In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a challenge of the Food and Drug Administration’s decision to relax restrictions on the dangerous chemical abortion pill mifepristone.

Written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and released on June 13, the court decision states that plaintiff doctors and medical associations lacked standing to file the lawsuit, FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

Since the plaintiffs are unregulated by the new FDA policy, Kavanaugh wrote that they are actually challenging the “FDA’s regulation of others.”

“Specifically, FDA’s regulations apply to doctors prescribing mifepristone and to pregnant women taking mifepristone. But the plaintiff doctors and medical associations do not prescribe or use mifepristone,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And FDA has not required the plaintiffs to do anything or to refrain from doing anything.”

In explaining the decision, Kavanaugh said that since the plaintiffs don’t “prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. Nor do they suffer injuries to their property, or to the value of their property, from FDA’s actions. Because the plaintiffs do not use mifepristone, they obviously can suffer no physical injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone.”

Simply being pro-life, opposing elective abortion and having sincere objections to mifepristone being prescribed for abortions by others” does not give the plaintiffs legal standing in the federal court case, he added.

Kavanaugh’s decision did, however, suggest how the plaintiff’s might continue pursuing their challenge of mifeprison.

While the U.S. Supreme Court may have thrown out the case on standing, pharmacies distributing mifepristone for abortion purposes are still in violation of Alaska law.

“The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the President and FDA in the regulatory process, or to Congress and the President in the legislative process,” he wrote. “And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.”

In 2021, Biden’s FDA decided to make mifepristone easily available by simply ignoring longstanding federal standards such as requiring that doctors conduct a full medical examination of women before allowing women to take mifepristone. Now, the drug is available by mail and at pharmacies across America.

Walgreens stores in Alaska have begun dispensing the deadly drug, after initially assuring the state that it would not sell mifepristone in its 11 Alaska stores.

Mifepristone is a highly potent drug that is primarily used to kill an unborn baby up to 70 days gestation. It is now used in nearly half of all Alaska abortions, causing the nourishing placenta to detach from the mother’s uterine wall, and thereby starving the developing child. A second drug (misoprostol) is given two days later to force contractions and expel the dead body from the mother’s womb. This method, which requires at least three trips to the abortion facility, often results in women aborting their babies at home or in the workplace, and up to five days after ingesting the drugs. It also comes with serious and well-documented medical side effects, including prolonged, severe bleeding and life-threatening systemic infection.

While the U.S. Supreme Court may have thrown out the case on standing, pharmacies distributing mifepristone for abortion purposes are still in violation of Alaska law (AS 18.16.010(a)(1-2)), which provides that only licensed physicians may perform abortions and requires that ‘the abortion is performed in a hospital or other facility approved for the purpose by the Department of Health or a hospital operated by the federal government or an agency of the federal government.’”

Last year, Alaska Attorney General  Treg Taylor, along with other state attorneys general, issued a warning to pharmacies, noting that their state laws prohibit the sale of mifepristone directly to patients, whether by mail or in person.

Earlier this year, the Alaska Department of Law emailed the Watchman, noting that “Any citizen who believes that a crime has occurred should report to a law enforcement agency for a criminal investigation. The Department of Law evaluates cases referred by law enforcement following that agency’s criminal investigation. If any citizen believes that a medical practitioner or pharmacist has violated state law, that citizen is encouraged to report such conduct to the appropriate state professional licensing board for further investigation.”

The Alaska Board of Pharmacy consists of five pharmacists and two public members. Board members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature. Its duties include carrying out laws governing pharmacy practice in Alaska. It makes final licensing decisions and takes disciplinary actions against licensees who violate the law.

Those who wish to file an official complaint against Walgreens or any other pharmacy can click here to access the complaint form. Additional questions can be sent via email to BoardOfPharmacy@Alaska.Gov, or by calling the Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing Investigations Unit at 907-269-8124.

Click here to support Alaska Watchman reporting.

U.S. Supreme Court rejects pro-life suit against abortion pill mifepristone

Joel Davidson
Joel is Editor-in-Chief of the Alaska Watchman. Joel is an award winning journalist and has been reporting for over 24 years, He is a proud father of 8 children, and lives in Palmer, Alaska.


  • Women Deserve Better says:

    Kudos to The Watchman: this is the first headline I’ve read regarding the SC’s decision that was not misleading.

  • jon says:

    Good luck policing mail order items.

    • Bruno says:

      Do you suppose they’ll start setting up interstate highway checkpoints to keep women from traveling to another state for an abortion?

      • Children Deserve Better than Death says:

        Do police ever set up checkpoints to catch criminals who have killed and are likely to kill again?

        Do they set up checkpoints to catch known child abusers who are crossing state lines to continue perpetrating their heinous crimes?

        Do they set up checkpoints to catch persons who’ve abducted children and intend to harm them?

        Do they set up checkpoints to catch spouses who may be crossing state lines to kidnap a child in the midst of a custody battle?

      • Toscano says:

        No, but the FBI persecutes prolifers who counsel outside of abortion clinic on public sidewalks for any contrived pretense.