Why did the Supreme Court accept the case in the first place, it's a bit confusing. I guess they are signaling that they are willing to ban abortion drugs if a proper case comes up?
If they had done nothing then that would have _reduced_ access to mifepristone by rolling back the FDA's expansions (that is, the requirement for in-person doctor's consultation would have been reinstated)
This whole topic is rife with self-defeating nonsense. I personally used to think abortion should be an issue left up to the states, in part due to the common "pro choice" messaging - if it's a choice, and people feel so strongly about it, why shouldn't regulation of that choice be left up to the states? Then life happens and you see that most of this topic, especially all those abhorrent-sounding later-term strawmen that get trotted out, really has nothing to do with any semblance of choice. Rather it's mostly about religious fundamentalists playing duality-make-believe that a non-viable fetus is still somehow an abstract "person", and then pushing their fantasy onto everyone else.
I'd love to see the whole topic reframed. If a state bans elective abortions of normal pregnancies after a certain specific amount of development, that's fine. And in fact, as far as I can tell most (probably all) states already do this! But there is absolutely no rationale to laws like Texas's, which are essentially just a superstitious attack on what is otherwise straightforward medical care.