The Supreme Court’s decision Thursday to dismiss one effort to curtail access to abortion pills did not eliminate the possibility that other plaintiffs would continue to mount challenges to the medication that is used in a majority of abortions in the country. The lawsuit before the Supreme Court was rejected because the justices unanimously ruled that the plaintiffs — a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations — did not have standing to sue because they could not show they had been harmed by the availability of abortion pills. But the case is likely to be revived with different plaintiffs: three Republican-led states that months ago petitioned successfully to join the case at the lower court level.
Late last year, the states — Missouri, Idaho and Kansas — were granted status to be plaintiffs by Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, an appointee of President Donald Trump’s who heard the original lawsuit and who openly opposes abortion access. When the case was accepted by the Supreme Court, the justices denied the three states’ request to intervene as plaintiffs at that level. But anti-abortion groups say the three states will probably now return to the district court and resurrect the attempt to restrict access to the medication, mifepristone.
In a statement Thursday, SBA Pro-Life America, an anti-abortion group, said: “The case returns to district court where the pro-life states of Idaho, Kansas and Mis.
