Welcome to Public Health On Call, a podcast from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,

where we bring evidence, experience, and perspective to make sense of today's leading health challenges.

If you have questions or ideas for us, please send an email to public health question at jhh.edu.

That's public health question at jhhu.edu for future podcast episodes.

Hey listeners, it's Lindsay Smith-Rogers. Today, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling on Miffa-Pristone

that keeps the abortion medication

available without a requirement that patients receive it in person.

Johns Hopkins Professor Joanne Rosen is a lawyer who closely tracks litigation related to access to

reproductive health services. She joins Dr. Josh Sharfstein to talk about what happened in this particular case and the

broader context, an ongoing legal battle about what the end of Roe v. Wade really means. Let's listen.

Joanne Rosen, thank you so much for joining me again here on Public Health on Call. There's been another

high-profile Miffitt-Pristone court decision,

and I wanted to call you up and see what you think about it.

Great. So I assume that the impetus for the call is the decision that the Supreme Court

issued on May 14th. And that is all around a case that the state of Louisiana initiated against the FDA

back in October, where they were challenging a decision that the FDA made about Mifipristone

in 2023. And in that 2023 decision, the FDA decided on the basis of extensive evidence of safety and

effectiveness that they would remove what had been a longstanding requirement that Mithopristone

could only be obtained in person. So they removed that requirement. And that allowed Mithopristone to be made available

through the mail, and including following a telehealth appointment that a person could have with

their physician and get the prescription via telehealth, and then mailed to them. Louisiana then brought

this challenge, and they brought it, they filed it in a federal trial court in

...