Erin Hawley, the attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom representing the plaintiffs, said they are "harmed" without an injunction of mifepristone because it may require them to treat people experiencing abortion complications and "take an unborn life."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Hawley asked how often would it be that the plaintiffs have to complete the procedure "in the way that you are describing?"

Hawley said plaintiffs have treated people experiencing abortion complications "dozens of times" and even said treatment may require "scraping out a uterus". However, she did not provide specific numbers.

Justice Elena Kagan, continuing the court's interest in the plaintiff's standing to bring this case, pressed attorney Erin Hawley on her "conscience harm" argument.

"You need a person. You need a person to be able to come in and meet the court's regular standing requirements," Kagan. "So, who's your person?"

Hawley pointed to one doctor, Dr. Christina Francis, whose partner had to perform a dilation and curettage (or a D&C) due to a life-threatening emergency for a woman who had taken abortion medication. Kagan asked if the doctor stated her objection at that time, which Hawley said they did not.

"The way people with conscience objections do this is they make those objections known," Kagan said. "That may be harder, that may be easier in a particular context but most hospitals have mechanisms in place, routines in place to ensure the doctors who are allowed to do this in advance and are allowed to it at the moment."

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked Erin Hawley, the attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom -- the group representing the plaintiffs -- if a nationwide reversal of the FDA's approval of mifepristone is needed and if the court can simply rule that doctors do not need to prescribe the pill if they have conscience objections.

"Do we have to entertain your argument that no one in the world can have this drug in order to protect your client?" the justice asked.

Hawley argued that given the "emergency nature," it is "impracticable" to not have a broader ban or block on access to the pill.

Justice Neil Gorsuch echoed Jackson's question and asked if it is enough for the court to rule on behalf of the plaintiffs not being required to prescribe the pill and why the court has to consider a universal injunction.

Two-thirds of Americans (66%) said mifepristone should remain on the market in an ABC News/Washington Post poll conducted last year.

Plus, 72% of Americans said at the time that access to the drug should remain the same.

Overall, 78% of Americans said the decision whether to have an abortion should be left to a woman and her doctor rather than regulated by law. That view was shared by 58% of Republicans.

The poll (conducted 10 months after the fall of Roe) also found half of Americans thought the Supreme Court justices base their rulings mainly on their personal political opinions, not on the law. Before the abortion ruling, the public was divided 46%-45% on whether the justices' rulings were based mainly on the law or on their own political preferences.

Medication abortion quickly became the target of multiple lawsuits after the Supreme Court struck down Roe's guarantees to national abortion access.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas issued an unprecedented ruling suspending the FDA's initial approval of the drug (which has been on the market for nearly 25 years) because, he said, the drug was unsafe and its approval process rushed.

Kacsmaryk's order was partially blocked by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, though that court held the FDA acted unlawfully when it eased rules in 2016 and 2021 to allow the pill to be mailed to patients, prescribed by a medical professional and taken later in pregnancy.

The Biden administration then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, warning the loss of access would be "damaging for women and healthcare providers" nationwide and defending the FDA's process as supported by science and decades of safe use.