Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: joesbucks

“The court found unanimously that the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue.”

#####################

OK, then who DOES have legal standing to sue?


2 posted on 06/13/2024 8:14:46 AM PDT by Eccl 10:2 (Prov 3:5 --- "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Eccl 10:2

The unborn I suppose. Legally this is the correct court decision as it should be left up to the states. I am against abortion but that must be within the construct of the system.


3 posted on 06/13/2024 8:18:10 AM PDT by BipolarBob (I was drowning in self pity until I bathed in the refreshing Lake of Respect.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Eccl 10:2

I agree...who does? Congress needs to pass a law that judges must say “who does”. I think a lot of times they use this because they don’t want to deal with the issue.


10 posted on 06/13/2024 9:20:01 AM PDT by FredSchwartz (What ever happened to common sense and simple logic?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Eccl 10:2

Someone who can point to some tangible harm they’ve suffered as a result of the availability of these pills.


16 posted on 06/13/2024 9:52:00 AM PDT by Coronal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Eccl 10:2
>OK, then who DOES have legal standing to sue?

"the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions ... 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.

Which implies that if a future president and a different thinking FDA decide to undo the regulatory changes in dispute, any federal lawsuits contesting that reverse scenario should also be thrown out.

19 posted on 06/13/2024 11:13:24 AM PDT by JohnBovenmyer (Biden/Harris events are called dodo ops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Eccl 10:2

Constitutional Standards: Injury in Fact, Causation, and Redressability

“Although the Court has been inconsistent, it has now settled upon the rule that, at “an irreducible minimum,” the constitutional requisites under Article III for the existence of standing are that the plaintiff must personally have: 1) suffered some actual or threatened injury; 2) that injury can fairly be traced to the challenged action of the defendant; and 3) that the injury is likely to be redressed by a favorable decision.”

https://constitution.findlaw.com/article3/annotation10.html


22 posted on 06/13/2024 12:44:20 PM PDT by Bob Wills is still the king (Just a Texas Playboy at heart!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Eccl 10:2

I suppose each state would-it would be part of each state’s right to rule on abortion, and that makes sense to me. When a bunch of women take that pill without medical supervision and some wind up dead or permanently injured, let the lawsuits begin against whichever state they bought the pills in-I’ll bet those pills get taken off the market before long in that state...


25 posted on 06/13/2024 2:50:29 PM PDT by Texan5 ("You've got to saddle up your boys, you've got to draw a hard line"...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson