In a historic move this April, a Texas federal judge moved to invalidate 23 years of Food and Drug Administration approval for the abortion pill mifepristone. Although the Supreme Court has put this decision on hold until another appeal can be heard, access to medication abortion remains at stake — presenting the greatest threat to abortion access since the Dobbs v. Jackson ruling last summer.

Medication abortion accounted for the majority of facility-based abortions in 2020. The method consists of mifepristone and misoprostol taken together, meaning a withdrawal of FDA approval for mifepristone could affect access to this commonly used form of abortion everywhere.

Even states that preserve legal abortion — like our own Massachusetts — could be impacted. Although Massachusetts Governor Maura T. Healey ’92 asserted that pharmacies must supply medication abortion, this case could restrict medication abortion access here. Thus, the outcome of this litigation could restrict reproductive care for all Harvard students.

Limiting access to medication abortion will likely disproportionately affect women of color. As we saw after the Dobbs ruling, these women are more likely to receive abortion services, have less access to healthcare, and often face financial barriers in traveling out of state to obtain an abortion.

The plaintiffs in the mifepristone case are anti-choice organizations and doctors, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, a faith-based, anti-abortion law firm. The firm has claimed that mifepristone was improperly approved by the FDA. The doctors who are being represented have also alleged that they were required to distribute a medication that caused adverse effects among patients, even though serious side effects occur in fewer than 1 percent of patients.

Judges do not have the scientific expertise to decide the efficacy or approval of a medication, especially when the FDA has already decided this matter. Mifepristone was first approved in 2000 by the FDA and has been used by more than five million people. Overwhelming research has shown that mifepristone is safe. An order for the FDA to withdraw the approval of mifepristone is an abuse of power by the judiciary system that infringes on the autonomy of the FDA.

If this case is successful, the restrictions on mifepristone could set a new precedent for medication access in the United States. Contraceptives are already in a vulnerable position: In his concurring opinion to Dobbs v. Jackson, Justice Clarence Thomas stated that the Court should also reconsider its 1965 ruling in Griswold v. Connecticut, which protected the right to access contraceptives. This could prove detrimental to the access of other critical medications and threaten the integrity of medical research.

It’s a dangerous time for a federal judge to stir doubt on the FDA’s authority and approval process. In a 2021 survey conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health, 24 percent of respondents reported that they did not have much confidence in the FDA. A legal decision undermining the FDA could further deteriorate public trust in the organization.

While the FDA could technically take action to soften a judicial ban, they may be precluded by political leaders and private entities. Walgreens confirmed that it would not sell mifepristone in 21 states after Republican attorney generals sent letters to it and other major pharmacies threatening legal repercussions if they sold abortion medications. In this political climate, a decision in the mifepristone case may be more definitive than it first seems.

As a Latina from Texas, legal and political threats to reproductive access are nothing new to me. But studying at Harvard in Massachusetts — a progressive state that has historically protected reproductive rights — I found comfort in knowing that I could access reproductive care. After the Dobbs ruling and this recent litigation, any stability I once felt is hindered.

The continuous attacks on sexual and reproductive health made through the judicial system in the last year demonstrate a clear, persistent agenda to undo the progress that thousands of people protested and fought for. The fight for reproductive rights is far from over, and it’s caving in on all of us — regardless of which state we reside in.

Correction: September 29, 2023

A previous version of this article misstated that Walgreens stopped selling mifepristone in 21 states after Republican attorney generals sent letters threatening legal action to the company. In fact, no major retail pharmacy currently has permission from the FDA to distribute mifepristone, and Walgreens has not started selling mifepristone.

Shania D. Hurtado ’25, a Crimson Editorial Editor, is a Government concentrator in Currier House.