Posted on 06/13/2024 7:17:26 AM PDT by Coronal
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, meaning the commonly used drug can remain widely available.
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. As a result, the lawsuit will be dismissed.
By throwing out the case on such grounds, the court avoided reaching a decision on the legal merits of whether the FDA acted lawfully in lifting various restrictions, including one making the drug obtainable via mail, meaning the same issues could yet return to the court in another case.
Another regulatory decision left in place means women can still obtain the pill within 10 weeks of gestation instead of seven.
Likewise a decision to allow health care providers other than physicians to dispense the pill will remain in effect.
The ruling comes two years after the court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, overturned the landmark abortion rights decision Roe v. Wade, which led to a wave of new abortion restrictions in conservative states.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbcnews.com ...
headline misleading- Supremes did not rule on the issue bt said the doctors did not have standing. likely to cme back as several states - with standing- will sue
No legal standing. Issue not decided on the merits.
Per the caption: “Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill” Seems accurate to me.
A technical ruling, not a ruling on the arguments in the suit itself.
would be if it had included “due to lack of standing.”
State’s rights issue.
Are they supposed to lay out the whole story in the headline? It captures the gist of it.
100% prolifer here but the reality lis that this just collapsed the rodents’ “Well win with abortion referendums.
More correct headline would be: Supreme Court Rules Plantiffs in Abortion Pill Case Lack Standing.
100% prolifer here but the reality lis that this just collapsed the rodents’ “Well win with abortion referendums.
Actually, everybody who's commented on this post is wrong.
The entire story, not simply the headline, is "misleading," given the posture of the case that was before the Supreme Court.
The reality is, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit had originally affirmed U.S. District Court's ruling, in which the District Court had found in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which had challenged the FDA's action at issue here. The FDA then sought certiorari, which the Supreme Court earlier granted. That's the very reason why the FDA was the petitioner in this case and the Alliance was the respondent.
With its decision today, the Supreme Court overturned, unanimously, the Fifth Circuit's decision, finding that the Alliance didn't have standing to bring its original action in the first place. In the view of the Justices, both the District Court and the Fifth Circuit had gotten their "standing" analysis wrong.
So the entire thrust of this story -- i.e., that the Supreme Court today "rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone" -- is rather off. What the Court did was reject the Alliance's claim that it had standing to bring its (originally successful) challenge in the first place.
I don't think this reflects any intentionality on the part of NBC News. Rather, I suspect that it simply shows that reporters today have no better understanding of what's going on here than the typical Freeper poster.
Well said.
In the opinion it was stated (paraphrased) that the courts were the wrong forum to decide this issue. This needed to be decided by the president with the legislative branch of government.
Reading the headline and then the article I am trying to understand why they don’t have standing? Are they being forced to write the prescriptions?
Still, my first thought was ‘no fault’ divorce and discreet access to abortions at home being very similar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.