• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Catholic Review

Catholic Review

Inspiring the Archdiocese of Baltimore

Menu
  • Home
  • News
        • Local News
        • World News
        • Vatican News
        • Obituaries
        • Featured Video
        • En Español
        • Sports News
        • Official Clergy Assignments
        • Schools News
  • Commentary
        • Contributors
          • Question Corner
          • George Weigel
          • Elizabeth Scalia
          • Michael R. Heinlein
          • Effie Caldarola
          • Guest Commentary
        • CR Columnists
          • Archbishop William E. Lori
          • Rita Buettner
          • Christopher Gunty
          • George Matysek Jr.
          • Mark Viviano
          • Father Joseph Breighner
          • Father Collin Poston
          • Robyn Barberry
          • Hanael Bianchi
          • Amen Columns
  • Entertainment
        • Events
        • Movie & Television Reviews
        • Arts & Culture
        • Books
        • Recipes
  • About Us
        • Contact Us
        • Our History
        • Meet Our Staff
        • Photos to own
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • CR Media platforms
        • Electronic Edition
  • Advertising
  • Shop
        • Purchase Photos
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • Magazine Subscriptions
        • Archdiocesan Directory
  • CR Radio
        • CR Radio
        • Protagonistas de Fe
  • News Tips
  • Subscribe
The U.S. Supreme Court in Washington is pictured May 3, 2020. (CNS photo/Will Dunham, Reuters)

Supreme Court says abortion drugs must be obtained in person, not by mail

January 13, 2021
By Carol Zimmermann
Catholic News Service
Filed Under: Feature, News, Respect Life, Supreme Court, World News

Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Pin
Pin this
Share
Share on LinkedIn

WASHINGTON (CNS) — The Supreme Court Jan. 12 reinstated a federal requirement that women who are seeking abortion-inducing drugs must do so in person, not by mail, as a federal judge had allowed last year due to the pandemic and the high court had let stand.

In its 6-3 order, the justices said women must follow previous Food and Drug Administration requirements that they had to visit a doctor’s office, hospital or clinic in person to obtain Mifeprex, the brand name for mifepristone, also called RU-486, which is used to end pregnancies during the first 10 weeks.

FDA regulations initially required patients to receive the drug in person after signing a form acknowledging risks associated with it.

Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life, said in a Jan. 12 statement that she was “pleased that the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the serious nature of chemical abortions and the need for the FDA to have protocols in place to protect women from potentially life-threatening and devastating side effects.”

Catholic Church leaders have been vocal in their opposition to this drug since it was given FDA approval in 2000 and in 2016 when the FDA relaxed rules for its use, saying it could be administered with fewer visits to a doctor.

The question about how women can obtain these drugs started with a challenge to requirements for their distribution made last year by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The group argued the in-person visits to obtain these pills during a pandemic violated the Constitution by creating a substantial obstacle to women being able to get an abortion.

U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang of Maryland agreed, ruling last summer that keeping the FDA requirement during the pandemic would “place a substantial obstacle in the path of women seeking a medication abortion and that may delay or preclude a medication abortion and thus may necessitate a more invasive procedure.”

Instead, he said, the pills could be sent by mail during the pandemic.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit rejected the FDA’s request to put this ruling on hold and the FDA took the case to the Supreme Court, which declined to take it up last October. The justices suggested the FDA go back to the District Court to ask the judge to modify or freeze his order and on Dec. 9, Chuang issued a new order denying the FDA’s request.

Less than a week later, the FDA came back to the Supreme Court arguing that the in-person requirement does not impose a substantial obstacle for a woman seeking to obtain an abortion.

On Jan. 12, almost one month after the FDA request, the court agreed to allow the government to enforce the in-person rule for obtaining abortion drugs while the agency continued its appeal of Chuang’s decision.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote a separate opinion agreeing with the court’s decision but stressing that the question was not so much about the potential burden of the in-person requirement to obtain the drugs than it was about Chuang’s view about the impact of the pandemic on women seeking to obtain the drug. He said the judge should not have ordered the FDA to relax its requirement.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing an opinion joined by Justice Elena Kagan, said: “The FDA’s policy imposes an unnecessary, unjustifiable, irrational and undue burden on women seeking abortion during the current pandemic.” She also said that during the pandemic, government agencies have eased restrictions on picking up other drugs in person.

A post in the scotusblog, which writes about the Supreme Court, said the court did not offer an explanation for why it took almost a month to respond to the FDA’s request.

It also said that although the ruling “gives the FDA the green light to reinstate the in-person requirement immediately, the Biden administration could opt to waive the requirement, either for the duration of the pandemic or more permanently.”

Also see

Supreme Court rules states can deny Medicaid funds to Planned Parenthood

Supreme Court upholds Tennessee’s gender transition ban for minors

Supreme Court takes up appeal from N.J. faith-based pregnancy centers

‘Public’ does not equal ‘state’ or ‘government’

High court sends Catholic groups’ challenge to N.Y. abortion-coverage mandate back to state courts

Supreme Court rules in favor of Wisconsin Catholic agency over religious exemption


Copyright © 2021 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Print Print

Share
Share on Facebook
Share
Share this
Pin
Pin this
Share
Share on LinkedIn

Primary Sidebar

Carol Zimmermann

Click here to view all posts from this author

For the latest news delivered twice a week via email or text message, sign up to receive our free enewsletter.

| MOST POPULAR |

  • 3 North Americans named to Vatican dicasteries for ecumenism, interreligious dialogue

  • Archbishop Lori announces clergy appointments, including pastor and associate pastors

  • St. Mary’s purchases former Annapolis Area Christian School

  • DUAL ENROLLMENT Double the learning: Dual enrollment provides college credit to high school students

  • superman Movie Review: Superman

| Latest Local News |

Archbishop Lori announces clergy appointments, including pastor and associate pastors

DUAL ENROLLMENT

Double the learning: Dual enrollment provides college credit to high school students

St. Mary’s purchases former Annapolis Area Christian School

Radio Interview: Exploring the Nicene Creed – Part Two

St. Clement Mary Hofbauer adapts to times, cultures as it celebrates 100th anniversary

| Latest World News |

Judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order as part of class action lawsuit

Ukraine religious leaders issue ‘desperate cry’ to world to end Russia’s war

care of creation

Pope Leo wears Chicago-made vestments to July 9 ‘care of creation’ Mass

sorry baby

Movie Review: Sorry, Baby

ICE

ICE deports Iowa parishioner to Guatemala homeland as supporters pray for his release

| Catholic Review Radio |

CatholicReview · Catholic Review Radio

Footer

Our Vision

Real Life. Real Faith. 

Catholic Review Media communicates the Gospel and its impact on people’s lives in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and beyond.

Our Mission

Catholic Review Media provides intergenerational communications that inform, teach, inspire and engage Catholics and all of good will in the mission of Christ through diverse forms of media.

Contact

Catholic Review
320 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
443-524-3150
mail@CatholicReview.org

 

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent

  • Expert discusses serious harms of smartphones for children and how to limit their use
  • Movie Review: Superman
  • Judge blocks Trump birthright citizenship order as part of class action lawsuit
  • Ukraine religious leaders issue ‘desperate cry’ to world to end Russia’s war
  • Pope Leo wears Chicago-made vestments to July 9 ‘care of creation’ Mass
  • Movie Review: Sorry, Baby
  • ICE deports Iowa parishioner to Guatemala homeland as supporters pray for his release
  • Come away and rest awhile
  • French woman hopes sharing mystical encounter with Minnesota Benedictine helps sainthood cause

Search

Membership

Catholic Media Assocation

Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association

The Associated Church Press

© 2025 CATHOLIC REVIEW MEDIA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

en Englishes Spanish
en en