Abortion pill case: SCOTUS skeptical of anti-abortion groups’ legal standing

The case has big implications for women's health and the authority of the FDA.

See full article...

 

[ranthog]

Their entire premise is complete nonsense. If someone was in a shoot out between two gangs in the streets, the doctor is not "involved" in the shooting because they saved the life of one of the shooters. The doctor is not participating in drunk driving when the drunk driver is brought into ER with serious injuries and they treat them.

If a person comes into the ER and is bleeding to death because something went wrong with the abortion, the doctor isn't involved in abortion because they saved their life.

This is before you get to the fact that none of these doctors actually has ever been involved in the type of care they're complaining the government is inflicting on them.

 

[tackhouse1]

The fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court even though the plaintiffs have such obvious zero standing is mind blowing...

 

[KhepryQuixote]

Their entire premise is complete nonsense. If someone was in a shoot out between two gangs in the streets, the doctor is not "involved" in the shooting because they saved the life of one of the shooters. The doctor is not participating in drunk driving when the drunk driver is brought into ER with serious injuries.

If a woman comes into the ER and is bleeding to death because something went wrong with the abortion, the doctor isn't involved in abortion because they saved her life.

This is before you get to the fact that none of these doctors actually has ever been involved in the type of care they're complaining the government is inflicting on them.

It's just ruse to manufacture "standing" so that the case can be adjudicated.

 

[ColdWetDog]

The fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court even though the plaintiffs have such obvious zero standing is mind blowing...

I, for one, am sick of our 5th Circuit Court overlords.....

 

[thelee]

The fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court even though the plaintiffs have such obvious zero standing is mind blowing...

it's times like this i wonder why certain federal district courts or judges don't get censured. the tx judge that started this mess clearly doesn't have his legal head screwed on right. either in terms of understanding standing or appropriate remedy

 

[Honeybog]

"You need a person," Kagan said, "so, who's your person?" Hawley named two anti-abortion doctors she claimed were directly harmed, Christina Francis and Ingrid Skop. But Kagan disagreed, saying there were no examples in their affidavits of them being forced to provide care over their objections. "There's just nothing that you have there... At the very least, to be able to say, 'Well, this happened to them in the past.' I don't think you have it for either one of those doctors," she said.

If you want an idea of how truly disgusting these complainants are, there’s this quote from the Times:

Among the anti-abortion doctors involved in the case before the Supreme Court seeking to restrict availability of the pill is Dr. Christina Francis, who leads one of the anti-abortion groups suing the Food and Drug Administration to curtail distribution of the drug, mifepristone. She says she has experienced moral injury in treating patients who have taken the medication.

[…]

None of the anti-abortion doctors are required to prescribe the drugs or regularly treat abortion patients, but they say that they might encounter such patients in emergency rooms and that even treating side effects could cause them hardship. That, they say, would subject them to “enormous stress and pressure,” forcing them to choose between their consciences and their professional obligations.

Speaking as a child of doctors, one of whom was an ER doctor, these people can fuck all the way and entirely off. She should absolutely lose her license for this. It’s one thing to—as they’re already doing—take advantage of government protections that allow them to avoid performing operations they find objectionable, but it’s an entirely different thing to express fear of “moral injury” in treating a emergency patient suffering from drug side effects.

 

[Longmile149]

First: I want to do that thing where you point out some example or posit a logical hypothetical to highlight the obvious hypocrisy and the absolute failure of critical thinking and lack of compassion the forced-birth assholes wallow in, but it doesn’t matter. It doesn’t work. They don’t care. I want to say something about how abortion affected my family and saved the life of someone I care about, but it doesn’t matter. They don’t care. It doesn’t work. So rather than attempt to appeal to compassion and reason that don’t exist, I will simply say what I’m actually thinking: fuck these fucks. Fuck them into the goddamned sun.

Second: Conscientious? (Or is there a term of art I’m just not aware of in the medical field here?)

Third: For the sake of clarity: fuck the forced birth movement. Fuck the anti-abortion goons who want to kill people I care about. Fuck them into the goddamned sun.

Thank you.

 

[motytrah]

The fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court even though the plaintiffs have such obvious zero standing is mind blowing...

Unless something has changed, it's rule of four. So at least four of them must have voted to hear the case. Which seems odd given they focused on standing so they could boot the case.

 

[Derecho Imminent]

Still, a conservative federal judge in Texas sided with the anti-abortion groups last year, revoking the FDA's 2000 approval.

SCOTUS should revoke Texas's license to practice law.

 

[Imbrium]

I listened to the arguments while they took place. As someone who has worked in the medical device field for 20 years, I was appalled at the complete lack of knowledge that some of the justices displayed about FDA approvals, reporting of serious adverse events, or even what a serious adverse event it. It just reinforced my observations I have made about judges and politicians making calls on things they either know nothing about, or don't understand. Unscrupulous groups like the ones who brought this suit today know that they are ignorant, and so are able to take advantage of that ignorance to make claims that are totally bogus.

 

[OtherSystemGuy]

The case was initially filed in 2022 by a group of anti-abortion organizations led by the Alliance for Hippocrite Medicine.

FTFY

 

[Derecho Imminent]

The fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court even though the plaintiffs have such obvious zero standing is mind blowing...

IANAL but Id guess they need to hear the case in order to over-rule it. If they declined to examine it then the ruling would stand.

 

[ColdWetDog]

If you want an idea of how truly disgusting these complainants are, there’s this quote from the Times:



[…]



Speaking as a child of doctors, one of whom was an ER doctor, these people can fuck all the way and entirely off. She should absolutely lose her license for this. It’s one thing to—as they’re already doing—take advantage of government protections that allow them to avoid performing operations they find objectionable, but it’s an entirely different thing to express fear of “moral injury” in treating a emergency patient suffering from drug side effects.

If this were even a remotely plausible argument, alcohol, tobacco, guns and automobiles would have been banned long ago.

 

[SnoopCatt]

Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both seemed focused on the Comstock Act of 1873, a law that bans mailing "obscene materials"

What kind of twisted logic makes abortion medication 'obscene'?

 

[Imbrium]

If you want an idea of how truly disgusting these complainants are, there’s this quote from the Times:



[…]



Speaking as a child of doctors, one of whom was an ER doctor, these people can fuck all the way and entirely off. She should absolutely lose her license for this. It’s one thing to—as they’re already doing—take advantage of government protections that allow them to avoid performing operations they find objectionable, but it’s an entirely different thing to express fear of “moral injury” in treating a emergency patient suffering from drug side effects.

If this case somehow is decided in favor of the plaintiffs on this case, it's time to throw this tactic back in the face of SCOTUS. I'm sure there are numerous doctors who are sick and tired of treating gunshot wounds, and are morally repulsed by the lax gun laws in this country. A doctor's group should bring a case to court arguing that these gunshot injuries and deaths are inflicting emotional harm on them, and therefore, the only way to solve the issue is to ban guns.

 

[Chuckstar]

It’s not “conscious objection”.

It’s “conscientious objection” or sometimes people use “conscience objection”. But the first is more common.

 

[GFKBill]

What kind of jerk of a Doctor won't treat someone because of the source of the injury?

And to then claim the moral high ground? Chef's kiss, I guess...

EDIT: Parable of the Good Samaritan springs to mind. You'd think the plaintiffs might know it.

 

[Kyuu]

Unless something has changed, it's rule of four. So at least four of them must have voted to hear the case. Which seems odd given they focused on standing so they could boot the case.

If they rule the plaintiffs don't have standing, which is proper and seems likely, that's not "booting" the case, that's ruling against the plaintiffs and negating the previous rulings that first entirely, and then partially, restricted the distribution of mifepristone.

 

[CrystalCowboy]

While the issue of standing drew skepticism from many of the justices, Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both seemed focused on the Comstock Act of 1873...

The Comstock didn't exist in the 16th century, so I would expect Alito to take a dim view of such a legal innovation.

 

[reever]

No greater example of how the SC is merely a tool for regressive religious nuts and fascists to foist their local or state laws on the entire country than abortion cases

 

[Imbrium]

If they rule the plaintiffs don't have standing, which is proper and seems likely, that's not "booting" the case, that's ruling against the plaintiffs and negating the previous rulings that first entirely, and then partially, restricted the distribution of mifepristone.

At least three state AGs have said that if the case is tossed due to standing, they will bring the case back to SCOTUS, as they feel that they have the necessary standing. No matter what is decided, this isn't going away any time soon.

 

[Honeybog]

The Comstock didn't exist in the 16th century, so I would expect Alito to take a dim view of such a legal innovation.

On the other hand, Comstock was proud of his eponymous law driving people to suicide, so Alito might make an exception.

 

[Chuckstar]

I listened to the arguments while they took place. As someone who has worked in the medical device field for 20 years, I was appalled at the complete lack of knowledge that some of the justices displayed about FDA approvals, reporting of serious adverse events, or even what a serious adverse event it. It just reinforced my observations I have made about judges and politicians making calls on things they either know nothing about, or don't understand. Unscrupulous groups like the ones who brought this suit today know that they are ignorant, and so are able to take advantage of that ignorance to make claims that are totally bogus.

That’s what amicus briefs are for. No justice could ever be so well-rounded as to be already informed on every possible topic to come before the court.

It’s not only the plaintiff that is being unscrupulous when a justice purposefully ignores informative amicus briefs.

I guarantee the briefs provide all necessary information for these guys to not be uninformed on FDA processes.

 

[Chuckstar]

At least three state AGs have said that if the case is tossed due to standing, they will bring the case back to SCOTUS, as they feel that they have the necessary standing. No matter what is decided, this isn't going away any time soon.

Which they probably don’t, either.

 

[xoe]

The fact that this case is being heard by the Supreme Court even though the plaintiffs have such obvious zero standing is mind blowing...

The justice system is composed of people, and when the people selected to operate that system aren't selected based on merit the system becomes more error prone.

 

[TylerH]

Justice Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas both seemed focused on the Comstock Act of 1873, a law that bans mailing "obscene materials" and hasn't been enforced for nearly a hundred years.

I don't consider medicine to be an obscene material. There, problem solved.

 

[Lonyo]

Deleted

 

[ranthog]

I think the argument is closer to a doctor treating a person who was tortured, so that the subject doesn't die, and they can then be tortured. The doctor ethically objects to how the original injuries occurred, and the fact that the person(s) doing the inflicting can take the person back to potentially be tortured again.

AKA, a women having an abortion with complications, I can let you die because I object that you got an abortion.

The ethical and moral problem you pose stem from working for an organization that is torturing people. Treating the person injured by torture is not ethically or morally dubious.

The other aspect of this is that you're treating the patient so that they can be tortured further. You are contributing to ongoing harm. That is a huge difference, where your analogy breaks down. The doctor is not treating someone so that they can immediately go out and get a second abortion.

The cases like participating in torture are very different.

 

[FireWraith]

Unless something has changed, it's rule of four. So at least four of them must have voted to hear the case. Which seems odd given they focused on standing so they could boot the case.

IANAL but Id guess they need to hear the case in order to over-rule it. If they declined to examine it then the ruling would stand.

Yes - if they'd declined to hear the case, the Appellate Court (the execrable 5th circuit in this case) ruling would stand.

 

[Drizzt321]

The ethical and moral problem you pose stem from working for an organization that is torturing people. Treating the person injured by torture is not ethically or morally dubious.

The other aspect of this is that you're treating the patient so that they can be tortured further. You are contributing to ongoing harm. That is a huge difference, where your analogy breaks down. The doctor is not treating someone so that they can immediately go out and get a second abortion.

The cases like participating in torture are very different.

Oh I didn't say it was a valid analogy. It's just the one they seem to be applying. I completely disagree with what they feel is their moral objection, and their objection to emergency treatment for any women who have gotten an abortion and they need emergency treatment because they're one of the unfortunate few with bad side effects.

 

[ranthog]

What kind of jerk of a Doctor won't treat someone because of the source of the injury?

And to then claim the moral high ground? Chef's kiss, I guess...

EDIT: Parable of the Good Samaritan springs to mind. You'd think the plaintiffs might know it.

When you can demonize those who are ill. During the AIDS crisis, finding doctors and nurses willing to treat patients was somewhere between difficult and impossible.

 

[leonwid]

SCOTUS should revoke Texas's license to practice law.

The DoJ is already implementing rules that prevent judge shopping.
If that succeeds we may end up with way less crazy rulings that than have to be undone, each time with the unpredictable risk that something smelly survives.

 

[forkspoon]

I think the argument is closer to a doctor treating a person who was tortured, so that the subject doesn't die, and they can then be tortured. The doctor ethically objects to how the original injuries occurred, and the fact that the person(s) doing the inflicting can take the person back to potentially be tortured again.

AKA, a women having an abortion with complications, I can let you die because I object that you got an abortion.

The only thing tortured here is your metaphor.

 

[Jeff S]

Not in this article, but in other reporting I saw on WaPo, regarding Alito:

JUSTICE SAMUEL A. ALITO JR.: Is there anybody who can sue and get a judicial ruling on whether what FDA did was lawful, and maybe what they did was perfectly lawful, but shouldn’t somebody be able to challenge that in court?

Well that's one way to say you can't find any victims who have suffered a harm. Because if anyone was harmed by this, THEY would have standing to sue the FDA. Alito is literally arguing for the power to overturn an FDA decision for which no victim can be identified who suffered a harm. He's clearly big mad about this.

 

[ColdWetDog]

That’s what amicus briefs are for. No justice could ever be so well-rounded as to be already informed on every possible topic to come before the court.

It’s not only the plaintiff that is being unscrupulous when a justice purposefully ignores informative amicus briefs.

I guarantee the briefs provide all necessary information for these guys to not be uninformed on FDA processes.

I'm not sure that Alito and Thomas have the mental capacity to read a Dr. Seuss book, much less a legal brief.

 

[TylerH]

What kind of twisted logic makes abortion medication 'obscene'?

Well, to be fair the acts were originally passed more or less with contraceptives or other abortion drugs and sex toys in mind. So it does literally define those things as obscene. It's just outdated, as the Biden admin suggests.

What's much more interesting is Justices Alito and Thomas seem to ignore Griswold v. Connecticut and
Eisenstadt v. Baird which explicitly overturned relevant Comstock acts insofar as contraceptives were concerned for married couples and unmarried couples, respectively.

Eisenstadt v Baird is especially relevant because it was a landmark ruling from 1972, the year one Samuel Alito graduated from university with documented aspirations of becoming a SCOTUS Justice some day, and started attending law school. There's approximately a zero percent chance Alito did not study that very case in depth at the time while in law school.

 

[ranthog]

I'm not sure that Alito and Thomas have the mental capacity to read a Dr. Seuss book, much less a legal brief.

Please don't insult their intelligence. They know exactly what they're doing and why it is unethical and a violation of how the law is supposed to work. Knowing what you're doing is wrong is part of what makes you morally culpable.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

Their entire premise is complete nonsense. If someone was in a shoot out between two gangs in the streets, the doctor is not "involved" in the shooting because they saved the life of one of the shooters. The doctor is not participating in drunk driving when the drunk driver is brought into ER with serious injuries and they treat them.

If a person comes into the ER and is bleeding to death because something went wrong with the abortion, the doctor isn't involved in abortion because they saved their life.

This is before you get to the fact that none of these doctors actually has ever been involved in the type of care they're complaining the government is inflicting on them.

Somehow, this little detail didn't bother SCOTUS when they were looking at the 303 Creative case.

The SCOTUS appears to be playing a judicial game, to see how close they can get to legislating from the bench, without blatantly entirely tossing aside the last fig-leaf of "judicial impartiality".