Morning Report — Justices sound ready to back abortion pill access

[Zincwarrior]

Was listening to oral arguments while working yesterday. It seems only Thomas and Alito were supporting limiting abortion pills. Most seemed to be asking about whether plaintiffs even had standing due to no impact upon them, not if the FDA had the authority to make the ruling. Will be interesting to see what they rule.

Morning Report — Justices sound ready to back abortion pill access

In June 2022, a conservative Supreme Court majority ruled that abortion restrictions resided with the states. On Tuesday, abortion made its way back before the justices in a case challenging access…

thehill.com

Morning Report — Justices sound ready to back abortion pill access​

BY ALEXIS SIMENDINGER AND KRISTINA KARISCH - 03/27/24 6:30 AM ET
SHAREPOST

Demonstrators Tuesday at the Supreme Court during oral arguments about access to a widely used abortion drug. (AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana)
Editor’s note: The Hill’s Morning Report is our daily newsletter that dives deep into Washington’s agenda. To subscribe, click here or fill out the box below.

The latest in politics and policy. Direct to your inbox. Sign up for the Morning Report newsletter

Subscribe
In June 2022, a conservative Supreme Court majority ruled that abortion restrictions resided with the states. On Tuesday, abortion made its way back before the justices in a case challenging access to a widely used abortion drug. Most justices sounded ready to reject an appeal to broadly limit patients’ and physicians’ access to mifepristone, a medication deemed safe by the Food and Drug Administration.
Justices questioned whether the plaintiffs, who do not prescribe abortion pills or regularly treat abortion patients, had legal standing to assert harm. A ruling is expected in June. Conservative Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas may be in a minority in their support of the anti-abortion challengers, based on their questioning.

They appeared to pave a path for a future Republican administration to turn to a 151-year-old law, the Comstock Act, to block the mailing of all abortion-related drugs and materials and to effectively ban most abortions nationwide.
Even if the high court’s majority rules in favor of continued broad access to abortion pills, use of the medication for abortion will remain illegal in 14 states that have adopted near-total bans. In those states, there is no legal distinction between pregnancies terminated using surgical procedures or medication.
Court-based abortion battles are far from over, and in a presidential election year, President Biden and Democrats believe they have the upper hand in the political debate. They champion nationwide reproductive rights, criticize “extremist” state laws and focus on the health-related repercussions for women and even children who face risky pregnancies, including as a result of rape or incest.

 

[pknopp]

I hate when the courts cop out with the "Have a standing" dismissal. Just rule on the case. It would save everyone a lot of time.

So the losing side finds someone with a "standing" and we go through the entire process over again. There is no reason to do that.

I suppose it keeps the "billable hours" rolling.

 

[Zincwarrior]

I hate when the courts cop out with the "Have a standing" dismissal. Just rule on the case. It would save everyone a lot of time.

So the losing side finds someone with a "standing" and we go through the entire process over again. There is no reason to do that.

I suppose it keeps the "billable hours" rolling.

Its one way of saying that the plaintiffs are butting their head in and their complaint is utter BS.

 

[TheParser]

Thanks for the great news!

Those pills should be easily available.

Especially in certain middle schools and high schools.

 

[pknopp]

Its one way of saying that the plaintiffs are butting their head in and their complaint is utter BS.

Then simply make that ruling and end it.