402
Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill (www.nbcnews.com)
submitted 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) by vegeta@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

TL;DR

SCOTUS tossed it on standing...could still come back.

all 43 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 74 points 4 months ago

I think a lot of people are surprised by this, but I think it's mostly 9-0 because it wasn't really settled on any merits -- these people just did not have standing to sue.

I'm pretty sure this came out of the 5th Circuit and I'd expect to see more rulings like this smacking the 5th Circuit down because it specifically has gone off the rails and started making insane rulings unsupported by any law or precedent.

While SCOTUS has made some questionable rulings in the last several years, they're still going to punt in obvious situations where they can.

[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 52 points 4 months ago

This, they aren't protecting anyone's right, just picking a better case.

[-] Makeitstop@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

Ah, so they do remember what standing is. Surprising, given their selective amnesia on the topic during the student loan forgiveness case.

[-] FenrirIII@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

The 5th's rulings are supported by the law of God! /s

[-] Diurnambule@jlai.lu 68 points 4 months ago

It is crazy that there are all these fights for women rights at a time where we should focus on making the humanity survive the ecological apocalypse...

[-] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 31 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

All these things are just distractions.

Sure, the base loves it, which is why they are doing it, and it keeps the others side's panties in a bunch, but it's all just a distraction of the real goal.

Get power, keep power, make more money.

Texas just put "intelligent design" back in the class room because of course they would. Dumb people are easier to control and manipulate. Do you still hear anyone talking about that?

It's the same with the bathroom thing that was such a scandal a few years back. Do you really really believe these politicians give a single shit about any of that? It keeps people busy and talking about non starters while you erode rights, funnel more money to the select few rich, and make sure you stay in power no matter what.

Now with climate change, some asshole senator brought a snowball to show that climate change is false, one of those times they actually try and take the issue head on, but that's getting really hard now that it's become so bad that there just isn't any denying anymore...

So in comes abortion pills!

Do you really really believe they care? This is just another bone for people to chew on so that they can continue spewing CO2 cheaply and get richer

[-] Asafum@feddit.nl 6 points 4 months ago

A-fucking-men.

It's fodder for the propagandists to shout at you all night. To manipulate you into voting Republican because they make you so mad about a reality that doesn't exist or that they invented themselves for you to be mad at. They take Twitter morons and say that person is everyone on the left...

It's all culture war bullshit to distract you from fighting for actual causes that are directly affecting ALL OF US.

[-] ripcord@lemmy.world 0 points 4 months ago

They may be distractions but...there are a LOT of true believers. Several SC Justices actually believe this is a war and the most important thing to focus on, for example.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 51 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, wrote that while plaintiffs have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone," that does not mean they have a federal case.

Curve ball Kavanaugh is so hard to pin down. I’m grateful he voted to protect access, but I can’t seem to predict his position. Maybe with time he’ll turn into the right-wing version of Thomas and become a full throttle traitor to his party.

[-] ptz@dubvee.org 58 points 4 months ago

plaintiffs have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone," that does not mean they have a federal case.

I read that as "Rephrase the case and send it back".

[-] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 35 points 4 months ago

No, that's not what it's saying at all.

When they say that the doctors lack standing, what they're saying is that the doctors have not suffered harm as a result of the FDA's action. The doctors are not obligated to provide the medication that the FDA has authorized. Unless the doctors can prove that they, personally, have been affected negatively by the decision, there can be no court-ordered remedy for their injured moral fee-fees.

On the other hand, a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing; she would be able to demonstrate that the law had directly, personally affected her ability to get the health care she needed.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 14 points 4 months ago

Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:

"The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process," Kavanaugh wrote. "And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes."

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

They need a more compelling case of mifepristone causing harm. It’s probably best for those who use it to keep their experiences private if possible.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 9 points 4 months ago

Even that wouldn't work. If a drug causes you harm, you sue the company that made it.

They need a compelling case of how the FDA harmed them in order to sue the FDA. I don't think that will be easy.

[-] dogsnest@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Perhaps a sovcit can provide the correct forms and precise terms to use, in their proper order.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 19 points 4 months ago

Not just Kavanaugh in this case. This was a 9-0 decision, even Alito and Thomas voted to protect access.

[-] waddle_dee@lemmy.world 18 points 4 months ago

Alito gotta raise his reputation points after the leaks and flag debacle.

[-] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Good point. I realized after I commented that he was just writing on behalf of the court. Regardless, he’s been the only Justice to dissent from party opinion on several cases recently.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 3 points 4 months ago

They voted that the case is obviously lacking on technical grounds of standing. That's not the same as voting to protect access. They just want a better set of plaintiffs.

[-] NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

"Our corruption to the core would be too obvious if we heard this case"

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 5 points 4 months ago

voted to protect access

That's wholly incorrect.

They refused to consider the case because "the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury".

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

Pg 3 of the opinion

No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don't stop a potential bad thing from happening.

[-] frezik@midwest.social 2 points 4 months ago

Meanwhile, this case is taking up headlines at the same time the Supreme Court released another decision eroding union rights.

[-] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 3 points 4 months ago

The NRLB case didn't erode anything. The decision followed precedent and kept things status quo.

[-] FlowVoid@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.

The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 30 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

It's a unanimous decision, but they didn't really vote to protect access at all. They simply agreed that the doctors who filed the lawsuit has no standing to challenge it in the courts in the first place. So they basically said the lawsuit wasn't valid, they didn't rule on the merits at all.

The only good thing out of this is that it indirectly reinforces the rulings of the FDA as legitimate. So the Dismantling of the Administrative State is put on hold temporarily. Although who knows what the next case may bring.....

[-] oxjox@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 months ago

they didn’t really vote to protect access at all.

It's incredible how easily people assume something to be true and take the time to unintentionally spread misinformation in a public forum. Had they just taken two minutes to read the content which they're commenting on, this could easily be avoided. I mean, "rejected" is right in the headline - really didn't even need to read the article.

And yet people are upvoting these inaccuracies because they emotionally agree with the comment even though it's proven false in the headline.

[-] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Well, clicking the link and reading it is too much work, why not simply upvote, make a snarky comment, and move on?

[-] FireTower@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

Pg 3 of the opinion is pretty clear that launching a case against the government for not banning something will just result in your case being DOA. Yes its technically a standing issue, but they've essentially ruled that you can't have standing to sue under this situation. Effectively ruling on the merits.

It didn't protect access in the sense that it prevented legislation restricting it but it did prevent unmerited lawsuits seeking to prevent its national sale.

[-] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 10 points 4 months ago

Good, because beyond the abortion issue, there are other legitimate uses of mifepristone.

Apart from its predominant use in medically induced abortions, mifepristone proves valuable in addressing Cushing syndrome and uterine leiomyomas.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557612/

So making this illegal wouldn't have only hurt the abortion rights cause, it would basically be a fuck you to anyone with Cushing syndrome.

[-] Evilcoleslaw@lemmy.world 8 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

To be fair, this was never really about making mifepristone illegal outright. It was mostly about the FDA rules that would allow by mail order without first consulting a doctor. Consulting a doctor for its other uses would allow it to be prescribed for them.

[-] billiam0202@lemmy.world 4 points 4 months ago

it would basically be a fuck you to anyone with Cushing syndrome.

Given that conservatives hate women, I can't see how that wouldn't be another feature-not-bug.

[-] circuscritic@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

This was an easy election year punt.

The rulings in this case were made by an out of pocket judge and an appellate court district that's gone off the fucking rails, legally speaking.

If it wasn't an election year, SCOTUS might have disregarded all that and plowed ahead anyways.

However, both Alito and Thomas are likely wanting to retire, and probably will if Trump gets back in office.

Those desires, combined with how the last abortion ruling hurt the GOP electorally, made this an easy decision for them.

[-] charade_you_are@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 months ago

What a bunch of heroes on this supreme court.

[-] werefreeatlast@lemmy.world -4 points 4 months ago

Hopefully after they finish women and LGBTQA people hopefully then we can start a war with Iran, Irak, Israel, China, Ruzzia, Venezuela and or Mexico. That could help the housing crisis. Could help with the incarceration numbers if they use inmates first...if you think about it.

this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
402 points (99.5% liked)

News

23260 readers
2860 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world