[BobL]

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.

[null and void]

The people attempting to bring the issue to SCOTUS did not have “standing”.

Where have I heard that excuse before?...

[CommieCutter]

“ 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.”
——

Then what would be the correct forum?

[tflabo]

Deuteronomy 19:10-that innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord God giveth thee... Deut. 27:25 cursed be he that taketh reward to slay an innocent person...

Best to avoid curses no? But foolish Rats plow right ahead into the abyss.

[G Larry]

It shouldn't be difficult to find women victims of this pill/combo who clearly have standing.

The court ruled on "standing" NOT on the pill!

[Sacajaweau]

That pill keeps a woman from ovulating.

[pierrem15]

The two decisions simply reflect the law, not policy, which is what the court is supposed to do.

SCOTUS is not supposed to be a super-legislature reviewing policy decisions.

[Marko413]

I’m not really concerned with what pill they approve, should still be up to the state to decide if it is legal in that state.

[Opinionated Blowhard]

This is a standing decision. Doctors don’t have standing to sue based on the general welfare of patients. It is the correct decision. Otherwise, as Kavanaugh said, anyone would have standing to sue over anything. In the long run, this decision is better for conservatives because it will stop kids from suing over “Global Warming” and other libs from suing over whatever they don’t like.

[adorno]

ruled unanimously to keep a controversial abortion drug on the market even after the court ruled two years ago to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The only thing those two issues have in common is 'abortions'.

One was a ruling, and not a law, and laws are supposed to be passed by congress and signed by the president. That ruling was easy to remove and should never have been assumed to be 'law'. If it's going to be law, let congress take it up and pass it.

The pill is not supported by law, and shouldn't be, and it's a medical decision which belongs outside of courts and outside of congr3ess. There are millions of drugs which are taken by people every day, and if all of them were subject to court rulings, the courts would not have time for anything but drug rulings, and most drugs might be banned, even when helpful. Vaccines would also be subject to court rulings, and then, millions of people would die every day because those vaccines were banned or put on hold or deemed unnecessary.

[one guy in new jersey]

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.

[Seruzawa]

The USSC didn’t strike down Roe vs Wade over moral issues. They stuck it because abortion is not a Federal concern.

[alstewartfan]

China will make Fentanyl pills, stamp them with the abortion pill number, sell them on the streets, and murder countless women.

[redgolum]

Abortion will continue until women decide to stop demanding it.

In our current system, that will be the only way it ends.

[Mastador1]

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

[elpadre]

As I understand, SCOTUS didn’t rule on the case just sent it back down. Right??

[cymbeline]

My preference is to minimize the Federal Government’s oversight in our personal choices. More generally, to minimize its size and power over us.

[DownInFlames]

Murder Inc.

[MrRelevant]

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.

[Red6]

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://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opinion-on-abortion/#:~:text=While%20public%20support%20for%20legal,in%20all%20or%20most%20cases.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/321143/americans-stand-abortion.aspx