(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court on Wednesday was expected to decide whether to wade into a legal challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion pill, a case that could restrict access to the drug mifepristone nationwide — even in states where abortion is legal.

If the Supreme Court agrees to take up a Texas judge’s ruling that threatened to pull the drug from the market, it would be the second time in less than a year that the high court will deal with limits to abortion access, potentially paving the way for another blockbuster ruling this summer that could dramatically change how drugs are approved in the U.S.

“It is not a stretch to say that a judge can wake up in the morning and decide that they want to take a certain medication off the market,” including vaccines or anti-depressants, if the lower court rulings stand, said Josh Sharfstein, former principal deputy commissioner at the FDA.

The case has deeply divided the country, with Republican governors and lawmakers lining up behind the conservative plaintiffs in the case.

“Fundamentally, chemical abortion drugs pose serious health and safety risks to women and girls,” states a brief filed with the Supreme Court, signed by nearly 150 Republican lawmakers including Senate Minority Whip John Thune of South Dakota, Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso of Wyoming, and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana.

On the other side are Democratic governors, lawmakers and the nation’s largest medical associations, as well as hundreds of pharmaceutical executives and companies. They note mifepristone has been widely available for 23 years — used by an estimated five million women and accounting for more than half of all abortions in the US.

“There is a greater risk of complications or mortality for procedures like wisdom-tooth removals, tonsillectomies, colonoscopies, and plastic surgeries, than by any abortion method (medication or procedural),” the American Medical Association and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, wrote in a court brief.

FDA Administrator Bob Califf was scheduled to testify before a Senate panel Wednesday, where he was expected to field questions about the drug’s safety.

Mifepristone is the sole drug approved by the FDA to end early pregnancies, typically given along with second drug misoprostol that helps empty the uterus.

Since the drug’s 2000 approval, the FDA later expanded access, greenlighting a generic version of the drug and allowing it to be given up to 10 weeks of pregnancy instead of seven and provided via telehealth and the mail.

The drug’s rise in popularity and widespread accessibility has made it a target of the anti-abortion rights movement. Last fall, the conservative legal group Alliance Defending Freedom sued the FDA, insisting that federal regulators ignored critical safety concerns during the drug’s 23 years on the market.

Earlier this month, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the FDA to roll back its rules on the drug — only allowing the drug to be given to patients up to seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10 after three in-person doctor visits and prohibiting it from being mailed.

The Biden administration appealed, and Justice Samuel Alito issued an administrative five-day stay of the ruling — keeping the FDA’s current rules on the drug in place through the end of the day Wednesday until the high court has a chance to consider how to address the case.

If the Supreme Court decides to weigh in, it is expected the justices also would decide Wednesday whether to keep the 5th Circuit ruling on hold — preserving the status quo — while the legal challenge plays out.

Depending upon what the Supreme Court decides, access to the abortion pill could potentially be severely restricted or even eliminated, including in states where abortion is legal — at least until the case has a chance to wind its way through the legal process.

Complicating the issue is an opposing ruling by a federal judge in Washington who ordered the FDA to keep the drug on the market under its current rules. Danco Labs, which makes the brand-name version of the drug Mifeprex, said the dueling rulings if left unaddressed would create “regulatory chaos.”

The company also warns that if left in place, the 5th Circuit ruling would result in all doses of mifepristone being “misbranded” because the labeling would no longer comply with the approval standard.

Adjusting the drug’s labeling “could take months,” they say, resulting in a stop of production.

The 5th Circuit ruling also would invalidate the 2019 FDA approval of the generic version of the drug — an estimated two-thirds of the market.

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.

(WASHINGTON) — Two key members of the far-right Proud Boys group testified Tuesday hoping to prove their innocence in the seditious conspiracy case against them for the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, while admitting some of their actions were wrong.

Zachary Rehl and Dominic Pezzola both acknowledged their wrongdoing when they breached the Capitol building on Jan. 6, 2021, during the riot.

“I basically trespassed through all the breaches,” Pezzola testified, describing how he pushed his way through multiple police lines before entering the building.

Pezzola, who also goes by the nickname “Spaz,” admitted to using a police officer’s riot shield to smash a Capitol building window and then trespassing in the building for more than 20 minutes.

Asked by his attorney why he decided to take the stand, Pezzola said, “to take responsibility” for what he did on Jan. 6 and explain that his co-defendants were not involved in many of his actions.

Pezzola and Rehl, along with three other Proud Boys leaders, are charged with seditious conspiracy against the United States, conspiracy to obstruct an official proceeding and actual obstruction of the 2020 election certification, as well as assaulting, resisting or impeding officers and destruction of government property.

Pezzola faces an additional charge of robbery for allegedly stealing the riot shield he used to smash the window. He denied the allegation on Tuesday, saying he got the shield from someone else.

Federal prosecutors seeking to discredit Rehl, president of the group’s Philadelphia chapter, presented video evidence that they suggested showed Rehl macing police at the Capitol on Jan. 6.

Over the course of his own testimony, Rehl repeatedly said under oath that he did not assault officers. He is not charged with assaulting officers with a chemical spray.

Asked directly by Assistant U.S. Attorney Erik Kenerson if he was “spraying at police officers,” Rehl responded: “Not that I recall.”

Kenerson showed the jury multiple camera angles of a person wearing what he suggested was identical attire to Rehl moving through the crowd. Rehl said he could not confirm the person was him. Images of the person were obscured and low resolution as Kenerson moved frame by frame through the sequence.

“It’s a really grainy video,” Rehl said, adding at one point that he could not “confirm or deny” the person was him.

Rehl has been testifying over the past week in the seditious conspiracy case against him. The jury trial has dragged on for months with a variety of tedious procedural hurdles since jury selection began in December.

Responding to questions from his attorney Carmen Hernandez last week, Rehl cast the Proud Boys as a rowdy social club — a stark contrast from prosecutors’ characterization of the group as a far-right militia intent on overthrowing the U.S. government.

“Yeah, we’d party … we’d go get lit,” Rehl said in reference to social gatherings the group had after attending a protest.

The parties at times were unrelated to any protests, Rehl said, referring to the group’s occasional travel to Las Vegas.

“We go out there and we just get trashed all weekend,” Rehl said. “We get drunk. We gamble. We meet other guys from other chapters. It’s a great time.”

To close out his testimony, Rehl apologized to members of the jury, “if you believe I did anything wrong that day.” He acknowledged he should not have entered the Capitol building and said it was a mistake to have smoked a cigarette in the building.

“It was a terrible day,” Rehl said. “A lot of bad stuff happened.”

Copyright © 2023, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.