S.1631 - Restoring Safeguards for Dangerous Abortion Drugs Act (119th Congress)
Summary
S.1631, the "Restoring Safeguards for Dangerous Abortion Drugs Act," aims to reinstate the 2011 risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for mifepristone. It mandates the Secretary of Health and Human Services to withdraw the current REMS and approve one identical to that of June 2011. The bill also establishes federal tort liability for harm to women caused by abortion drugs imported or transported unlawfully and bans the importation of mifepristone.
Expected Effects
The bill, if enacted, would significantly restrict access to mifepristone by reinstating older safety protocols and creating legal liabilities for providers. This could lead to fewer abortions performed using mifepristone and potentially increase the number of surgical abortions. The ban on importation could also affect the availability and cost of the drug.
Potential Benefits 2/5
- Reinstating the 2011 REMS may provide a perceived higher level of safety for women using mifepristone.
- The bill seeks to hold telehealth providers and pharmacies accountable for harm caused by illegally imported or transported mifepristone.
- Supporters argue that restricting access to mifepristone protects unborn lives.
- The bill aims to prevent the importation of mifepristone, potentially reducing the availability of unregulated or unsafe versions of the drug.
- The bill could lead to increased awareness of the risks associated with mifepristone.
Potential Disadvantages
- Restricting access to mifepristone may limit women's reproductive choices.
- The bill could disproportionately affect women in rural areas or those with limited access to healthcare.
- The federal tort liability provision may create a chilling effect, discouraging providers from offering mifepristone, even when legally permissible.
- The ban on importation could increase the cost of mifepristone, making it less accessible to low-income women.
- The bill may face legal challenges based on constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection.
Constitutional Alignment 2/5
The bill's constitutional alignment is questionable, particularly concerning the right to privacy, potentially conflicting with established precedents like Roe v. Wade and subsequent cases, though Roe has been overturned. Opponents may argue the bill infringes upon individual liberty and bodily autonomy, rights implicitly protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Supporters may counter that the bill is within Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce (Article I, Section 8) and to protect the health and safety of citizens.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to citizens. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).