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...

 

[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.

 

[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.