Dana El-Kurd

But another federal judge in Washington state then issuing a contradictory ruling, setting up another major battle over a woman's right to choose.

Eyewitness News reporter Amy Powell joining us live in studio with more tonight.

Amy.

Michelle, this is causing a lot of concern.

The reversal of Roe versus Wade by the Supreme Court was supposed to mean that abortion laws would be left up to individual states.

The mifepristone case went to the Fifth Circuit, where Judge Ho would write an opinion critics characterized as disturbing, baffling, and bizarre.

We'll talk about what happened in the Mifepristone case and how Judge Ho, an immigrant himself, has suggested that the children of migrants might not be eligible for birthright citizenship because the United States is, in his words, being invaded.

But first, we'll hear some hopefully not too bizarre messages from our sponsors.

When the Fifth Circuit heard the appeal of Kaczmarek's ruling, Ho didn't recuse himself from the case, even though his wife, Allison, a lawyer, has repeatedly appeared at events sponsored by the Alliance Defending Freedom, one of the litigants, and even received speaking fees from the organization.

Ho brushed off this obvious conflict of interest.

On August 16, 2023, that court didn't completely uphold Kaczmarek's ruling, but it did impose numerous restrictions on the abortion pill called mifepristone, claiming that the FDA didn't fully consider its potential health risks.

If the Supreme Court had upheld the Fifth Circuit's opinion, women would not have been allowed to receive a prescription through the mail after online medical appointments.

They would have been able to receive the prescription only after a direct visit with a doctor and after three in-person follow-up appointments.

The window in which women would have been allowed to take mifepristone would have been cut from 70 days of pregnancy to about 49.

Ho wanted to go much further than the Fifth Circuit's majority.

He wanted to rescind the FDA's approval of mifepristone, which would have removed the drug from the market entirely.

When judges agree with a majority on a panel, they can write a concurring opinion that gives them a chance to grandstand about a case.

This is what Ho did in his concurrence when he bitterly complained that some believed that, quote, no one should ever question the FDA.

Ho then asked the public to pity the obstetricians he claimed suffer because of women's abortion rights.

Ho drew on environmental case law, which acknowledges that a member of the public might believe that they've suffered a loss when, for instance, a park is destroyed because it is the location of a new mining operation and that they can sue on that basis.