to a federal regulation on abortion, the administration is looking to protect its agencies and their rulings from court challenges. Given the administration\u2019s recent track record with federal courts in regard to immigration, for instance, it is not surprising that the DOJ is defending regulations against court challenges.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In 2016, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued regulations allowing doctors to prescribe the drug mifepristone, also known as the \u201cabortion pill\u201d, which is used as an alternative to surgical abortion procedures. The FDA also allowed the drug to be prescribed by telemedicine, and to be sent through the mail.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s 2022 decision in <\/span>Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/span><\/i><\/a> effectively returned the issue of abortion restrictions to the individual states. Prior to <\/span>Roe v. Wade<\/span><\/i>, which <\/span>Dobbs<\/span><\/i> explicitly overturned, each state regulated the availability and performance of abortions. Post-<\/span>Dobbs<\/span><\/i>\u00a0 several states passed laws relating to the prescription mifepristone, the so-called \u201cabortion pill.\u201d<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

In the 2024 election, candidate Trump repeatedly said that he would not support any federal action to limit abortion. That specifically included the prescription of mifepristone. Recently, the Department of Justice (DOJ) asked the District Court for the Northern District of Texas to dismiss claims by the states of Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas challenging the FDA regulations allowing the prescription and shipment by mail of mifepristone.<\/span><\/p>\n

On the issue of abortion, the administration\u2019s position seems clear: it does not support any federal restrictions on abortions. <\/span>Dobbs<\/span><\/i> returned the issue of abortion to the states, and that is where the current administration thinks the issue should remain.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

At its heart, this recent action by the DOJ is not so much about abortion as it is about executive power. When states led by Democrat governors and legislatures seek to challenge federal authority (for instance, as with changes to Medicaid), the administration will be able to claim that it opposes state challenges to federal authority on a consistent basis, apart from political motivations. That may bring relief to pro-life groups who seek to continue to restrict abortion \u2013 and it may cause further concern from other groups who will want to challenge other actions by the administration.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

The DOJ filing was based on a number of technical issues, rather than the merits of the underlying opposition to abortion. First, the DOJ filing argues that the three states \u2013 Idaho, Missouri, and Kansas \u2013 have no standing in the case, because those states have no connection to Texas where the case was filed.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Second, the DOJ supports dismissal because the original plaintiffs in the case \u2013 a group of conservative doctors and medical associations opposed to abortion \u2013 dismissed their case after the Supreme Court ruled that they lacked standing to challenge the FDA regulations. That case \u2013 <\/span>FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine<\/span><\/i> \u2013 was a unanimous decision, based on the fact that the FDA regulations did not require anyone to prescribe mifepristone. Because the regulations did not directly impact the plaintiffs, they were not entitled to challenge them.<\/span><\/p>\n

Prior to the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling, the three states had sought permission to intervene in the case. After the ruling in <\/span>FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, <\/span><\/i>the original plaintiffs dismissed their claims, but the three states did not. The DOJ is now asking the District Court to dismiss the states\u2019 claims on the technical issue of standing. The DOJ specifically did not address the merits of the states\u2019 underlying claims \u2013 their ability to regulate abortion, saying that the states could refile their claims in federal courts in each state.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, the DOJ filing does note that another problem exists for the states\u2019 claims \u2013 the statute of limitations. The FDA regulations were issued in 2016, which means that any challenge to them had to be filed by 2022, within the six-year statute of limitations. (A statute of limitations sets the time limit within which certain types of lawsuits must be filed.) The dismissal of the claims in Texas would require them to be refiled now \u2013 well beyond the six-year limit for challenges to the regulations.<\/span><\/p>\n

The FDA regulation issued in 2016 was not the first to allow the use of mifepristone; rather, it simply allowed it to be prescribed up to ten weeks after conception, rather than the previous seven weeks. Accordingly, any challenge to the use of mifepristone in general would face an even higher hurdle, since the original regulation allowing it had been in place for about 25 years.<\/span><\/p>\n

The DOJ also challenged the legal arguments used by the states to support their claim. First, the states alleged that they have an interest in protecting their citizens from complications from use of mifepristone.<\/span><\/p>\n

That argument, however, is similar to the doctors\u2019 original claims in the case \u2013 that they might be required to treat women who experienced complications from the pills. Second, the states claim an interest because abortions terminate the lives of people who would otherwise grow up to become taxpayers.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0The DOJ noted, \u201cThe states fail to cite any precedent supporting their theory that they can sue over any policy that affects their potential future birthrate.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed motions with a federal court Monday in the so-called \u201cabortion pill case,\u201d seeking to dismiss the case on technical grounds.\u00a0 At its core, the DOJ\u2019s position is not supportive of abortion; rather, it supports the authority of federal agencies, which are a part of the executive branch. Instead of…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":516,"featured_media":27418,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"fbia_status":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-27415","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"yoast_head":"\nWhy the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"DOJ moves to dismiss states' abortion pill case, citing lack of standing and expired statute of limitations.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Why the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"DOJ moves to dismiss states' abortion pill case, citing lack of standing and expired statute of limitations.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Beliefnet News\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-05-08T18:40:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.beliefnet.com\/sites\/140\/2025\/05\/Mifepristone_credit-Left-Adobe-Stock-Right-The-White-House.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"900\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Rick Rice\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Why the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion","description":"DOJ moves to dismiss states' abortion pill case, citing lack of standing and expired statute of limitations.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Why the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion","og_description":"DOJ moves to dismiss states' abortion pill case, citing lack of standing and expired statute of limitations.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion","og_site_name":"Beliefnet News","article_published_time":"2025-05-08T18:40:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":900,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.beliefnet.com\/sites\/140\/2025\/05\/Mifepristone_credit-Left-Adobe-Stock-Right-The-White-House.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Rick Rice","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion","name":"Why the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/wp-media.beliefnet.com\/sites\/140\/2025\/05\/Mifepristone_credit-Left-Adobe-Stock-Right-The-White-House.jpg","datePublished":"2025-05-08T18:40:17+00:00","dateModified":"2025-05-08T18:40:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/450625ec20bf3e8a84060b9321455f3d"},"description":"DOJ moves to dismiss states' abortion pill case, citing lack of standing and expired statute of limitations.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/wp-media.beliefnet.com\/sites\/140\/2025\/05\/Mifepristone_credit-Left-Adobe-Stock-Right-The-White-House.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/wp-media.beliefnet.com\/sites\/140\/2025\/05\/Mifepristone_credit-Left-Adobe-Stock-Right-The-White-House.jpg","width":1200,"height":900,"caption":"Left: Adobe Stock | Right: The White House"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/2025\/05\/why-the-dojs-abortion-pill-case-is-about-more-than-abortion#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Why the DOJ\u2019s Abortion Pill Case is About More Than Abortion"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/","name":"Beliefnet News","description":"Top Religious News From Around the World","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/450625ec20bf3e8a84060b9321455f3d","name":"Brandy Grenier","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/e53\/e53f6ea4c6b15081d4df68e2d7d7750ex96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-content\/wphb-cache\/gravatar\/e53\/e53f6ea4c6b15081d4df68e2d7d7750ex96.jpg","caption":"Brandy Grenier"},"url":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/author\/bgrenier"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27415","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/516"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=27415"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27415\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":27421,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27415\/revisions\/27421"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/27418"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27415"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27415"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.beliefnet.com\/columnists\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27415"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}