H.R.679 - To nullify the modifications made by the Food and Drug Administration in January 2023 to the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for the abortion pill mifepristone, and for other purposes. (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R. 679 aims to nullify the FDA's January 2023 modifications to the risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for mifepristone, an abortion pill. The bill seeks to revert the regulations surrounding the drug's distribution and usage to their pre-January 2023 status. It also prevents the Secretary of Health and Human Services from implementing similar modifications in the future.
The bill was introduced in the House of Representatives on January 23, 2025, and referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The primary goal is to restrict access to mifepristone by undoing the FDA's changes to its REMS.
This action reflects ongoing political and legal debates surrounding abortion access and the role of the FDA in regulating pharmaceuticals.
Expected Effects
If enacted, H.R. 679 would reinstate stricter regulations on mifepristone, potentially limiting its availability. This could lead to fewer medication abortions and increased demand for surgical abortions.
The bill's passage would also curtail the FDA's authority to modify REMS for mifepristone in ways deemed substantially similar to the nullified modifications. This could set a precedent for congressional intervention in FDA regulatory decisions.
Ultimately, the effect would be a significant shift in abortion access, particularly impacting women in rural areas or those with limited access to healthcare facilities.
Potential Benefits
- Could be seen as upholding the value of life by those who oppose abortion.
- May ensure stricter safety protocols are in place for the use of mifepristone.
- Could potentially reduce complications associated with medication abortions.
- May empower Congress to check the authority of the FDA.
- Could reinforce existing regulations and standards related to drug safety.
Potential Disadvantages
- Restricts access to a safe and legal abortion method, potentially leading to more unsafe abortions.
- Undermines the FDA's scientific and medical judgment in regulating pharmaceuticals.
- Disproportionately affects women in rural areas or those with limited access to healthcare.
- Could set a precedent for political interference in scientific regulatory decisions.
- May infringe upon a woman's reproductive rights and bodily autonomy.
Constitutional Alignment
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Supporters might argue that Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8) and to oversee executive agencies. Opponents could argue that it infringes upon individual rights, particularly reproductive rights, which some interpret as protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The bill also raises questions about the separation of powers, as it directly nullifies an FDA decision, potentially encroaching on the executive branch's authority to implement and enforce laws. The lack of explicit mention of abortion in the Constitution leaves the issue open to interpretation and legal challenges.
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).