Restoring Safeguards for Dangerous Abortion Drugs Act
Summary
The "Restoring Safeguards for Dangerous Abortion Drugs Act" (H.R. 5646) aims to reinstate the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for mifepristone to its 2011 version. It also seeks to establish federal tort liability for harm caused by covered entities involved in the interstate or foreign commerce of mifepristone in violation of existing laws. Finally, the bill includes a ban on the importation of mifepristone into the United States.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would restrict access to mifepristone by reverting to the 2011 REMS and prohibiting its importation. It would also create a legal avenue for individuals to sue telehealth providers, pharmacies, or other entities involved in the unlawful distribution of the drug. This could lead to decreased availability of medication abortion and increased legal challenges for providers.
Potential Benefits
- Could potentially reduce health risks associated with mifepristone if the 2011 REMS is deemed safer.
- May deter illegal importation and distribution of mifepristone.
- Provides a legal recourse for individuals who believe they have been harmed by the drug due to improper handling or distribution.
- Could strengthen state laws related to abortion by providing a federal framework for liability.
- Aims to reinforce existing regulations regarding the distribution and use of mifepristone.
Potential Disadvantages
- Restricting access to mifepristone may limit reproductive choices for women.
- Could increase the cost and difficulty of obtaining medication abortion.
- May disproportionately affect women in rural areas or those with limited access to healthcare.
- The federal tort liability provision could lead to frivolous lawsuits and burden the healthcare system.
- Could create confusion and uncertainty regarding the legality of telemedicine abortion services.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's alignment with the Constitution is complex. Supporters might argue that it falls under Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8) and to protect public health. Opponents could argue that it infringes upon individual liberties and privacy rights, potentially raising concerns under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The bill's impact on abortion access also brings into play the legal precedents set by Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, although the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision has altered the landscape.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About ⓘ
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to you. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).