Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/20a34_3f14.pdf
Page Number: 14.0

12 

FDA v. AMERICAN COLLEGE OF OBSTETRICIANS AND 
GYNECOLOGISTS 
SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

cate stay) (slip op., at 7) (deference not due where the gov-
ernment “has not for a moment considered whether recent 
COVID conditions demand changes”).  

* 

  * 

  * 
  This  country’s  laws  have  long  singled  out  abortions  for 
more  onerous  treatment  than  other  medical  procedures 
that  carry  similar  or  greater  risks.    See  Greenhouse  & 
Siegel,  Casey  and  the  Clinic  Closings:  When  “Protecting 
Health” Obstructs Choice, 125 Yale L. J. 1428, 1430 (2016).  
Like many of those laws, maintaining the FDA’s in-person 
requirements  for  mifepristone  during  the  pandemic  not 
only  treats  abortion exceptionally,  it imposes an unneces-
sary, irrational, and unjustifiable undue burden on women 
seeking to exercise their right to choose.  One can only hope 
that  the  Government  will  reconsider  and  exhibit  greater 
care and empathy for women seeking some measure of con-
trol over their health and reproductive lives in these unset-
tling times.  See Gonzales, 550 U. S., at 172 (Ginsburg, J., 
dissenting) (“[Women’s] ability to realize their full potential 
. . . is intimately connected to their ability to control their 
reproductive  lives”  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted)).  
For now, I respectfully dissent.