The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Texas-based Christian group trying to restrict access to abortion medication on Thursday.

The case, FDA v. the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, lacked standing, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh said in the unanimous opinion. That means that the Christian doctors did not demonstrate that they have suffered or would likely suffer an injury caused by the FDA that a court decision would relieve.

The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine brought the suit last year against the FDA, stating that they would be harmed by individuals who came to hospital emergency rooms suffering because of a medication abortion and who would need an abortion procedure, and providing such would force them to go against their conscience.

But two of the studies the group relied on for evidence to question mifepristone’s efficacy were later retracted from a medical journal and deemed by the journal’s editors as inaccurate, misleading and unethical. Suzanne Bell, assistant professor in the Department of Population, Family and Reproductive Health at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, told NM Political Report that the articles were “found to be intentionally deceptive and misleading with flaws in the data.”

Kavanaugh wrote in the decision that one reason why the group did not have standing is because of federal laws that protect doctors from being required to provide an abortion if it goes against their conscience. Those federal laws also protect doctors from repercussions when they do refuse to participate in an abortion.

This argument, that medical providers would be forced, against their will and conscience, to provide an abortion for a patient, particularly in an emergency room setting, is one that conservatives leaned on heavily during the debates in the 2023 New Mexico legislative session when it passed the Reproductive and Gender Affirming Healthcare bill that prohibits public bodies from discriminating against abortion or gender affirming care. 

The Christian doctors also asserted they would suffer “downstream economic injuries” due to the FDA’s “relaxed regulation” of mifepristone. Kavanaugh wrote that the alleged economic injuries were “too speculative.”

French authorities approved the use of mifepristone for abortion care in 1988, 12 years before the FDA approved it for American women in 2000. When the FDA approved the drug for abortion care in the U.S., the agency heavily restricted its access by requiring patients to visit a clinic when prescribed the drug, only a medical doctor could prescribe and dispense it and the drug was available up to seven weeks of gestation.

In 2016, the FDA revisited the regulations and, among other things, expanded access to the medication for up to 10 weeks of gestation. As access has improved, the number of abortion medications have increased. The FDA removed additional restrictions of the medication and, as of 2023, 63 percent of abortions in the U.S. are medication abortions, according to the reproductive research organization, the Guttmacher Institute. 

An abortion medication is less expensive than a procedure and with FDA’s removal of additional regulations in 2021, abortion medication is now available through telehealth. That removes a significant barrier for pregnant people who are impacted by abortion restrictions the most: Those who are low income, live in rural areas and are people of color or LGBTQ.

Bell said there is a lot of evidence around the negative impacts curtailing access to abortion care has on pregnant individuals. She said that in U.S., where structural inequities already exist, bans and restrictions disproportionately impact people with “fewer resources and minoritized groups.”

“They already have these structural inequities, they have a greater need to seek an abortion, and they are the least able to overcome these barriers. 

“Bans only exacerbate inequities and there is evidence coming out to suggest just that,” Bell said. 

Jazmyn Taitingfong, a reproductive rights and gender equity attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico, told NM Political Report that what the case means is that abortion access in New Mexico “does not change.”

“And that’s a big sigh of relief for New Mexicans, especially those in rural communities,” she said. 

Taitingfong called the case “a sham case from the start” and that the unanimous decision of the court “was the very least SCOTUS was required to do with the ruling.”

New Mexico is one of 18 jurisdictions who also sued the FDA last year in a separate suit to broaden access to mifepristone. Even though the court’s ruling on Thursday allows the current level of access to the medication to continue, access to mifepristone is still regulated by the FDA and there are still some hurdles for providers and pharmacies to provide it, despite the fact that more than 100 scientific studies have shown its safety and efficacy.

That case to expand access further to mifepristone still waits for a decision from a Washington state district judge. New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez was one of the Attorneys General who brought the suit.

Torrez did not comment on the pending case but said in a statement that the decision the court made on Thursday is “a positive development for those advocating for reproductive rights and access to safe abortion methods, particularly given the extensive evidence supporting the drug’s safety and efficacy.”

Amy Hagstrom Miller, executive director of Whole Women’s Health, an abortion clinic in Albuquerque, said through a statement after the decision that “scientific research has shown us the abortion pill is safe, and it is the preferred choice of most of our patients at Whole Woman’s Health. Those who brought this case are not only ignoring medical science, they are ignoring the will of the vast majority of Americans who support abortion.”

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham said in a statement that two years ago, the court “stripped women of a fundamental freedom.”

“Since then, extreme abortion bans have been imposed in 21 states, many with zero exceptions for rape or incest. Women are being denied essential care, forced to travel hundreds of miles, or even go to court to plead for life-saving treatments. The stakes could not be higher for women,” she said.