The Biden administration is defending FDA decisions that lifted restrictions on mifepristone, including one that made it available by mail.
The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to reject a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, with a number of justices indicating the lawsuit should be dismissed.
The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments on the Biden administration’s appeal of lower court rulings that restricted women’s access to the pill, including its availability by mail.
But during the arguments, there was little discussion of whether the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions to lift restrictions on the drug were unlawful.
Instead, the justices focused on whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the lawsuit even had legal standing to bring the claim. The plaintiffs, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, argue that the FDA failed to adequately evaluate the drug’s safety risks.
But justices, both conservative and liberal, probed whether the doctors could show that they were directly injured merely because they object to abortion and could potentially be required to give emergency room treatment to a woman suffering from serious side effects.
But justices, both conservative and liberal, probed whether the doctors could show that they were directly injured merely because they object to abortion and could potentially be required to give emergency room treatment to a woman suffering from serious side effects.
Would that mean a doctor that objects to skydiving has standing to sue skydiving companies because they could potentially be required to give emergency room treatment to someone suffering from skydiving side effects?
Standing is a specific legal term that defines whether a party is allowed to sue, and injury is also a legal term in this case. Cornell Law School has a great intro on the legal requirements to establish standing using a 3-part test:
- The plaintiff must have suffered an “injury in fact,” meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
- There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
- It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.
In this case, seems to be the Supreme Court is skeptical that these doctors have satisfied this 3-part standing test, especially the injury in fact one. If SCOTUS decides that these doctors don’t have standing, then the lawsuit is dismissed.
I dislike when scotus makes standing arguments. It’s often used as a way to avoid ruling on merit and avoid setting precedent while getting their desired outcome.
I am not saying this because I agree with it, but because I know this is the argument the court would make, and I ask that anyone who replies keeps that in mind. The argument would be that skydiving is not a belief or standing of a recognized religion. Thus, abortion violates freedom of religion under the first amendment, but skydiving does not.
Now, that’s all stupid because a doctor should have to set aside certain rights, including the ability to discriminate in any way against providing medical care as per their oath, to take the job. There are a variety of other arguments against the stance, but skydiving is not on the same level as abortion when it comes to religious rights. Maybe a Muslim doctor refusing to treat a patient suffering from gastrointestinal distress from eating pork?
The conservative justices don’t need to do things that give away the decisions they made years ago before being nominated to further the forced birth agenda. They will make up their written reasons when they get to the decision, just like they did when they overturned Roe v Wade.
I’d be saddened, but not surprised to see that happen.
BTW: wasn’t overturning Roe supposed to be about state’s rights? Now they’re being asked to ignore states rights by banning this safe drug on a national level?
Yes, they are complete hypocrites who regularly contradict themselves depending on what furthers their malicious goals.
All three lied when asked about Roe v Wade during their confirmations.
Gorsuch: Senator, again, I would tell you that Roe v. Wade, decided in 1973, is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It has been reaffirmed. The reliance interest considerations are important there, and all of the other factors that go into analyzing precedent have to be considered. It is a precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court. It was reaffirmed in Casey in 1992 and in several other cases. So a good judge will consider it as precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court worthy as treatment of precedent like any other.
Kavanaugh: Senator, I said that it is settled as a precedent of the Supreme Court, entitled the respect under principles of stare decisis. And one of the important things to keep in mind about Roe v. Wade is that it has been reaffirmed many times over the past 45 years, as you know, and most prominently, most importantly, reaffirmed in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992.
Barrett said that if a question about overturning Roe or Casey or any other case comes before her, “I will follow the law of stare decisis, applying it as the court is articulating it, applying all the factors, reliance, workability, being undermined by later facts in law, just all the standard factors. And I promise to do that for any issue that comes up, abortion or anything else. I’ll follow the law.”
All three should be impeached for being lying liars.
Yes, and the majority of Justices seem to not be buying this logic at all, including the Trump appointees.
This will probably be dismissed from lack of standing, which conveniently allows them to skip addressing the messier questions.
Tea leaves heavily imply our “representative” “democracy” well uphold policy 9/10 Americans agree on
I shall consult the bones!
