In a unanimous decision, written by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, the court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s actions....
When the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, it indicated that it was getting out of the abortion business, leaving the issue to the elected branches. The abortion pill decision vindicated that promise, at least for now....When the case was argued, Justice Alito said he was troubled that it seemed no one had standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s action. Justice Kavanaugh wrote that not every dispute was for judges to decide: “Some issues may be left to the political and democratic processes.”
June 13, 2024
"Supreme Court Upholds Broad Access to Abortion Pill/The justices unanimously rejected a bid to sharply curtail access to a widely available abortion pill, finding that the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue."
The NYT reports.I made that a free-access link.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
77 comments:
I wonder why the case even made it to the USSC. The NYT brief doesn't really say anything substantive, but it does appear it was summarily dismissed. Good.
Preserving Democracy. What ever will happen next? An actual elected President??
As I predicted- standing would be the argument used to rule against the plaintiffs.
A good decision since the abortion pill can't really be stopped by any state law.
"When the court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, it indicated that it was getting out of the abortion business, leaving the issue to the elected branches."
How in the hell can they possibly reconcile this sentence. Not a word of this gobbledygook is true. Obfuscation spin salad for the proles.
Unanimous decisions are so partisan! No wonder Leftists hate the Supreme Court and are working to undermine it. They despise genuine cooperation and moderation to reach an outcome, even if the outcome is one they'd support. Leftists thrive on conflict they can exploit and Roberts, the bastard, is denying them that regularly now. He's quite devious.
leaving the issue to the elected branches.
So Professor Althouse? do YOU agree that the FDA is part of an "elected branch"?
So Professor Althouse? do YOU agree that Trump FDA will be able to change this ruling??
If not, HOW is the FDA part of an "elected branch" ??
Bingo.
"Justice Kavanaugh wrote that not every dispute was for judges to decide." Hallelujah! I've wanted a Justice to say that my whole life.
The left will celebrate and the right will complain about a decision that was completely predicable given the earlier Supreme Court decision that the right celebrated and the left complained about.
I think the left will be disappointed. Not in the decision itself... but the fact they thought the conservatives would do them a favor in the other direction.
... unanimously rejected a bid to sharply curtail access.
Curtail. Abort...
Murder is defined by statute in each state. Aborting a human life that is deemed a "burden" or otherwise unworthy of life is a legally viable Choice during the first six weeks following conception in all 50 states, and thereafter as an act of self-defense through reconciliation.
Baby Lives Matter (BLM)
curtail (v.)
late 15c., "restrict or limit," a word based on Old French courtault "made short," from court "short" (Old French cort, from Latin curtus, from PIE root *sker- (1) "to cut") + -ault, a pejorative suffix of Germanic origin. From 1550s as "cut short, cut off the end of." General sense of "deprive by excision or removal" is from 1580s.
The spelling in English perhaps is influenced by Middle English taillen "to cut," from Old French tailler (see tailor (n.)), and tail (n.) in reference to horses with docked tails. Compare curtal, which is the form retained in poetics to describe a "shortened" stanza or poem. Related: Curtailed; curtailing; curtailment.
The left will celebrate and the right will complain about a decision that was completely predicable given the earlier Supreme Court decision that the right celebrated and the left complained about.
Then why did they take the case at all?
Basing the decision on standing is just a punt. They'll get another case, and ban it, but after the election.
Maybe the Left will calm down about Alito, but I doubt it.
I guess we should celebrate. I can remember the NINE MEN AGAINST AMERICA billboards from the late 1950s.Are they finally out of the business of passing all the controversial bills that Chickens Congress thought were too hot to touch?
Conservatives are going to wish the Supreme Court never got out of the abortion debate. Leaders of the Baptist Church are demanding that the government outlaw IVF. These people are influential.
But close to 3% of births in the United States are due to IVF. And there are at least 3 million IVF babies alive and walking around. If the GOP outlaws IVF, they will lose everywhere. No doubt, it will be catastrophic.
A rite held by legislation, regulation, or where demos-cracy dies in darkness?
There is no mystery in life and conception... #BLM
That said, six weeks. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #NoContortionistsFete
The easiest way out of our national dysfunctional trench lawfare is a whole bunch of 9 to 0 Supreme Court decisions on hot-button topics. Bring 'em on! All the justices are partisans, but they are not stupid*, and they surely see the destructiveness of political lawsuits.
*Being unable to define a 'woman' demonstrates either blind conformity to ideology or rank stupidity. Given biological female social behavior and data on black female monolithic politics, I see blind conformity. Will she ever play against type and shut up her crazy allies? She could have a huge, huge, huge impact by doing the unexpected.
Social conservatives are elated about progress, one step forward, two steps backward: human rites, diversity, sadomasochism, sodomy, friends with "benefits", pedophilia, etc. The rest of humanity is considering the double-edged scalpel of the Ouroboros cycle.
Distribute this pill for free in highly democrat/liberal parts of the country.
It would be an extension of Margaret Sanger's dream.
In a few decades we'd live in a saner world.
The issue eventually is the FDA (and other bureaucrat-full Fed agencies) making laws. But as Kavanagh notes, that can be curtailed legislatively.
The right (i.e. libertarian, leftist nexus) is celebrating in gay parade. The #LeftToo. The moderates acknowledge that demos-cracy dies in darkness... at the twilight fringe.
This will be held up as "SCOTUS isn't political," which overlooks how the case was outrageous and absurd in the first place. Kacsmaryk and the 5th Circuit brazenly violated basic principles of standing taught to every first year law student. It shouldn't have made it this far.
If you’re not a law nerd, and you’re wondering why people who are not themselves theocratic fascists would support theocratic fascists, it’s to achieve this: to limit the power of the regulatory state.
Amicus Spotlight: Loper Bright & Relentless
https://therevolvingdoorproject.org/amicus-spotlight-loper-bright-relentless/
“Conservatives are going to wish the Supreme Court never got out of the abortion debate. Leaders of the Baptist Church are demanding that the government outlaw IVF. These people are influential.”
No, they really aren’t.
- Rafe
I very much hope that you will do more writing on this case, Professor Althouse, when you have had time to read the opinion. I cannot recall, certainly not in a decade or more, a case reaching this level of SCOTUS scrutiny (a very big decision released at the end of the term with all of the other history-making decisions) that was so procedurally suspect, so bizarre in the way that the case was concocted, and so legally fraught.
Seems like a sensible ruling.
Another swing and another miss, Rich.
AI letting him down…
Women should remember that the pill is not free from defects, may have catastrophic forward-looking effects, and consult their gynecologist before consuming the drug.
"Justice Alito said he was troubled that it seemed no one had standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s action. " So am I. It may well be proper to the legal process but it often seems to cement in place things that ought to be open to challenge.
So which was it?
The Court upheld or the plaintiffs lacked standing?
Any drug that affects hormones may also affect judgment. While taking the pill, women are advised to avoid making business decisions, Democratic facilities, [casting] couches, liberal neighbors, Planned Parenthood, marriage proposals, operating heavy equipment, sex and pregnancy, love and Spring, Slut Walks, etc.
"Justice Alito said he was troubled that it seemed no one had standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s action. " So am I. It may well be proper to the legal process but it often seems to cement in place things that ought to be open to challenge.
That is the significant takeaway from this fungible decision.
n.n said, "Women should remember that the pill is not free from defects, may have catastrophic forward-looking effects, and consult their gynecologist before consuming the drug."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The defects are not their concern, especially not when everyone else can share those defects by having them urinated into the environment. Won't somebody please think of the fish?
The lawsuit was brought by a party calling itself The Alliance of Hippocratic Medicine that challenged the FDA's approval of mifeprestone. The lack of standing to sue the FDA over this is blindingly obvious to me- the FDA's power to issue such an approval is pretty clear cut in the legislation forming the agency.
Who would have standing to challenge this? I doubt anyone really does have such standing- not even someone who was harmed by taking the drug- that person would have to sue the manufacturer for actual damages, not the FDA. If you don't like the approval of the drug, then challenge that approval in the US Congress and get a law passed revoking the approval.
A tougher case for SCOTUS will be if a state government makes selling the drug illegal within the state as has probably already happened but I would have to look it up to be sure. That is a case that will make both conservatives and progressives both take uncomfortable positions with regards to other things certain states have outlawed
n.n. said:
"A rite held by legislation, regulation, or where demos-cracy dies in darkness?
There is no mystery in life and conception... #BLM
That said, six weeks. #NoJudgment #NoLabels #NoContortionistsFete"
As with most of your comments, I have no idea what you are trying to say.
Thomas concurred because he thinks standing should be more restrictive than unanimous opinion.
If i remember right, district court decision so out there, and 5th Circuit so suspect, that USSC stepped in and issued stay before court of appeals had chance to consider stay.
I really don't think anyone with any influence is trying to ban IVF. The assist my daughter needed to get pregnant- waiting until your 30 is not a good option...
And IVF often leads to multiple births- hence, my daughter had twins.
Where I do see a problem is Massachusetts allowing the buying and selling of babies. Both born and yet to be born.
https://thefederalist.com/2024/06/11/ma-bill-would-allow-women-to-sell-their-unborn-children/
Even under the wildest stretch of the imagination that's not a right protected under the 10th amendment. And since sperm donors apparently have no say whatsoever in who/where their sperm goes (which protects them from paternity lawsuits if done through proper medical channels) I can see all kinds of bad results from this. That laws like this are proposed and seriously discussed among the liberal intelligentsia, and in a lot of case the babies would come from IVF procedures, says that conservative backlash would result in really tight rules about who is eligible for IVF procedures- perhaps, for example, only married couples having trouble conceiving. Which would allow for lesbian married couple to have one- but not male perverts. Since neither one can conceive with the other no matter what they do.
And justice Kavanaugh was right. This isn't a constitutional issue. It's a federal issue.
Readering said...
Thomas concurred because he thinks standing should be more restrictive than unanimous opinion.
Shouldn't it? How is the Constitution involved in this? Aren't they there to judge laws against the Constitution?
Most people don't realize that the pill pill, the contraceptive one, is also actually an abortificant. In an unknown percentage of cases it prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the womb. So for those men and women relying on the pill who are also religiously observant and know that life begins at conception, not uterine implantation, by trusting your doctor's lies, you may be inducing many dozens or more abortions by using the pill over your sexual lifetimes.
It would just be nice if Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood and medical schools and gynecological societies didn't lie and dissemble about this to their patients.
Reddit is full of women terrified of losing their reproductive rights. Every time something like this happens (reproductive rights confirmed) I wonder what all these women are going to do with their Handmaid's Tale red cloak outfits they worked so hard on. There are also women trying to 'flee' the US - well there goes THAT planning.
"In 2016, FDA relaxed some of these restrictions: deeming Mifeprex safe to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks; allowing healthcare providers, such as nurse practitioners, to
prescribe Mifeprex; and approving a dosing regimen that required just one in-person visit to receive the drug."
"In 2021, FDA announced that it would no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement."
I wondered why there was no loss of income argument in support of standing.
Maybe because of this - "I will not participate in euthanasia or help a patient to commit suicide, nor will I suggest such courses of action. Similarly, I will not help a woman obtain an abortion." - from AHM's mission statement.
"Reddit is full of women terrified of losing their reproductive rights."
There are places in the US that are prohibiting women from reproducing?
"Every time something like this happens (reproductive rights confirmed) I wonder what all these women are going to do with their Handmaid's Tale red cloak outfits they worked so hard on."
I would be absolutely floored if any of those hags knew how to sew. It's just like that infantile Guy Fawkes mask or pussy hats, anonymous and pussy hatters became a joke while the people that made the masks and hats made a fortune.
Feminine paranoia about a science fiction future that exists right now in large parts of the world is easily slaked by playing dress up and paid for with daddy's credit card.
Buying shit on Etsy sends a powerful message that they know how to use google.
Are these pills safe and effective?
"Supreme Court Upholds Broad Access to Abortion Pill”
Well, they're the ones who SHOULD have access. It's made for them!
Rusty: the constitutional issue was the standing of doctors who suffered no injury themselves to sue in federal court. The Court unanimously said no. The substantive issue was federal law on FDA drug approval process. Not reached by Court.
CJinPA, bravo!
And then:
"Reddit is full of women terrified of losing their reproductive rights."
There are places in the US that are prohibiting women from reproducing?
I will never understand how the pro-abortion side managed to lock up the positive-connotation terms for what they're advocating: choice (with no emphasis on the choice of whether, how, and with whom to have sex so that IF pregnancy results, it's a good thing, not something crying out for a quick end), reproductive rights (most notably, the right to terminate the already ongoing process of reproduction).
I mean, I say I'll never understand it, but that's a lie. People always try to define terms to which they're subject in ways that make them feel good, or at least better. I'd venture that almost every woman or girl who has an abortion knows she's ending a pregnancy that, if allowed to proceed, would result in an actual human baby's birth. Who wants to be reminded of that? It would feel so awful, of they called it "right to kill a fetus" instead. That's perfectly understandable (if not perfectly morally justifiable).
So let me change my statement: I will never understand why the pro-abortion side, when it touts "choice" and "rights," doesn't work harder to ensure that the choice and rights being supported actually belong to the woman or girl. Not to her pimp, or abuser, or unhappy lover or husband, or angry and ashamed parent.
There are a fair number of women who have been injured by the legal abortificants - the women treated by the doctors who filed the suit would be the logical plaintiffs against the FDA for not enforcing it's safety standards.
Meanwhile, in an equally important decision, the SF Board of Supervisors yesterday declared SF "...a sanctuary city for transgender, gender nonconforming, nonbinary and Two-Spirit people - a pan-Indian term that describes those who are neither male nor female..."
Undo send.
Abortion Pills Are So Dangerous To Women, The FDA Should Yank Them From The Market
Abortion pill
Consult your gynecologist.
The Pro-Abortion ‘Life Of The Mother’ Argument Is A False Flag Operation"
Six weeks seems to be an ethical place to start, then self-defense through reconciliation thereafter.
a sanctuary city for transgender, gender nonconforming, nonbinary and Two-Spirit people
Transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual).
They'll get another case, and ban it, but after the election.
And when that doesn't happen, Freder will pretend he never said it, call us a bunch of liars and demand proof he actually did say it.
Save that quote.
NPR actually had the CEO of the Alliance Defending Freedom on. I believe this organization represented one or more of the Doctors who were suing. She brought up something I was not aware of which was that according to the FDA's own statistics something like 5% to 7% of women who take the chemical abortion pill wind up in the emergency room due to complications. To mind that seems like a non-negligible risk. The NPR host's response to the at was eye-rolling which was something like, "It is important to note that according to NPR's own medical and science reporting which has covered this topic for many years, the drug is 'Very Safe.'" She didn't give any counter-vailing data, just a rhetorical building up of the authority of NPR's reporting and their own counter-assertion.
I am a pro-life, conservative, Republican, retired lawyer, but this decision was correct. There has to be a "case or controversy" for the Supreme Court to get involved, and the injured party must prove that they were harmed by the law in order to establish standing. Otherwise the Supreme Court could pontificate and rule about issues and cases that don't even exist before them, which would be abhorrent for both the left and the right.
And when that doesn't happen, Freder will pretend he never said it, call us a bunch of liars and demand proof he actually did say it.
Well then save this thread and use it against me. If I am wrong, I will admit it. I rarely make predictions, but this one is a no-brainer.
I'm waiting for a guardian ad litem to be appointed for a fetus under a State law, and the guardian sues to enjoin the person bearing the fetus from having an abortion.
Will human rites continue to be banned after the first trimester, second, third, the time of viability? Why perform acrobatic fetes to carve exceptions? Arbitrary. Why aren't more people transhumane? And what of the mother's life and health with indiscriminate consumption of a partially viable drug cocktail? All's fair in lust and abortion? Sequester the "burden" of evidence as the social conservatives now "liberals" with progress demand in a wicked solution.
On the whole I agree with Kavanaugh’s statement, though I’m concerned whether the FDA has done its job and truly assured that mifepristone is safe. Given the observable politicization of NIH under Francis Collins and the politicization of CDC under Rochelle Walensky, it is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether the FDA made a medical decision or a political one. Still, justices are absolutely not equipped to decide the question of mifepristone‘s safety.
At the same time I have sympathy for Alito’s position. What sorts of cases might be out there wending their way through the appellate courts where a judicial resolution really is needed but no one has standing to sue? I guess we shall see.
Josh Hawley's wife Erin Hawley was the attorney bringing this case.
"Ms. Hawley views the cause as similar to her fights against government interference, rooted in her experience of ranch life."
https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/erin-hawley-abortion-pill-supreme-court-03c14274#
So, in the spirit of rugged individualism, and a healthy distrust of government interference and overreach, she’s asking for the Supreme Court to use blatant government overreach to limit the reproductive health choices of half the population.
Got it.
"the Supreme Court to use blatant government overreach to limit the reproductive health choices of half the population."
No. Where is abortion mentioned in the constitution?
"Justice Alito said he was troubled that it seemed no one had standing to challenge the F.D.A.’s action. " I've always been troubled that U.S. citizens don't seem to have standing to challenge federal officials aiding illegal immigration, state bureaucrats changing election laws, and all manner of other actions not found in law. It's easy to protect yourself from a pill, don't take it. The other stuff, not so much.
"Ms. Hawley believed that a blue state had no right to impose its values and rules on Missouri’s farmers." ~WSJ
A "a blue state had no right to impose its values and rules on Missouri’s farmers" yet here she is imposing her religious views and beliefs on an entire nation of women, Christian or otherwise. It would be laughable if it weren't so sad.
Even for a Republican, her hypocrisy is stunning.
DNC Rich said: So, in the spirit of rugged individualism, and a healthy distrust of government interference and overreach, she’s asking for the Supreme Court to use blatant government overreach to limit the reproductive health choices of half the population.
How does an abortion pill relate to reproductive health? I would think that there are medical risks to taking it, as with most drugs.
Aren't you concerned with the predations of Big Pharma?
Oh, wait. They are the good guys now, thanks to Covid fake vaccines and generous donations to the Democrats.
Before marijuana was available at every strip mall here in California, it was legalized as a prescription medicine.
Doctors would literally set up tables in parks and at entertainment venues and write a 'script for anybody.
If same situation were to occur regarding morning after, any woman could have a just-in-case bottle in the medicine cabinet. Kinda like having aspirin.
Or, would be easily available online.
Would end a lot of the drama, for better or worse.
APL said: Reddit is full of women terrified of losing their reproductive rights.
Mason G said in response: There are places in the US that are prohibiting women from reproducing?
What you have to remember about Reddit, boys and girls, is that they are a bunch of filthy animals (and proud of it) over there.
Not to decide is to decide.
Biden been very very good to Broads..
The first phase of the drug cocktail will starve your unPlanned child. The second phase will evict the little "burden". The risks include but are not limited to hemorrhaging and ectopic pregnancy. Consult with your gynecologist before making your Choice.
In the worst case, your child will survive the attempted abortion, and will have to be scalped to curtail her evolution.
You can tell this is an emotional issue for Rich.
Rich. Is your period late?
Rusty believes abortion bans and restrictions on birth control and IVF will be winning issues for republicans in 2024.
I think, Rich,(you should try it sometime) that the legality or illegality should be left to the individual states. You, know. Like our Constitution is supposed to work.
The winning issues fro Republicans are going to be the shitty economy. The absurd influx of illegal immigrants at our southern boarder and the war mongering Democrats.
Now run along to your progressive masters and get your new talking points based on this new information.
Having mastered creationism, race science, Biblical law, and the connection between 5G and vaccines, I would like to explain why I still think mifepristone is not safe ~ Rusty
Post a Comment