FDA appeals “morning after” pill ruling
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is fighting back against a recent decision that struck down restrictions on the morning after pill.
May 02, 2013 at 06:19 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is fighting back against a recent decision that struck down restrictions on the “morning after” pill.
Last month, a district judge ordered the FDA to make the emergency contraception pill available to women of all ages and without a prescription within 30 days. Currently, the government enforces age restrictions on nonprescription sales of the morning-after pill to girls who are 16 years old or younger. Reproductive rights advocates have long petitioned the FDA to strike down the restrictions, saying there is no scientific proof that girls younger than 17 couldn't safely use the drug without supervision.
Facing the 30-day deadline, the FDA yesterday filed an appeal with the 2nd Circuit. The Department of Justice also asked the district court for a temporary injunction on the order while the appeal is pending.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel stories about legal battles over contraception, read:
Judge strikes down restrictions on “morning after” pill
Federal Circuit invalidates Bayer's Yaz patent
Bayer settles claims of gallbladder injury caused by Yasmin and Yaz contraceptives
Bayer designates $1.5 billion for litigation over Yasmin and Yaz contraceptives
Court denies contraception coverage injunction
Birth control exemptions fail to stop lawsuits
Hobby Lobby loses appeal of contraception coverage
Hobby Lobby must cover morning-after pill, judge rules
Obamacare faces another lawsuit over contraception coverage
Woman sues birth control pill maker for unintended pregnancy
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is fighting back against a recent decision that struck down restrictions on the “morning after” pill.
Last month, a district judge ordered the FDA to make the emergency contraception pill available to women of all ages and without a prescription within 30 days. Currently, the government enforces age restrictions on nonprescription sales of the morning-after pill to girls who are 16 years old or younger. Reproductive rights advocates have long petitioned the FDA to strike down the restrictions, saying there is no scientific proof that girls younger than 17 couldn't safely use the drug without supervision.
Facing the 30-day deadline, the FDA yesterday filed an appeal with the 2nd Circuit. The Department of Justice also asked the district court for a temporary injunction on the order while the appeal is pending.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel stories about legal battles over contraception, read:
Judge strikes down restrictions on “morning after” pill
Federal Circuit invalidates Bayer's Yaz patent
Bayer settles claims of gallbladder injury caused by Yasmin and Yaz contraceptives
Bayer designates $1.5 billion for litigation over Yasmin and Yaz contraceptives
Court denies contraception coverage injunction
Birth control exemptions fail to stop lawsuits
Hobby Lobby loses appeal of contraception coverage
Hobby Lobby must cover morning-after pill, judge rules
Obamacare faces another lawsuit over contraception coverage
Woman sues birth control pill maker for unintended pregnancy
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Coinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute read
Baker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
