The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone, striking a blow for the pro-life cause.

The court was unanimous in its decision, and the lawsuit was rejected on the grounds that the pro-life group that brought it didn’t have standing to sue;  in other words, members of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine aren’t themselves being affected by the availability of abortion drugs the way pregnant women are, so it wasn’t the right party to bring the case to the high court.

“Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue,” wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the court’s opinion. “Nor do the plaintiffs’ other standing theories suffice.”

In a piece published by NEWSworthy in March after the Supreme Court’s oral arguments, Edward Mechmann worried that this might be the case. “If a plaintiff can’t prove he has standing, then all the other legal arguments count for nothing and his case will be dismissed,” he wrote.

Mifepristone is the first pill in the two-pill chemical abortion regimen, which ends the life of a preborn baby. Women don’t even have to see a doctor in person to get it, as mifepristone has been permanently available by mail since the FDA announced a rule change in 2021. Earlier this year, major pharmacies Walgreens and CVS also announced they would begin dispensing mifepristone to women with prescriptions.

According to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute, medication abortions made up 63% of abortions last year. While six in 10 women who end their pregnancies do so with pills that are touted as a simple and safe “solution,” these pills are not as safe as proponents would like women to believe.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s Erin Hawley, who argued for curtailing the FDA’s approval before the court, said after the decision, “Nothing in today’s decision changes the fact that the FDA’s own label says that roughly one in 25 women who take chemical abortion drugs will end up in the emergency room — a dangerous reality the doctors and medical associations we represent in this case know all too well.”

While an appeals court had partially ruled in favor of the pro-life group, blocking telehealth and by-mail access to the abortion drug, the Supreme Court ruling completely overturned the decision of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

News of the Supreme Court’s decision is disappointing, if unsurprising. Mechmann is right that “we need to keep making the case to politicians and regulators that these pills are dangerous and must be kept on a tighter rein.”

This case may have failed in court, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t other opportunities to prevent this dangerous drug from being offered to more women. In fact, a Scientific American headline suggests, “Abortion Pill Access Is Still Under Threat After SCOTUS Ruling, Legal Experts Warn.” Let’s hope that it is.