Posted on 06/14/2024 6:57:43 AM PDT by Twotone
The U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled unanimously to keep a controversial abortion drug on the market even after the court ruled two years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade.
In FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, a group of pro-life medical practitioners and their organizations had sued the FDA for relaxing restrictions on mifepristone, the first of two drugs used in a medical abortion. The plaintiffs argued that these relaxed standards would "jeopardize women’s health across the nation."
SCOTUS justices apparently considered the case on technical grounds rather than on the ethical issues regarding killing unborn children and ruled 9-0 that the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue the FDA. Writing on behalf of the majority, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a Trump appointee who voted to overturn Roe, claimed that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about FDA’s actions."
Kavanaugh did acknowledge that the plaintiffs in this case have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone." However, such objections do not amount to legal standing, he explained.
"A plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue."
President Joe Biden — who has long supported unfettered access to abortion even though the Catholic Church, of which he is a member, considers abortion a "moral evil" — gave a tepid response to the ruling. "It does not change the fact that the right for a woman to get the treatment she needs is imperiled if not impossible in many states," he said.
"But let’s be clear: attacks on medication abortion are part of Republican elected officials’ extreme and dangerous agenda to ban abortion nationwide."
Several outlets believe that Democrats view abortion as a winning issue this November, and recent referenda in traditionally red states like Kansas, Kentucky, and Ohio indicate that Americans as a whole still support allowing women to kill their unborn children.
We don’t need to hand the Democrats more abortion headlines just prior to the election, but no doubt some IDIOT Republican Senator will do just that.“
Idiocy is not necessarily the cause of this. The scheming little prick Graham did it in 22 to kill the red wave. He knew what he was doing.
Perhaps in 1793 when the Supreme Court stated that George Washington didn’t have standing?
Maybe the plaintiffs should have obtained better legal advice before trying this approach that was unanimously rejected, including by the most conservative justices.
Do it right or don’t do it at all, else you end up with this kind of embarrassment.
Hint: If Justice Thomas says the case isn’t acceptable, it isn’t.
It is a bad idea to allow an abortion pill, but it is up to CONGRESS to ban it. Not a court.
The two cases have nothing to do with each other.
Plus the doctors’ case was dismissed based on a lack of standing.
They are being told exactly nothing about the substance of their complaint. Only that they are the wrong complainants! No true (legally cognizable) dog in the fight.
The USSC didn’t strike down Roe vs Wade over moral issues. They stuck it because abortion is not a Federal concern.
China will make Fentanyl pills, stamp them with the abortion pill number, sell them on the streets, and murder countless women.
Abortion will continue until women decide to stop demanding it.
In our current system, that will be the only way it ends.
Well actually all the court did was state that the doctors who brought the case didn’t have standing, so there didn’t decide anything about the constitutionality of the drug
I was thinking more along the lines of no one has standing to question the Constitutional presidential eligibility for a possibly foreign born person whose father is the subject of another country.
As I understand, SCOTUS didn’t rule on the case just sent it back down. Right??
My preference is to minimize the Federal Government’s oversight in our personal choices. More generally, to minimize its size and power over us.
Murder Inc.
Once again these fools do not understand how this works. The SC simply returned the right to choose to the states. Doesn’t depend on what the topic of discussion is or what party it “helps” ,their job is to weigh how much power to grant the federal govt. People should always be looking to minimize federal influence over their lives.
Isn’t it funny how it was Trump that was “moderate,” pushed for what is basically Constitutional by putting it on the states (10th amendment), and was acting in a way that maximized the political will of the people while moral at the same time?
Trump was far smarter, far better a President than the MSM will ever give him credit for.
By going full anti-abortion, some Republicans / those playing the religious right can make gains in some small localities, but they are hurting the party and candidate on the national stage. Albeit, decentralization is a good thing in that the rules should represent the values of the people in that area. But that’s not how it works with some issues.
Abortion is an issue where the ship has already sailed. Most people do support this, to varying degrees. Not saying this is right, I am personally opposed to abortion. But as a realist, a pragmatist, I realize that a strict anti-abortion policy is just not the will of the people anymore.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx
They considered the case on it's LEGAL MERITS, which is what they are tasked to do.
SCOTUS is not my religious leader, nor my ethics teacher.
It's is about time they stick to the law and the Constitution.
Scotus should always rule on Constitutional and legal grounds rather than on what a Justice or Nine Justices consider Moral.
That is a birth control pill. I believe this was the “morning after pill” which provides a “double dose” of hormones that causes the body to think its time to start menses. It makes the uterus inhospitable to any fertilized egg.
Anyway, the ruling was on standing, not abortion. Just as Rowe was based on incorrect law (about privacy) and not abortion.
If our lawmakers really cared about this subject they would make law that settled the discussion. But that would cut out fund raising opportunities—just like immigration.
Relying on the Supreme Court to do the work of Congress is always a bad idea.
The Law is not about Ethics, Morals, Feelings, etc. It is what it says it is specifically.
In the beginning a man listened to a woman and look where it got them. Today, we are doing the very same thing we have been warned about since the beginning.
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.