Texas judge hears abortion pill case

We knew coming into today the outcome looked grim. From what we're hearing from the court, the reports from in the courtroom, we understand that he has remained very open to frankly the really crazy arguments coming from the plaintiffs. We understand that he is willing and open to upending 20 years of precedent from the FDA. And that is a terrifying, terrifying prospect. Today's hearing in Texas could end with a Trump-appointed judge banning one of the medications used in abortions across the nation. The judge's decision could come at any time, and it could have major repercussions for abortion care, even in states where the procedure is legal. More than half of U.

S. abortions are medication abortions. So let's discuss it with Tali Farhady in Weinstein, a former federal and state prosecutor in New York. Clerk from Eric Garland and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. This is major. The judge seemed open to this argument that the FDA didn't properly vet this drug 20 years ago. That's right.

I mean, there's no transcript, and we weren't able to listen to it because he kept access to this hearing, as you know, Stephanie, pretty limited. But from what's come out and from the reporting, it does seem like he was open to what the plaintiffs were asking for. And in fact, he was interested in the contours of his power. For example, he asked about whether he could just order the FDA to stop the use of this drug, to withdraw this drug from the market, or whether all he could do was order them to start a process for considering whether the drug should be withdrawn. So it seems like he is interested in the details of issuing a nationwide ruling, which is, of course, what the plaintiffs have brought this lawsuit want him to do. Well, let's give some credibility to this. Let's say, oh, well, this particular drug wasn't properly vetted 20 years ago.

Can't you say that about all sorts of drugs? I don't know. Viagra? Right. Well, so usually that's the kind of question that we leave to the experts. So the people with the expertise to figure out whether something is safe. And not only was it approved 20 years ago in the first instance, but the FDA went back to the struggle a couple of times, once to extend the number of weeks of pregnancy in which it could be used. Later to say it can also be used by mail. And really, nobody can think of a time, and I think he asked the lawyers of this, where something like this has happened, where a lawsuit like this has resulted in going back and deauthorizing a drug.

Here's something that oftentimes people don't realize is a possibility. The plaintiffs in this case, hand selected, chose this particular drug. Excuse me, this particular judge. This particular judge. That's allowed? Yeah. So as you know, there are 94 federal districts in the country and divisions within those districts, and they chose to bring this lawsuit in a place where medical abortion is already illegal. So they were obviously not trying to maximize the effect on the people who live in that community.

It seems wanted to have someone who would be sympathetic to their position. And I think that that's going to be a question that's going to work its way up all the way to the Supreme Court. Another, this is right for one judge sitting in Amarillo, Texas, to make a decision that affects all of us. And you know, Stephanie, what's interesting is, I don't think it's entirely predictable how that's going to turn out in the end, because the two critics on the Supreme Court of nationwide injunctions, the people who have said, you know, this is not a good way to make high stakes decisions with low information, are Justice Gorsuch and Justice Thomas. Oh, really? So they might say, this is too broad, the power that he has exerted here, assuming that he does in fact give the plaintiffs what they want. So let's say he does. Let's say he revokes this 22-year FDA-approved drug.

What happens? Well, there's a question of what happens in the life of the case. I mean, I think that it's pretty clear that the Department of Justice would immediately try to stay this order, go to the Fifth Circuit, which is the Court of Appeals, that is over him, and then make their way up to the Supreme Court. But even timing, right? Let's say he makes this ruling. What happens to access to that medication the next day? Right. Well, that's a complicated question. It involves lots of different factors. One is, what's the FDA going to do? They might say, I mean, this would be unprecedented.

He can't actually order us to withdraw this. As I said earlier, he might just be able to ask us to start over. It is possible for the FDA to give safe harbor to users of a drug that is not authorized. So there are all those questions. There are questions about what to do with the drug that's already in the market, whether it could come from abroad. But I think what we can say for sure, Stephanie, is that there is going to be chaos, legal chaos, and just chaos in terms of access. Because that number you reported earlier, about half of abortions in the country happening this way through the use of pills rather than surgically.

That was true before Dobs. And I have to think it's only more and more so because we know that places where abortion is banned, this is one way that women are able to help themselves. Here's what I really don't get. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe versus Wade, Justice Alito's majority opinion said, the issue should go to the states. Then how come if this one judge in Amarilla, Texas makes a decision, it could impact all 50 of us? Exactly. That's why this decision is bigger than Dobs because it can affect all of us. He said that.

And the other thing that the court said was this is really going to neutralize things and sort of lower the temperature of all the litigation going on around the country. And I think we can say that also did not bear out. Yes. That's true. None of this has been neutralized, not in the last year. Tali, you always make us smarter. I don't feel safer, but I feel smarter tonight.

Stephanie Ruhle