Abortion Pills Come To CVS, Walgreens

Hello, it’s the weekend. This is The Weekender ☕

In a long overdue development, CVS and Walgreens, the biggest drugstore chains in the United States, will start dispensing mifepristone at their pharmacies in the coming weeks. 

They’ll begin distributing the drug in a handful of blue states and, per the New York Times, “monitor the prospects in a few states, including Kansas, Montana and Wyoming, where abortion bans or strict limitations have been enacted but are enjoined because of legal challenges.” 
 

The Food and Drug Administration signaled in December 2021 that they’d let certified pharmacies dispense the drug, though some experts criticized the onerous way the agency rolled out the change. It’s part of a gradual relaxing of the stringent restrictions on mifepristone, which major medical organizations have long said were motivated by politics and not medical need. Misoprostol, usually prescribed with mifepristone for abortions, has been much more readily available due to its other medical uses, including ulcer treatment.
 

The development comes as mifepristone’s accessibility is more tenuous than ever; later this month, the Supreme Court will hear anti-abortion doctors’ attempt to reinstate restrictions the FDA has lifted from the drug in recent years (they tried to get its FDA approval yanked altogether, but even the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, grudgingly, conceded that the statute of limitations on challenging that 20-year-old agency action had passed). That includes letting the pills be mailed, as well as letting certified pharmacies — and not just providers — dispense the medication. 

The availability of mifepristone has profoundly changed the abortion landscape, and made it impossible for activists to ever fully eradicate the procedure. As it is, the attempt to drive abortion out of existence isn’t working. 

“Despite the dramatic declines in access post-Dobbs in states that enacted total abortion bans and 6-week gestational limits, the national monthly abortion volume remains similar if not higher than pre-Dobbs numbers,” per a new Society of Family Planning report.

Attorneys for Mike Roman and Donald Trump really, really want appearances to matter.
 

They spent much of a Friday hearing trying to persuade Judge Scott McAfee to adopt a standard for disqualifying Fani Willis based only on if there was an appearance of a conflict of interest — not the substance of one. The DA’s Office, predictably, wants McAfee to apply a much higher standard: finding that an actual conflict existed.

Whichever way McAfee goes on this will likely be decisive for Willis. The appearance standard is much easier to meet, and it hits the sweet spot of where Trump and Roman’s attorneys ended after three days of testimony: perhaps falling short of proving that Willis had an actual financial stake in the prosecution, but certainly doing a lot to make things appear bad.

The office of Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) issued a statement about her trip to the Super Bowl following a TPM report that highlighted the high costs of her tickets and the ethical questions raised by her big night at the big game. According to a written statement Sanders’ spokesperson, Alexa Henning, provided to the Arkansas Democrat Gazette newspaper, the governor and her family of five “were in the upper level, not a suite” as they cheered on the victorious Kansas City Chiefs.  

“And no taxpayer money was used for tickets to the game for her security detail,” Henning added. 

As a public official, Sanders is subject to regulations that bar her from receiving gifts valued over $100. She had also faced prior controversies related to her use of taxpayer funds. Her family’s big night at the most expensive football game of all time brought up all of these issues — particularly because Henning did not respond to any questions (including multiple inquiries from TPM) about how the governor obtained tickets. 

In fact, much remains unanswered following Henning’s statement — including questions about field passes the family flaunted at the Super Bowl, prior instances where Sanders posted social media photos in which she appeared to be enjoying extraordinary access to Chiefs games, and whether any of this needed to appear on her required financial disclosure documents. The disclosure requirements matter because, even if Sanders did indeed ultimately pay her own way, there are substantial indications she received perks at the Super Bowl and another Chiefs game that were not available on the open market and could be considered a gift for regulatory purposes.

Read TPM’s investigation here and the response from Sanders’ office here. 

• It’s time to ponder: One year after Jan. 6, legal scholars were tussling over a weighty theoretical question: When can a President be prosecuted? Were Donald Trump’s actions in the run-up to the storming of the Capitol enough for him to be civilly — or even criminally — liable?
• Supreme Court’s Immunity Gift To Trump Is McConnell’s Legacy: McConnell shattered norms — making obstructionism accepted and expected, candidly expressing his goal of restricting Barack Obama to a single term, brazenly stealing a Supreme Court seat — long before Donald Trump’s ascension. He helped mold a Republican party defined not by its own policy aims, but by thwarting the opposition. 
• In an unusual turn, Justice Clarence Thomas seemed to join the liberals this week in their skepticism about the supposed chasm between the bump stocks and machine guns. More here. 
• Republicans Increasingly Reveal They Barely Know Where Babies Come From: Big picture, the Republican squirming around IVF is revealing of something we have been reminded of repeatedly since the high court overturned Roe in 2022: the people trying to set policy to curb reproductive rights have a rather limp grasp on the basic mechanics of how babies are made.