The FDA and the Abortion Pill, continued
The Supreme Court recently announced it will adjudicate the FDA’s approval of RU-486 (mifepristone, commonly known as the abortion pill).
This case illustrates the libertarian view that even well-intentioned policymaking can have adverse consequences, including from the perspective of those who advocate such policies.
The case for an FDA focuses on ensuring that only safe and efficacious medications make their way into the marketplace.
That case is imperfect. It ignores that while the FDA might prevent unsafe or ineffective medicines from reaching the marketplace, it also delays the introduction of medicines that improve health. Thus the FDA’s net impact is ambiguous, and existing evidence suggests it is harmful on net.
Even worse, the standard case neglects the politicization that can interfere with the FDA’s process.
The current challenge to the FDA’s approval of mifepristone does not reflect new evidence on whether it is safe and effective. 96 other countries have approved the drug, and the medication continues to be recommended by the WHO abortion guidelines.
Instead, this case reflects the realization among abortion opponents that, despite the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, abortions are continuing in the United States, partially because RU-486 allows women to obtain abortions even where banned. (Whether an FDA ban would reduce the frequency of abortion is a separate question.)
In Libertarian Land, no FDA exists. Anyone can produce, sell, purchase, and use any medication, including the abortion pill, without impediment from government. Non-FDA mechanisms (competition between manufacturers, private safety certifiers, and tort liability) limit the occurrence of bad drugs.
Giving government the power to keep drugs off the market cuts both ways.