Maryland Federal Judge Theodore Chuang has rejected the Trump administration’s case to reinstate a rule that would make it a requirement that women would have to go to a hospital, clinic, or medical office before getting an abortion pill during the pandemic.
The judge referenced the worsening health risks for patients amid the coronavirus crisis. In July, the judge said he would suspend the rule. On Wednesday, he chose not to lift or limit any part of the order.
Furthermore, he denied the request that argued economic conditions and an individual’s ability to get medical attention at health facilities have improved–including patients’ access to childcare and transportation. According to the administration, these conditions improved enough for the judge to dissolve the preliminary injunction, ABC News reported.
Despite the surging amount of cases across the nation and hospitalizations of COVID-19 instances, the Trump administration presented their argument to Chuang, who emphasized what the White House Coronavirus Task Force stated, that the country is in the “most deadly phase of the pandemic.” He also ruled that the administration failed to present any evidence for their stance, adding that this temporary ruling has caused any harm to the government or patients.
“Accordingly, while the progress on vaccines and medical treatments for COVID-19 are cause for optimism and may advance the day that the Preliminary Injunction will no longer be warranted, the impact of these advances to date has not meaningfully altered the current health risks and obstacles to women seeking medication abortions,” Chuang wrote.
Before Chuang’s July order, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration required patients to meet in-person requirements before receiving the abortion pill. But now that the pandemic has wreaked havoc on America, that rule presented a “substantial obstacle” and was not fit during a pandemic.
The Justice Department stepped in to appeal Chuang’s order, but the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to intervene or rule based on the judge’s ruling. On Wednesday, he rejected the idea of reconsidering his stance. In his opinion, the pandemic has caused “uniformly dire” conditions “across the nation.”
“Thus, at the present time, there is no meaningful basis by which to distinguish one state or region from others as uniquely free from the health risks, and thus the undue burden, imposed by the COVlD-19 pandemic,” he wrote.
When the public health emergency is lifted, the preliminary injunction overruling the rule that patients seek medical attention will expire 30 days later. “With the positive news relating to vaccines, there is reason to hope that day will come soon,” Chuang wrote.
Certain groups, including The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have moved to sue the HHS and the FDA for challenging the judge’s ruling.
“The Trump administration’s argument that this travel mandate for abortion patients no longer poses significant COVID-19 risks is violently out of touch with reality,” ACLU attorney Julia Kaye said in a statement Wednesday.
The plaintiffs say the challenge poses a threat to women’s constitutional rights to get an abortion and violates the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause.
In their lawsuit, it highlighted the FDA’s wrongdoing, saying “particularly severe implications for low-income people and people of color, who comprise a disproportionate share of impacted patients and who are already suffering and dying from COVID-19 at substantially higher rates.”
Chuang also supported their evidence by referencing the findings that Black and Hispanic people between 25-34 are 700% more likely to die from the coronavirus than white people of the same age group.
Discover more from Baller Alert
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
