2026-05-14T21:23:25.346Z / 路透社
作者:安德鲁·钟
2026年5月14日 美国东部时间21:23 更新于29分钟前
https://www.reuters.com/world/deadline-passes-us-supreme-court-extend-order-ensuring-abortion-pill-mail-2026-05-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/deadline-passes-us-supreme-court-extend-order-ensuring-abortion-pill-mail-2026-05-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/deadline-passes-us-supreme-court-extend-order-ensuring-abortion-pill-mail-2026-05-14/
更多视频
0 seconds of 0 seconds Volume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts Enabled Disabled
Shortcuts Open/Close/ or ?
Play/Pause SPACE
Increase Volume↑
Decrease Volume↓
Seek Forward→
Seek Backward←
Captions On/Off c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen f
Mute/Unmute m
Decrease Caption Size-
Increase Caption Size+ or =
Seek %0-9
Next Up
Could cruise ship passengers sue over the hantavirus outbreak?
Loading ad
Live
00:25
00:00
00:00
- 内容摘要
- 路易斯安那州挑战堕胎药远程医疗规定
- 联邦上诉法院支持路易斯安那州的诉讼
- 米非司酮用于约64%的美国堕胎手术
- 大法官托马斯和阿利托对法院裁决持异议
5月14日(路透社)——美国最高法院周四裁定,堕胎药可继续通过远程医疗开具处方并通过邮寄方式配送。大法官们暂时恢复了2023年的一项联邦规定,该规定由共和党执政的路易斯安那州提起诉讼,原本让堕胎药的获取变得更加便捷。
大法官们批准了两家堕胎药制造商——米非司酮生产商的请求,暂时解除下级法院对这项联邦规定的禁令。这项规定是美国食品药品监督管理局在民主党籍前总统乔·拜登政府时期发布的,路易斯安那州的法律诉讼仍在进行中。
路透社伊朗简报通讯将为您带来伊朗局势的最新动态和分析,点击此处订阅。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
此次简短裁决未附署名,也未给出推理过程,这是美国最高法院紧急行动的一贯做法。保守派大法官塞缪尔·阿利托和克拉伦斯·托马斯对该裁决表示异议。
位于新奥尔良的美国第五巡回上诉法院于5月1日下令恢复此前的联邦规定,要求患者必须当面就诊才能获取米非司酮。
制药商丹科实验室和金BioPro公司对第五巡回上诉法院限制米非司酮使用的裁决提起上诉。米非司酮于2000年获得FDA监管批准。两家公司对周四的法院裁决表示欢迎。
广告 · 滚动继续阅读
这起案件将堕胎这一争议性议题再次摆在了大法官们面前,美国11月的国会选举在即,总统唐纳德·特朗普所在的共和党正努力保住国会控制权。
最高法院的多布斯裁决
最高法院目前拥有6比3的保守派多数席位。堕胎权的持续斗争始于其2022年的裁决,该裁决推翻了1973年“罗伊诉韦德案”的先例。该先例曾承认女性享有终止妊娠的宪法权利,并在全国范围内将堕胎合法化。
这起名为“多布斯诉杰克逊妇女健康组织案”的裁决促使13个州出台了近乎全面的堕胎禁令,其他多个州也大幅限制堕胎权。这些法律推动了药物流产的激增。
自多布斯裁决以来,反堕胎活动人士将矛头对准了米非司酮,声称该药物对女性不安全,FDA本不应批准其使用或放松使用限制。
阿利托在周四的异议意见中表示,来自州外医疗机构的堕胎药邮寄配送,破坏了路易斯安那州等州在多布斯裁决后试图将堕胎定为非法的努力。
“路易斯安那州的努力遭到了一些医疗提供者、私人组织和州政府的阻挠,这些主体厌恶路易斯安那州的相关法律,并试图削弱其执行力度,”阿利托补充道。
在另一份异议意见中,托马斯表示,联邦《康斯托克法案》禁止邮寄用于堕胎的药物。
托马斯称,这些制药商“无权基于其犯罪活动造成的利润损失申请暂停不利的法院命令。从任何法律相关意义上来说,他们都不会因为法院命令而遭受不可弥补的损害——该命令只是让他们实施犯罪变得更加困难。”
共和党总统唐纳德·特朗普的政府反对路易斯安那州的法律诉讼,称FDA正在对米非司酮的安全法规进行持续审查。该政府还辩称,路易斯安那州没有提起诉讼的合法资格。
堕胎权倡导者称,对米非司酮的法律挑战是自最高法院多布斯裁决以来,美国堕胎权面临的最大威胁。他们还称,特朗普政府的审查具有政治动机,且毫无必要,因为数十年的研究都证明了米非司酮的安全性,并表示这可能导致对该药物的更严格限制。
最高法院在2024年一致驳回了反堕胎组织和医生最初提出的撤销FDA放宽堕胎药获取规定的请求,裁决这些原告缺乏提起诉讼所需的法律资格。
2024年4月9日,美国伊利诺伊州卡本代尔市阿拉莫妇女诊所内,米非司酮(药物流产的第一种药物)的包装盒。路透社/伊夫林·霍克斯坦/档案照片
“对我们权利的攻击”
美国计划生育联合会主席亚历克西斯·麦吉尔·约翰逊表示:“最高法院只是做了最基本的要求,但这项裁决对那些能够继续获得所需护理的患者来说是一种解脱。我们知道,这只是针对我们权利和护理的一系列攻击中的又一次。”
远程医疗堕胎倡导组织“堕胎联盟”的法律主任莉齐·欣克利表示:“即便如此保守的最高法院,也不愿认可反堕胎极端分子最新的孤注一掷的企图——剥夺女性获得必要医疗保健的权利。这起案件是蓄意破坏全国范围内远程医疗堕胎服务的尝试,会给患者和医疗提供者造成不必要的混乱。”
两家公司在法庭文件中表示,米非司酮的品牌版本“米菲司酮”是丹科实验室的唯一产品,而金BioPro公司的大部分收入都来自其仿制药版本。
金BioPro公司首席执行官埃文·马辛吉尔表示,该公司致力于为所有有需要的人提供“基于证据的必要药物”。
“我们很高兴,在诉讼进行期间,美国民众依赖的这种安全有效的药物将继续可供使用,”丹科实验室的发言人艾比·朗说道。
反堕胎组织“全国生命权”主席卡罗尔·托比亚斯称周四的裁决“令人深感不安”。
“面临意外怀孕的女性应该获得真正的医疗护理和支持,而不是这种一刀切的邮寄堕胎系统,这种系统会降低风险意识,让女性在医疗紧急情况下孤立无援,”托比亚斯说道。
双药疗法
药物流产通常采用两种药物的组合疗法:先服用米非司酮,再服用米索前列醇,约占美国堕胎手术的三分之二,用于终止妊娠10周以内的胎儿。
FDA表示,米非司酮的批准是基于科学证据,按照指示使用时,其安全性和有效性持续符合预期目标。
生殖健康专家指出,数百项临床试验、研究和医学审查均表明,米非司酮是安全的,并发症极为罕见。
“米非司酮是市场上最安全、研究最充分的药物之一,”美国妇产科医师学会主席卡米尔·克莱尔说道。
路易斯安那州于2025年起诉FDA,称2023年取消当面配药要求的规定是非法的,并表示尽管该州近乎全面禁止堕胎,但药物流产仍激增。路易斯安那州声称,FDA忽视了米非司酮对服药女性造成严重不良事件的风险,包括败血症和出血。
除路易斯安那州的案件外,另外五个人口州提起的两起未决诉讼正试图更严厉地限制堕胎药的获取,包括完全禁止其使用。
去年12月,得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州提起诉讼,质疑FDA在2000年首次批准米非司酮以及随后几项放宽获取渠道的批准和规定,包括邮寄配药规则。此外,密苏里州、堪萨斯州和爱达荷州辩称,FDA在2016年放宽米非司酮限制时行为不当。
最高法院在5月4日和5月11日的临时裁决中暂停了第五巡回上诉法院5月1日的裁决,以便大法官们有更多时间决定如何处理此案。
安德鲁·钟在纽约报道;约翰·克鲁泽尔、丹·威斯纳、艾哈迈德·阿布勒内因和达芙妮·普萨莱达基斯补充报道;威尔·邓恩编辑
我们的标准:汤森路透信托原则。
US Supreme Court lets abortion pill mail delivery continue
2026-05-14T21:23:25.346Z / Reuters
By Andrew Chung
May 14, 2026 9:23 PM UTC Updated 29 mins ago
https://www.reuters.com/world/deadline-passes-us-supreme-court-extend-order-ensuring-abortion-pill-mail-2026-05-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/deadline-passes-us-supreme-court-extend-order-ensuring-abortion-pill-mail-2026-05-14/
https://www.reuters.com/world/deadline-passes-us-supreme-court-extend-order-ensuring-abortion-pill-mail-2026-05-14/
More Videos
0 seconds of 0 seconds Volume 0%
Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcuts
Keyboard Shortcuts Enabled Disabled
Shortcuts Open/Close/ or ?
Play/Pause SPACE
Increase Volume↑
Decrease Volume↓
Seek Forward→
Seek Backward←
Captions On/Off c
Fullscreen/Exit Fullscreen f
Mute/Unmute m
Decrease Caption Size-
Increase Caption Size+ or =
Seek %0-9
Next Up
Could cruise ship passengers sue over the hantavirus outbreak?
Loading ad
Live
00:25
00:00
00:00
- Summary
- Louisiana challenged abortion pill telemedicine rule
- Federal appeals court backed Louisiana’s challenge
- Mifepristone is used in about 64% of US abortions
- Justices Thomas and Alito dissent from court’s action
May 14 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday ensured that the abortion pill can continue to be prescribed through telemedicine and dispensed by mail, as the justices restored for now a 2023 federal rule challenged by Republican-governed Louisiana that had made access to the medication easier.
The justices granted requests by two manufacturers of the abortion pill, called mifepristone, to lift a lower court’s block on the rule that was issued by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration during Democratic former President Joe Biden’s administration, while Louisiana’s legal challenge plays out.
The Reuters Iran Briefing newsletter keeps you informed with the latest developments and analysis of the Iran war. Sign up here.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The brief order was unsigned and offered no reasoning, as is common with emergency actions by the Supreme Court. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision.
The New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on May 1 had ordered the imposition of a previous federal rule that required an in-person clinician visit in order to receive mifepristone.
Drugmakers Danco Laboratories and GenBioPro appealed the 5th Circuit action restricting access to mifepristone, a drug that was given FDA regulatory approval in 2000. The two companies welcomed the court’s action on Thursday.
Advertisement · Scroll to continue
The case had put the contentious issue of abortion back in front of the justices, with the November U.S. congressional elections looming and President Donald Trump’s fellow Republicans fighting to retain control of Congress.
SUPREME COURT’S DOBBS RULING
The Supreme Court has a 6-3 conservative majority. The ongoing battles over abortion rights follow its 2022 ruling that overturned its 1973 Roe v. Wade precedent that had recognized a woman’s constitutional right to terminate her pregnancy and legalized abortion nationwide.
That ruling, in a case called Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, prompted 13 states to enact near-total bans on the procedure, while several others sharply restrict access. Those laws have driven a surge in medication abortion.
Since the Dobbs ruling, anti-abortion advocates have targeted mifepristone, claiming it is unsafe for women to take and that the FDA should not have approved it or relaxed limits on its use.
In his dissent on Thursday, Alito said that the delivery of abortion pills by mail from out-of-state providers has thwarted efforts by states like Louisiana that have sought to make abortion illegal in the wake of the Dobbs ruling.
“Louisiana’s efforts have been thwarted by certain medical providers, private organizations and states that abhor laws like Louisiana’s and seek to undermine their enforcement,” Alito added.
In a separate dissent, Thomas said the federal Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of drugs intended for abortion.
The drugmakers, Thomas said, “are not entitled to a stay of an adverse court order based on lost profits from their criminal enterprise. They cannot, in any legally relevant sense, be irreparably harmed by a court order that makes it more difficult for them to commit crimes.”
Republican President Donald Trump’s administration opposed Louisiana’s legal challenge, citing an ongoing FDA review of safety regulations concerning mifepristone. The administration also argued that Louisiana does not have legal standing to pursue its case.
Abortion rights advocates have called the legal challenges to mifepristone the biggest threat to abortion access in the United States since the court’s Dobbs decision. They also have called the Trump administration’s review politically motivated and unnecessary given decades of studies showing the safety of mifepristone, and said it could lead to tighter restrictions on the medication.
The Supreme Court in 2024 unanimously rejected an initial bid by anti-abortion groups and doctors to roll back FDA regulations that had eased access to the drug, ruling that these plaintiffs lacked the necessary legal standing to pursue the challenge.
Boxes of Mifepristone, the first pill in a medical abortion, are seen at Alamo Women’s Clinic in Carbondale, Illinois, U.S., April 9, 2024. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein/File Photo
‘ATTACKS ON OUR RIGHTS’
Alexis McGill Johnson, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said, “The Supreme Court just did the bare minimum, but this ruling is a relief for patients who can continue to get the care they need. We know this is just one in a long line of attacks on our rights and our care.”
Lizzy Hinkley, legal director for the Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine advocacy group, said, “Even this conservative Supreme Court is not willing to endorse anti-abortion extremists’ latest desperate attempt to deprive women of needed healthcare. This case is a deliberate effort to disrupt access to telemedicine abortion across the country and cause undue confusion among patients and providers.”
The brand-name version of mifepristone, Mifeprex, is Danco’s only product, and GenBioPro derives most of its revenue from the generic version, the companies said in court filings.
GenBioPro’s CEO Evan Masingill said that the company is committed to providing “evidence-based, essential medication to all who need it.”
“We are pleased that a safe and effective drug Americans depend on will continue to be available while this litigation proceeds,” Danco spokesperson Abby Long said.
Carol Tobias, president of the anti-abortion group National Right to Life, called Thursday’s decision deeply troubling.
“Women facing unexpected pregnancies deserve real medical care and support, not a one-size-fits-all mail-order abortion system that minimizes risks and leaves women isolated during medical emergencies,” Tobias said.
A TWO-DRUG REGIMEN
Medication abortion, typically a two-drug regimen consisting of mifepristone followed by misoprostol, accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. abortions and is used to terminate a pregnancy within the first 10 weeks.
The FDA has said mifepristone was approved based on scientific evidence and continues to be safe and effective for its intended purpose when used as directed.
Reproductive health experts note that hundreds of clinical trials, studies and medical reviews have shown that mifepristone is safe and that complications are exceedingly rare.
“Mifepristone is one of the safest and most well-studied drugs on the market,” said Camille Clare, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists physicians’ group.
Louisiana sued the Food and Drug Administration in 2025 claiming that the 2023 rule that eliminated the in-person dispensing requirement was illegal and has allowed medication abortions to skyrocket despite the state’s near-total ban on abortion. Louisiana claimed the FDA ignored the risks of serious adverse events posed by mifepristone for women taking it, including sepsis and hemorrhaging.
Separate from Louisiana’s case, two other pending lawsuits by five Republican-led states are aiming to curb access to the abortion pill even more drastically, including by cutting it off altogether.
In December, Texas and Florida filed a lawsuit targeting the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 and several subsequent approvals and regulations that eased access, including the mail-order access rule. And separately, Missouri, Kansas and Idaho are arguing that the FDA acted improperly when it eased restrictions on mifepristone in 2016.
The Supreme Court in interim decisions on May 4 and May 11 had put the 5th Circuit’s May 1 action on hold to give the justices more time to decide how to proceed.
Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Additional reporting by John Kruzel, Dan Wiessner, Ahmed Aboulenein and Daphne Psaledakis; Editing by Will Dunham
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
发表回复