FDA Wouldn’t Defend Its Own Mifepristone Rule in Court
Summary
Host Imani Gandy analyzes oral arguments in Louisiana v. FDA, where the state seeks to reinstate in-person mifepristone dispensing. The episode highlights the Trump administration's refusal to defend the FDA's 2023 rule, forcing drug manufacturers to justify the policy. Gandy discusses the legal hurdles of staying a ruling after Supreme Court intervention and warns that mifepristone access remains threatened by both litigation and a new, potentially biased FDA safety review.
Topics discussed
Intro and confession about previous prediction
Why the 5th Circuit panel's task is harder
Louisiana's request to reinstate in-person rules
The paradox of asking to stay its own ruling
Louisiana's admission of distrust in its own win
Trump FDA opposes Louisiana but doesn't defend rule
Government lawyer unable to explain FDA process
Judges criticize FDA for not defending its rule
Standing arguments and reliance on drug manufacturers
Louisiana's claim of targeting post-Dobbs states
Danco lawyer refutes the Dobbs targeting theory
Debunking the ER visit statistics argument
Concerns about relying on Big Pharma for safety
Two interpretations of the government's silence
Threats to mifepristone access on two tracks
HHS Secretary RFK Jr. and the new safety review
FDA website contradictions and future risks
Conclusion: The fight is far from over
Listen ad-free on Castria