Supreme Court Upholds Full Access to Mifepristone Abortion Pill

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Bloomberg Law

June 13, 2024, 10:03 AM EDT
Supreme Court Upholds Full Access to Mifepristone Abortion Pill

Greg Stohr
Bloomberg News

The US Supreme Court preserved full access to a widely used abortion pill in a case that carried major stakes for reproductive rights and election-year politics.

The court unanimously overturned a federal appeals ruling that would have barred mail-order prescriptions for mifepristone, the drug now used in more than half of US abortions. The lower court ruling would have reduced abortion access even in states where reproductive rights have broad support.

The court stopped short of affirming Food and Drug Administration decisions to loosen restrictions on mifepristone starting in 2016. The majority instead said the anti-abortion doctors and organizations that sued lacked legal "standing" because they aren't directly affected by the FDA's actions.

To contact the reporter on this story:
Greg Stohr in Washington at [e-mail]

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at [e-mail]

2024 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.

Read more: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/pharma-and-life-sciences/supreme-court-upholds-full-access-to-mifepristone-abortion-pill

---

SCOTUSblog had the news, but it took a while for me to find a news source with the story.

It looks as if it landed everywhere simultaneously.

>>>>>
Ellena Erskine
Mod
10:07 AM

Here is the opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
>>>>>

[sinkingfeeling]

1. Hallelujah !

[magicarpet]

60. What,.. did Chief Justice Roberts make Alito gulp down a clump of dog shit ?

[wolfie001]

65. Don't forget his harridan wifey

She's his inspiration.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

2. BREAKING: Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill.

Link to tweet

[BumRushDaShow]

3. My laptop was moving slow trying to post

It was unanimous and FDA lives another day.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. SCOTUSblog had the story out, but no one had it online yet.

I was just like you, hitting everyone trying to find it.

And good morning.

[BumRushDaShow]

9. Yup but I did get an alert on the iPad from AP first

and trying to find the story on their website is a nightmare so a quick search came up with a NBC News story that I posted (and self-deleted ).

And a Good (PPI is down) morning!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

12. I was trying CNN, CNBC, and Google News.

Google News came up with Bloomberg Law. At first, I could get the entire (short) writeup. Now it's behind a paywall.

[BumRushDaShow]

21. I think the Bloombergs give you a "free" view or two before they paywall

I have a sub to Bloomberg but unlike WaPo and NYT, which offer 10 free gift links, it only offers 5.

The regular Bloomberg has the same story as the "Law" one so I can give you a link to use - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-06-13/supreme-court-upholds-full-access-to-mifepristone-abortion-pill?accessToken=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJzb3VyY2UiOiJTdWJzY3JpYmVyR2lmdGVkQXJ0aWNsZSIsImlhdCI6MTcxODI4OTA3MiwiZXhwIjoxNzE4ODkzODcyLCJhcnRpY2xlSWQiOiJTRjBWMDJUMVVNMFcwMCIsImJjb25uZWN0SWQiOiIyMUY5Q0QxMUQ1ODc0MjY3QjMwQUZCRkZCRTFGMzExOSJ9.MOPo_wYDefrRQ_3qyyjQAMWFY6TSAk30kq8Xecg0g_I

[JohnSJ]

32. Absolutely. All this means is the current extremist arguments do not hold. It leaves open that

different arguments may be allowed with "better" plaintiffs, if they can show "harm". It also allows leaves open what different states may try to do. Anti-abortionist extremists' are not going to stop on this. Keep in mind that Thomas and other right wing judges on the court leave this open to other arguments.

No one should assume this decision means abortion access is safe, and the upcoming Idaho Emergency Department case will be very interesting.

Also, if republicans gain the majority in Congress and trump occupies the WH again, make no mistake about it, this ruling can be neutralized with a different approach, Congressional Action or Executive Order.

[BumRushDaShow]

39. We are definitely standing on a precipice, no doubt.

But then some of their other arguments could backfire on them since they like to cherry-pick what they think "big government" is and should do.

[JohnSJ]

52. Sure, but this ruling also doesn't stop individual states from banning it I

believe.

[BumRushDaShow]

54. That might be challenged

as interfering with "interstate commerce".

[JohnSJ]

55. yes, it is far from over

[DENVERPOPS]

75. Exactly

let's see what the Supremes rule after they "install" Trump this fall. Much like what the three appointees of Trump said during hearings, and once installed, went 180 degrees the next day. Everything the three of them said was an outright lie......

I have to think that the conservative USSC justices won't do anything to cause Trump to lose votes, until after the Election. Then, like we have witnessed in the past, they will go all in, like never before with a conservative ruling on every single thing in front of their court, and countless ones we haven't even heard about yet........It's this group of USSC justices, Method of Operation that they have already shown, over and over since the 2000 election.......And Citizens United in 2010, which was the kiss of death for the future Democracy of our Beloved United States and Democracy....

I sadly predict that what we will see on November 5th and 6th, will be unlike anything we have seen in the entire history of our nation. Including the Revolutionary War and the Civil War...........

Katie Bar The Door, folks........

[LeftInTX]

45. Ah.......

Bet it was, Kazmarack, (sic), 5th Ct of Appeals, crazy poorly written, etc...???

Maybe the plaintiffs didn't have standing. (Haven't read the case. On my way out today)

[ShazzieB]

90. They absolutely didn't have standing.

That's what all the legal experts have been saying on TV ever since this thing hit the fan. The decision itself lays that out clearly:

Held: Plaintiffs lack Article III standing to challenge FDA’s actions regarding the regulation of mifepristone. Pp. 5–25.

(a) Article III standing is a “bedrock constitutional requirement that this Court has applied to all manner of important disputes.” United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 675. Standing is “built on a single basic idea—the idea of separation of powers.” Ibid. Article III confines the jurisdiction of federal courts to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Federal courts do not operate as an open forum for citizens “to press general complaints about the way in which government goes about its business.” Allen v. Wright, 468 U. S. 737, 760. To obtain a judicial determination of what the governing law is, a plaintiff must have a “personal stake” in the dispute. TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 423.

To establish standing, a plaintiff must demonstrate (i) that she has
suffered or likely will suffer an injury in fact, (ii) that the injury likely
was caused or will be caused by the defendant, and (iii) that the injury likely would be redressed by the requested judicial relief.

Lots more legalese follows, of course. I copied and pasted only a minimal amout, but you get the idea.

[Biglinda 52]

95. Agree

This was just done because of the election and for down ballot republicans. We all know the six members of SCOTUS lie. They did this thinking it will help elect the GOP. If they gain power, they will change their mind. LIES = GOP. We need to remember this.

[lark]

4. I smell a rat.

Alito and Thomas would only get rid of this via standing, otherwise they would have voted to limit mifepristone and really hurt the repug party. They didn't want to tip their hand until tcf is president, which is what they are trying to make happen, and then they can kill this and the fda at one shot.

edit: fixd typo

[BlueKota]

8. Exactly. If Donny wins they will do whatever their

wingnut donors tell them to do.

[BComplex]

70. And, in doing that, he'll make sure to profit from it!

He doesn't do stuff for free.

[BlueKota]

71. No he doesn't

[MOMFUDSKI]

13. But

not today

[AZSkiffyGeek]

19. Gotta throw a blanket on the celebrations though

We're Democrats, can't let any good news get shared.

[Scrivener7]

33. We're Democrats. We learn from history.

And are appropriately cautious.

It's a feature, not a bug.

[Shermann]

51. Can we move to cautiously optimistic? nt

[Scrivener7]

68. Does history teach you to do that? You be you.

[quakerboy]

84. when it comes to the current scotus

Optimistic is not what comes to my mind. Cautious, sure. Suspicious, definitely.

[lark]

27. Yes, as my husband just reminded me, this is good news for today.

I worry so much about the future, but do take the victory for today as it is a major victory for women to continue to have this access.

[Irish_Dem]

53. I was about to post the same thing. There is a big catch somewhere.

Pretending to do the right thing before the election.

Then bam, they will do something bad later on regarding this drug.


Women need to start stockpiling this drug if they can.

[MissMillie]

6. Can't wait to read the ruling!

(and the dissent)

[mahatmakanejeeves]

14. It was a unanimous decision.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf

KAVANAUGH, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. THOMAS, J., filed a concurring opinion.

[MissMillie]

17. That's right. I just read too quickly.

Somehow I my brain saw "ununanimous."

I hope this isn't an indication that I need a 4th cup of coffee in the morning. lol

[mahatmakanejeeves]

18. Understandably. The story is moving pretty quickly. Lots to digest all at once.

And good morning.

[ms liberty]

31. Sounds like it's the Thomas concurrence that needs a close reading, IMO

He likes to troll the libs and telegraph what he wants to see in a future case.
Good golly I despise that man.

[sir pball]

46. I gave it a skim and it's...what you'd expect it to be.

He wholesale rejects associational standing, the concept that a group can sue because one member was injured. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine can't act on behalf of their members…but according to him, neither can Planned Parenthood or labor unions.

Only individual persons directly injured have standing; if a group wants to sue it needs to be class-action, not associational. It's not great.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. The plaintiffs in the Mifepristone case lack standing, the Supreme Court rules.

The requirement of standing is important

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. Supreme Court rejects mifepristone abortion pill challenge on standing grounds

I really like the Deadline Legal blog
Extreme rulings by Republican-appointed judges at all levels of the judiciary imperiled the availability of the widely used abortion drug.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone-ruling-rcna155625

The Supreme Court has ruled on the closely watched mifepristone appeal, holding that the anti-abortion challengers lack legal standing to bring their lawsuit, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in a unanimous opinion for the court.

At issue was whether the anti-abortion doctors and groups who brought the challenge had legal standing to do so, as well as the legality of Food and Drug Administration actions that expanded access to the widely used pill.

The high court’s hearing in March revealed skepticism from the justices on the first point, suggesting that the court might reject the lawsuit on standing grounds.

The case stemmed from last year’s unprecedented action by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas, a Trump appointee who sought to undo the drug’s 2000 approval by the FDA. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Kacsmaryk’s ruling but upheld restrictions on pill access, including by mail.

The lower court ruling has been on hold while litigation played out. The Biden administration told the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade that, if the ruling were to take effect, then that would “upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with damaging consequences for women seeking lawful abortions and a healthcare system that relies on the availability of the drug under the current conditions of use.”

[FakeNoose]

11. Danco Laboratories - manufacturers of Mifeprex

... is back in business! This question should never have gone before SCOTUS anyway.

[ScratchCat]

16. So basically

Nobody would have standing to sue on this issue if I understand this correctly, right? There would be no party affected by the FDA's actions. It would be no different than you or me trying to sue to stop the production of any drug I don't want someone else to take.

[Unwind Your Mind]

24. I think that's right

I can’t think who would have standing on this

[BumRushDaShow]

26. If the SCOTUS had ruled with that appeals court

it would have upended the "Supremacy Clause" and put FDA out of the business of regulating drugs.

Just. Because.

And then that would have opened the door to eliminating EVERY OTHER federal regulatory agency that "someone" doesn't like.

And the bizarre thing about that is these are all part of the "Executive Branch" where many GOP want a "unitary Executive" with a dictator. But rulings that remove an agency's Congressionally-designated authorities would essentially eliminate those agencies from the Executive Branch leaving just the head of it.

[Novara]

20. ONLY because the doctors did not have standing

You know those motherfuckers are now desperately trying to find someone with standing to successfully sue. And I'll bet the opinion gives them a roadmap.

It should have never gotten this far - the case was bullshit from the start. The doctors group had no standing and could not be harmed by the availability of the drug.

You can be sure this fight isn't over.

[LeftInTX]

47. Most cases from Kacsmaryk (sic?) and 5th Court of Appeals are BS.

[Novara]

56. Yep. The courts are on the ballot this November.

Never forget it. That kind of bullshit is what happens - republicans elevating complete political hacks to the benches.

[oldsoftie]

59. it will be hard to GET "standing". Approved drugs have side effects that are listed

You'd need a class action, IMO, to get anywhere. Because you'd have to show the "injured parties" numbered far more than the warnings that the drug came with showed may happen. Thats how Phen-Phen got the boot. And others.
But they wont be able to find that group because they dont exist.

[Novara]

63. True. But they're not done.

They will find a way for someone with a stake can sue. Or they'll find a different basis for suing. Maybe based on the 1873 Comstock Act.

They won't stop.

[oldsoftie]

74. I hope women's rights supporters outnumber the inflation/border voters.

Seeing as how even some republicans I know are pissed about Roe & have changed THEIR vote, I hope it happens.

[Novara]

77. Pissed off women are not going away any time soon.

You take my bodily autonomy away? I will do whatever I can to take your job away. Women I know all feel the same.

We have to keep hammering home the fact that this decision isn't on the merits of the case at all, and given a better case to ban this drug, they will. This is not a win for women's rights. It's a win for the judicial norm of who can sue and on what basis only.

[slightlv]

86. Comstock act

I think that's the basket where they're putting all their eggs. They just can't do it until T takes over the office. After that, women bar the door.

[Novara]

92. I agree. That's what they're going for.

An 1873 law.

[slightlv]

93. I guess we can say they're progressing?

They've got a little farther into the future than being stuck at a 16th century witch finder monk!

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. After the election, the Right will find someone with a more solid standing claim

and then they will seek again to have the case decided on its "merits." The Court hasn't rejected the anti-abortion arguments yet, they just haven't officially heard them. Had they restricted access now it would have helped Democrats in the Fall.

[PSPS]

23. As their opinion points out, the plaintiffs had no standing. They never should have agreed to accept the case.

Their next step will be something like bestowing "personhood" on fetuses and then have a "guardian ad litem" sue.

[onenote]

25. Who is "they"?

Hopefully you are not saying the Supreme Court shouldn't have taken the case since the decisions of the district court and appeals court would have prevented the sale of the drug.

[bluestarone]

80. Except the SC could have stated that they had NO STANDING and

DISMISSED it on getting it? That was a no brainer.

[onenote]

91. They needed to grant cert. Otherwise they couldn't do anything.

And they rarely grant cert and immediately remand without receiving briefs and argument. The only times I know they do that is where there is a recent decision on point and they grant cert, vacate the decision below and remand to the lower court to consider the case in light of the recent decision on point.

[LiberalFighter]

28. Those doctors need to be blackballed

I would think insurance companies would have an interest to maintain access to abortion pills.

[oldsoftie]

61. yes; what ELSE are they against? "First, do no harm..." nt

[Think. Again.]

29. Huh, I guess amy conan watzername...

...likes being a career woman after all.

[onenote]

30. I don't remember people being so negative when the Court rejected the Texas election challenge on standing

or the courts, over and over, rejected birther cases on standing grounds.

Take the win, people.

[JohnSJ]

35. Because it isn't a win, it is just a reprieve. No one should forget what they did with Dobbs. Different arguments,

a republican congress, and trump in the WH can make this all disappear again.

This was rejected by the conservative judges because the plaintiffs were arguing a case on the basis of harm, which NONE of the plaintiffs had experienced. You can bet they will find someone who will approach this from a different angle, or find someone who will show damage.

The danger is very real and still out there

[JohnSJ]

34. Make no mistake about it, all this is, is a reprieve. A republican congress and trump in the WH can undo it in a

New York minute.

[oldsoftie]

62. There wont/wouldnt be a big enough majority to pass. Especially in the Senate.

Even the House has had members say there's a line.
But it wouldnt stop them from trying.

[JohnSJ]

64. All they would need to do is get rid of the filibuster, or a trump presidency doing an executive order.

[oldsoftie]

73. I think even THIS Court would balk at an EO. They've done it before on less.

And doing away with the filibuster they'd still have to have 50 votes. I'm not sure they can get that IF they took the Senate. Collins wont go for it & it wouldnt surprise me if a couple others balked
I'd rather see trump just LOSE so we dont find out!

[JohnSJ]

76. Getting rid of the filibuster would be up to the Senate republicans, not the SC, and the fact that they removed the

filibuster for SC judges should tell you they wouldn't think twice about it. Of course they justify it because we did it because republicans would not approve any President Obama appointments, and the backlog was obscene which is why it was done.

As for this SC balking at an EO on this, I wouldn't be so sure. We will see what happens with the immunity case, though I am pretty sure they will just send it back to the district court, which might effectively delay it until after the election, and in effect give trump immunity by that action, but we will see.

In the end though, I agree with you, the only way to insure a Women's right to choose is voting Democratic.

[jaxexpat]

36. "....didn't have standing," right?

Decision was made on a "technicality" they were all, pretty much, compelled to agree on. This attempted takeover of the country by fundamentalists is not over and we didn't really win this time. They'll be back with "standing" soon enough if this lunatic body of corruption retains its ungainly "standing".

[onenote]

40. Two lower courts had held the doctors had standing. So if the court really wanted to find standing, they could have

[jaxexpat]

44. It is a curious thing, our USSC.

[usonian]

37. Check their stock portfolios.

💰 💰 💰 💰 💰 💰

[LetMyPeopleVote]

38. 147 republicans in Congress begged the court to ban the drug and told women to go to hell.

Link to tweet

[hay rick]

41. Supreme failure and betrayal delayed for another day. nt

[Raven123]

42. The SCOTUS version of delay.

Once someone with standing tries the same thing, they will cave. I do think a majority of SCOTUS is annoyed by some of the RW tactics, not because they use them, but because they don’t disguise them well enough.

[Johnny2X2X]

67. But who could have standing?

It’s like suing the makers if Aspirin because you don’t take Aspirin and don’t think anyone else should either.

[surfered]

43. Well, that was a shocker! So unexpected, that now I'm suspicious.

[GB_RN]

48. Good, But...

It should never have gotten to SCOTUS. The lower courts proved their partisanship and biases with their rulings instead of dismissing it based on lack of standing. IANAL, but even I could tell you that these fascists didn’t have standing.

[LeftInTX]

49. Can it be mailed to Texas?

[aggiesal]

50. MAGA is going to be BUTT hurt ...

They spent all that money judge shopping, legal bills ... to get it to a SCOTUS that's supposed to be on their side and still lose

[SARose]

57. Take that you little weasel

Paxton, and you too Kacsmaryk and you three Fifth Circuit.

No standing - do you hear that? Your political stunt cost me and my fellow Texans how much of OUR money?

You absolute aholes.

[bullimiami]

58. So they used a cowards way out to get to a proper ruling.

I guess that was a compromise..

[Hekate]

66. For now

[calimary]

69. Color me pleasantly surprised.

With this bunch I was expecting quite the opposite ruling.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

72. I feel stupid. what does this decision mean for Lower courts?

Like the Texas judge who suspended FDA approval? The SCOTUS decision was over "Standing".

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/texas-abortion-pill-mifepristone-ruling/index.html

[Deep State Witch]

78. I didn't expect a unanimous decision

I thought that the Gruesome Twosome (Alito and Roberts) would dissent. Possibly Boney Carrot, too.

[J_William_Ryan]

79. "The court stopped short of affirming Food and Drug Administration decisions to loosen restrictions on mifepristone..."

As likely has already been correctly noted:

This is a technical win – this is far from over.

The Court’s partisan conservative ideologues are more than willing to rule against the FDA concerning mifepristone if given the opportunity.

[Scalded Nun]

81. My take

1. They (GOP justices) used the 'No Standing' response to kill this, along with the silent understanding this will come back to their docket next year.
a. This keeps the left's outrage off the table for this year's election and offers a slim bit of electoral hope (in regards to abortion) for all the GOP anti-abortion nutters.
b. They kill Mifepristone next year. 3 years from another presidential election and 1 year from mid-terms. Counting on short memories.
c. The Dem justices voted to kill this because it is the right thing to do.

Perhaps I am just seeing too much in terms of GOP conspiracies, but I do not trust these evil GOPers on anything.

[Demovictory9]

82. Anti choicers will have a stroke

[jmowreader]

83. The claim the doctors were making was...strange

One of the things in King Matthew’s decision was that the plaintiffs were being harmed by this drug because they wouldn’t be able to make as much money caring for pregnant patients if some of those potential patients were terminating their pregnancies.

On those grounds Ford could sue Volkswagen out of business because potential Ford Escape customers were buying Tiguans instead.

[CousinIT]

85. The threat remains

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[Martin68]

87. A bridge too far even for this SCOTUS.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

88. Statement from President Joe Biden on Supreme Court Decision on FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine

Link to tweet

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2024/06/13/statement-from-president-joe-biden-on-supreme-court-decision-on-fda-v-alliance-for-hippocratic-medicine/

Today’s decision does not change the fact that the fight for reproductive freedom continues. It does not change the fact that the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago, and women lost a fundamental freedom. It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states.

It does mean that mifepristone, or medication abortion, remains available and approved. Women can continue to access this medication – approved by the FDA as safe and effective more than 20 years ago.

But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide. Since the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Republican elected officials have imposed extreme abortion bans in 21 states, some of which include zero exceptions for rape or incest. Women are being turned away from emergency rooms, or forced to go to court to plead for care that their doctor recommended or to travel hundreds of miles for care. Doctors and nurses are being threatened with jail time, including life in prison, for providing the health care they have been trained to provide. And contraception and IVF are under attack.

The stakes could not be higher for women across America. Vice President Harris and I stand with the vast majority of Americans who support a woman’s right to make deeply personal health care decisions. We will continue to fight to ensure that women in every state get the health care they need and we will continue to call on Congress to restore the protections of Roe v. Wade in federal law — that is our commitment.

###

[ShazzieB]

89. I am astounded...in the BEST possible way!

I was expecting the absolute worst on this, to be quite honest.

What a relief!

[mahatmakanejeeves]

94. What the Supreme Court decision means for abortion pill access

What the Supreme Court decision means for abortion pill access
The Supreme Court unanimously rejected an attempt to significantly restrict access to mifepristone, a key abortion medication.

By Sabrina Malhi
June 13, 2024 at 2:07 p.m. EDT

The Supreme Court unanimously rejected an attempt to significantly restrict access to a key abortion medication, mifepristone, on Thursday. The conservative majority ruled that the antiabortion physicians who filed the case did not have standing to challenge the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug. ... In a written opinion for the court, Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said that because the plaintiffs don’t prescribe, sell or manufacture mifepristone, they suffer no direct monetary injuries related to the FDA’s loosening regulations for obtaining the drug in 2016 and 2021.

{snip}

What was the Supreme Court decision?

The 9-0 decision reversed a lower-court ruling that would have made it harder to obtain mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen used in more than 60 percent of U.S. abortions. The opinion was based on a procedural ruling that the plaintiffs did not have legal grounds to bring the case.

The court said that the antiabortion doctors who brought the case and the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine did not provide any evidence to suggest that the FDA’s deregulatory actions have affected how they treat patients because they do not prescribe or use mifepristone.

Even though the court’s decision was unanimous, it is unlikely to be the end of efforts to restrict access to the pill. The ruling leaves an opening for three states — Missouri, Kansas and Idaho — to quickly try to revive the challenge before a federal judge in Texas who is well known for his antiabortion views.

{snip}

Ann E. Marimow and McKenzie Beard contributed to this report.

By Sabrina Malhi
Sabrina Malhi joined The Washington Post in 2020. She focuses on breaking news as well as infant and maternal health issues. Sabrina previously served as the president of the South Asian Journalists Association and still holds a position on its board.