Attorney Erin Hawley, representing the anti-abortion Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that is challenging mifepristone, has begun her presentation to the justices.

Hawley is echoing the alliance's attacks on the drug's use and regulation by the FDA, contending that it creates harm to women and burdens doctors who must then care for such patients who use mifepristone.

Hawley also invoked an "intolerable" choice that is created by the widespread use of mifepristone -- if an anti-abortion doctor must consider treating abortion patients in an emergency situation or not.

-ABC News' Adam Carlson

Jessica Ellsworth, the attorney for Danco Labs, was asked by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson if she was concerned about the prospect of judges parsing medical and scientific studies without specialized knowledge.

"I think we have significant concerns about that," Ellsworth said, noting the pharmaceutical industry submitted briefs to the court expressing that worry.

She went on to state that U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who initially ruled to suspend mifepristone's approval, relied on studies that "were not in the administrative record" and never would have been.

"They have since been retracted for lack of scientific rigor and misleading presentations of data," she said.

Sage Publishing said it issued the retractions from the journal Health Services Research and Managerial Epidemiology because of methodology issues and conflicts of interest, ABC News previously reported.

Justice Samuel Alito asked Jessica Ellsworth, the attorney representing Danco Laboratories, if she thinks the FDA should have continued requiring prescribers to report non-fatal complications, known as “adverse events" of mifepristone.

Ellsworth argued the FDA made that decision after 15 years of data that established mifepristone was safe. She also rejected Alito's question asking if the FDA was "infallible".

Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson asked if the defendants had concerns about judges "parsing medical and scientific studies" and Ellsworth said there were concerns.

Jessica Ellsworth, who is representing the manufacturer of Mifeprex (the brand name of mifepristone), similarly criticized the plaintiff's claim of injury and their interpretation of the law.

She said the respondent's view is "so inflexible it would upend not only Mifeprex but virtually every drug approval and [risk and mitigation] modification the FDA has made for decades."

Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar gave a brief rebuttal on behalf of the federal government, summarizing their view that respondents do not have standing and that their sought remedy of nationwide relief is not warranted.

"They have said they fear there will be emergency room doctors somewhere, someday who might be presented with some woman suffering an incredibly rare complication and the doctor may have to provide treatment, notwithstanding the conscience protections," she said.

"We don't think that harm has materialized -- but what the [lower] court did to guard against that very remote risk was issue sweeping nationwide relief that restricts access to mifepristone for every single woman in this country and that causes profound harm," she added. "It harms the agency, which had the courts come in and displace the agency's scientific judgments. It harms the pharmaceutical agency that is sounding alarm bells that this would destabilize the system for approving and regulating drugs. And it harms women who need access to medical abortions under conditions the FDA determined were safe and effective."