2026-09-09T19:25:39.985Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/09/politics/mifepristone-arguments-in-5th-circuit
周三,药物堕胎议题再次提交至新奥尔良的一家上诉法院,这是多年来旨在终止远程医疗提供堕胎药物这一做法的法律诉讼的最新一轮进展。
目前药物堕胎占美国堕胎总数的三分之二,而自2022年最高法院裁决终止全国范围内的堕胎权保护以来,美国堕胎总数有所上升。此次最新诉讼由路易斯安那州针对特朗普政府提起,该州辩称,联邦法规允许米非司酮通过邮寄方式送达患者,无需患者当面看医生,这削弱了路易斯安那州的堕胎禁令。
在长达约100分钟的辩论中,美国第五巡回上诉法院就其是否能够干预美国政府针对堕胎药物的监管方针展开了激烈讨论。美国司法部试图通过提出程序性质疑来阻止这起诉讼,同时拒绝认可该药物的安全性。
上诉法院未表明将如何对路易斯安那州的诉讼作出裁决;无论其裁决结果如何,预计最高法院将对此事拥有最终决定权。
今年5月,最高法院发布了一项紧急命令,在当前这轮法律纠纷期间维持允许远程医疗堕胎的现行规则。周三的听证会大部分内容围绕在该命令的约束下,上诉法院在此案中究竟可以采取何种行动展开。
法官们还重点讨论了路易斯安那州提起诉讼的原告资格这一重大程序问题,即该州是否证明了相关法规对其造成了损害,以至于法院有理由介入此案。
“我很难在案卷中找到任何证据,证明FDA批准将这种药物邮寄到那些将邮寄该药物定为非法的州,”由乔治·W·布什任命的普里西拉·里奇曼法官对路易斯安那州副检察长本·阿吉纳加说道。
该合议庭的多名法官提及了最高法院的先例——包括此前由反堕胎医生提起的另一桩堕胎药物诉讼案——这些先例将那些仅能通过“间接”关联事件来确立原告起诉资格的诉讼拒之门外。
美国司法部律师丹尼尔·维尼克表示,仅这些原告资格问题就足以成为法院驳回路易斯安那州诉求的理由,同时他回避了法官们关于该州辩称FDA对该药物的监管方式存在缺陷的相关提问。
但由奥巴马任命的斯蒂芬·希金森法官对维尼克称其“无权”就路易斯安那州是否必须先通过监管程序表达反对意见再提起诉讼的说法表示不满。
尽管第五巡回上诉法院总体上是非常保守的法院,但负责此案这一审理阶段的三名法官却偏向温和左翼:由乔·拜登总统任命的法官达娜·道格拉斯与希金森和里奇曼共同组成了该合议庭。
这起案件给本届政府带来了政治压力,因为反堕胎组织对特朗普任内的FDA没有主动终止远程医疗堕胎,且反对相关法律挑战感到愤怒。
FDA表示正在对该药物的安全性进行评估,并因此请求暂停整个诉讼程序。反堕胎活动人士指责FDA出于政治原因拖延此事,而生殖权利组织则担心本届政府会在中期选举后收紧药物堕胎服务的准入限制。
希金森多次指出,美国其他地区的法院——在堕胎服务机构和生殖权利组织提起的诉讼中——曾作出裁决,指责FDA对药物堕胎的监管过于严苛。他还提到了2021年最高法院的一项裁决,该裁决推翻了下级法院的命令,该命令曾要求FDA因新冠疫情允许远程医疗堕胎。
“我想说的是——然后首席大法官罗伯茨写道——最高法院似乎始终坚持一个原则:让FDA履行其职责,”希金森说道。
尽管如此,第五巡回上诉法院合议庭并未回避路易斯安那州对FDA监管规定提出的质疑,多名法官就该机构制定现行规则时所参考的数据以及重新审议监管规定的行政程序提出了问题。
作为路易斯安那州在此案中的联合律师,联盟辩护与自由基金会的高级律师埃里克·巴普蒂斯特在听证会结束后告诉CNN,法院愿意深入探究诉讼的实质内容,这为路易斯安那州提供了详细阐述其论点的机会。
“我们很高兴向第五巡回上诉法院解释路易斯安那州因FDA的规定所遭受的诸多损害,”他说道,并将这些监管规定描述为“蓄意”将药物堕胎药物输送到反堕胎州的行为。
Appeals court considers future of nationwide access to medication abortion
2026-09-09T19:25:39.985Z / https://www.cnn.com/2026/09/09/politics/mifepristone-arguments-in-5th-circuit
The issue of medication abortion was back before a New Orleans-based appeals court on Wednesday, in the latest iteration of a yearslong legal effort to end the provision of abortion drugs via telehealth.
Medication abortion now accounts for two-thirds of US abortions, which overall have increased since the 2022 Supreme Court decision that ended abortion rights protections nationwide. The latest case was brought against the Trump administration by Louisiana, which has argued its abortion prohibitions are being undermined by federal regulations that allow mifepristone to be sent to patients in the mail, without an in-person doctor’s visit.
Over roughly 100 minutes of arguments, the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals wrestled with whether it could interfere with the US government’s regulatory approach to the abortion pill. The Justice Department has tried to head off the lawsuit by raising procedural issues with the case while refusing to endorse the safety of the drug.
The appeals court did not indicate how it intended to rule on Louisiana’s case; however it rules, it is expected that the Supreme Court will have the final word on the matter.
The high court issued an emergency order in May keeping the current rules allowing telehealth abortions in place for this current round of legal wrangling. Much of Wednesday’s hearing centered on what the appeals court could even do in the case in light of that order.
The judges also focused on the larger procedural question of Louisiana’s standing to bring the case, meaning whether it had shown the regulations were harming it in a way that made it appropriate for courts to intervene.
“I’m having trouble finding anywhere in the record that the FDA has approved the mailing of this drug into states where it’s unlawful to do that,” Judge Priscilla Richman, a George W. Bush appointee, told Louisiana Solicitor General Ben Aguiñaga.
Multiple judges on the panel pointed to Supreme Court precedents – including in a separate, earlier abortion pill case brought anti-abortion doctors – that shut the door to lawsuits that could only establish the challenger’s standing to sue through an “attenuated” chain of events.
DOJ attorney Daniel Winik said those standing issues alone were enough of a reason for the court to reject Louisiana’s request, as he dodged questions from the judges about the state’s arguments that FDA’s regulatory approach to the drug is flawed.
But Judge Stephen Higginson, an Obama appointee, expressed frustration when Winnick said he was not “authorized” to give his views about whether Louisiana was required to take steps to air its objections through the regulatory process before it could file its lawsuit.
While the 5th Circuit is generally a very conservative court, the trio of judges assigned to this stage of the case had a moderate-left lean, with President Joe Biden appointee Judge Dana Douglas joining Higginson and Richman on the panel.
The case has brought political heat for the administration, as anti-abortion groups have been irate that Trump’s FDA hasn’t sought to end telehealth abortion on its own and that it’s opposing the legal challenges.
The FDA says it’s undertaking a review of the drug’s safety profile and has sought to put the entire case on hold for that reason. Anti-abortion activists have accused the FDA of slow-walking the issue for political reasons, while reproductive rights groups worry that the administration will clamp down on medication abortion access after the midterms.
Higginson repeatedly noted that courts in other parts of the country – in cases brought by abortion providers and reproductive rights groups – had issued rulings faulting the FDA for being too strict in its regulations for medication abortion. He also raised a 2021 Supreme Court ruling that reversed a lower court order that required the FDA to allow telehealth abortions because of the Covid-19 pandemic.
“I guess what I’m saying – and then Chief Justice Roberts writes — it looks like the Supreme Court is being constant with one principle: Let FDA do its work,” Higginson said.
Still, the 5th Circuit panel didn’t shy away from Louisiana’s arguments for second-guessing the FDA’s regulations, with several questions about the data the agency considered when coming with the current rules and about the administrative process for reconsidering the regulations.
Erik Baptist, a senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, Louisiana’s co-counsel in the case, told CNN after the hearing that the court’s willingness to dig into the merits of the lawsuit gave Louisiana the opportunity to flesh out its argument.
“We were happy to explain (to) the 5th Circuit the numerous harms that the state of is Louisiana incurring” because of the FDA’s rules, he said, describing those regulations as an “intentional” effort to send medication abortion drugs into anti-abortion states.
发表回复