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...

 

[groovestar]

I upvoted you because it's an interesting point. My understanding is that mifepristone is only prescribed for early term abortions and once it takes effect, that's it for the embryo / embryonic foetus. In that scenario are they assisting with an ongoing abortion or providing post abortion care?

In any case, the article did present that the judges found nothing in the papers indicating that any of the compainants had ever been in a situation where they had to practise against their conscience.

But… the complainant once turned on the TV after a long day at work, and TBS was playing Dirty Dancing. After sitting through several ad breaks including gun, gambling and viagra commercials, they got to that scene where Baby’s father has to provide care to a young woman after a botched back alley abortion puts her life at risk (because of the lack of legal access to abortion pre-Roe v Wade), and that made them think about how their pharmacist gave them a nasty look the other day when they called them a “godless heathen” for stocking condoms.

Clearly they have standing!

 

[Faceless Man]

And what of the rights of a pro-choice doctor not to be forced into treating the side-effects of a pregnancy that would otherwise have been terminated? Among the flaws in their argument is it's vulnerability to a mirror-image case. It's often instructive when thinking about rights to ask "and what would happen if everyone did this?"

They count on their opponents not being amoral arseholes, because there are few, if any, pro-choice doctors that would turn away a patient because they hadn't had an abortion.

 

[star-strewn]

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

It's certainly not my old-fashioned, pearl-clutching sensibilities! Oh, never!
/s

 

[Papewaio]

It's certainly not my old-fashioned, pearl-clutching sensibilities! Oh, never!
/s

Well it is true that clutching pearl necklaces is a form of contraception...

 

[MNP]

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

IIRC, Ho's writing on this was nearly trollish.

 

[josephandrews222]

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.

This. This times many many many trillions.

I fear for the future of my country (the United States).

 

[josephandrews222]

What makes Barrett any better? She may not be a sex pest (or worse) like Alito and Thomas, but she's just as cultish and corrupt. And has that special Palin/Bachmann brand of rabid zealotry.

...and THIS too. dubl: you are spot-on.

 

[Eldorito]

What makes Barrett any better? She may not be a sex pest (or worse) like Alito and Thomas, but she's just as cultish and corrupt. And has that special Palin/Bachmann brand of rabid zealotry.

Her voting history (so far) makes her better, as well as her generally approach to cases has held up fairly consistently. Basically, she's not legislating from the bench. Unlike Alito and Thomas, who consistently vote based on how they want to shape America, not any legal basis.

Just look at this case. Alito and Thomas are grasping at straws, Barrett looks likely to uphold the FDAs position despite that she's always thrown herself into the anti-abortion camp.

 

[vlam]

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 the SC refused to hear the case, not only would the standing argument used enter into law as successful (at least once), but it would also leave in place the ruling that phone and internet prescribing of this medication not allowed (nullifying a more recent FDA ruling).

 

[RoninX]

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 refused to hear the case, the Fifth Circuit ruling would stand, meaning that mifepristone would be restricted.

The fact that they accepted the case means that at least four justices were skeptical of the Fifth Circuit ruling.

Ninjaed...

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

IIRC, Ho's writing on this was nearly trollish.

Jimmy Ho's wife was also paid by one of the parties that brought the suit. He should be the third seat on the Big Bopper Flight Experience.

 

[RoninX]

Jimmy Ho's wife was also paid by one of the parties that brought the suit. He should be the third seat on the Big Bopper Flight Experience.

Even better, the lawyer arguing the case for banning mifepristone, Erin Hawley, is the wife of ultra-MAGA senator Josh Hawley.

They met while they were clerking for John Roberts.

Hawley, an Alliance Defending Freedom lawyer in her 40s, has kept largely out of the political spotlight even as her husband, Sen. Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), has become a polarizing national figure. After the 2020 election, he was the first senator to say he would object to certifying Joe Biden’s electoral-college victory, and on the day of the vote, Jan. 6, 2021, he pumped his fist at Donald Trump’s supporters gathered outside the Capitol before the riot.

Erin Hawley, by contrast, is seen by those who know her as a reluctant political spouse who has cut a low profile on the campaign trail but applied a brilliant legal mind to issues dear to Christian conservatives. That includes the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that for decades protected a right to abortion nationwide.

Thom Lambert, a law professor at the University of Missouri, where both Hawleys worked early in their careers, said Erin Hawley was in some senses the more highly regarded legal mind of the couple.

“She’s been more involved in serious, hard-core legal work than he has,” Lambert said. “She was the one who was getting asked by the very, very top appellate lawyers in the country to help with things.”

Josh Hawley was a year behind her at Yale, but the two fell in love while clerking for Chief Justice John Roberts. “He likes to take credit for our marriage,” the senator joked on stage last year at a summit of the Family Research Council, a Christian advocacy group. “We like to say to him that we’re the most conservative thing he has ever done.”

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

Even better, the lawyer arguing the case for banning mifepristone, Erin Hawley, is the wife of ultra-MAGA senator Josh Hawley.

They met while they were clerking for John Roberts.

The same time Ho was clerking for Thomas. The whole thing is so wildly incestuous, a small town supper club that we've all decided gets to rule us because reasons.

 

[waldo22]

A conservative panel of judges for the Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit in New Orleans then partially overturned the ruling, undoing the lower court's ruling on the 2000 approval, allowing the FDA's approval to stand

Sorry if this has already been said, but when the 5th Circuit is overturning your conservative ruling for going too far, you know you've effed up.

 

[ColdWetDog]

Let me first state that I also do not think these doctors have standing to sue. That said, I believe that the potential moral-injury has been paraphrased incorrectly in the comments. I don't think there is a hypothetical objection to treating the primary patient who presents with complications resulting from mifepristone, but that the emergency doctor may be required to complete an abortion in process to properly care for the patient who took mifepristone.

Ok, what happens to the ER doc when the women comes in with severe bleeding from a naturally occurring pregnancy? You can try a couple of things but the definitive treatment is to essentially curettage the fetus out. If the ER doc has a problem with that then they need to find someone who can treat the woman before she bleeds to death. The mefepristone is a red herring.

 

[RoninX]

Sorry if this has already been said, but when the 5th Circuit is overturning your conservative ruling for going too far, you know you've effed up.

On the other hand, it could mean that you're on the shortlist for a SCOTUS nomination if Trump wins a second term.

If Justice Sotomayor dies between 2025-2028, it's not inconceivable that she could be replaced by Justice Ho.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

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

Apparently the laws also specifically ban, or once banned, contraceptives and abortifacients as well as “obscene materials”. They’re definitely an expression of Victorian-era puritanism but remain at least partially in effect.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

On the other hand, it could mean that you're on the shortlist for a SCOTUS nomination if Trump wins a second term.

If Justice Sotomayor dies between 2025-2028, it's not inconceivable that she could be replaced by Justice Ho.

If Trump wins a second term, SCOTUS becomes completely immaterial, a plum post rewarded to sycophants with no real power other than to rubber stamp. See also: Nuremburg Court.

 

[panton41]

Apparently the laws also specifically ban, or once banned, contraceptives and abortifacients as well as “obscene materials”. They’re definitely an expression of Victorian-era puritanism but remain at least partially in effect.

I like to remind people that Queen Victoria had nine children and could easily have told her husband, "I am queen of half the world and I say no." So it's obviously she liked fucking.

 

[Hydrargyrum]

I like to remind people that Queen Victoria had nine children and could easily have told her husband, "I am queen of half the world and I say no." So it's obviously she liked fucking.

Oh yeah, Victorian-era morals were very much about public expression, not what they got up to in private!

 

[raschumacher]

Scratch an opponent of reproductive choice and you'll find a religious fanatic. As with laws restricting the teaching of evolution, laws restricting abortion should be struck down under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

 

[Faceless Man]

I like to remind people that Queen Victoria had nine children and could easily have told her husband, "I am queen of half the world and I say no." So it's obviously she liked fucking.

Scratch an opponent of reproductive choice and you'll find a religious fanatic. As with laws restricting the teaching of evolution, laws restricting abortion should be struck down under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

There are several books about the sort of filth available in Victorian England, not to mention the hijinks Victorians got up to. Plus the ready availability of "lady companions" with directories published about them, basically the precursor of Yelp!, or Rate My GP. (Rate My Harlot)

 

[panton41]

Oh yeah, Victorian-era morals were very much about public expression, not what they got up to in private!

I also remind people that the "Old West" was the same period.

 

[The Sheep Look Up]

Oh yeah, Victorian-era morals were very much about public expression, not what they got up to in private!

It was something of a fad for high society ladies to get their nipples pierced. While not showing wrist or ankle. What a weird time.

Also, The Victorians Ruined Everything.

 

[original_mds]

And since the number of doctors is limited by law, maybe society has a right to have those doctors treat everything.

This statement is really misleading. The linked article explains that there is limited funding provided for federally funded residencies, which account for the majority of residencies. A cap would mean that no residencies are allowed beyond a specified number. The reality is that most hospitals refuse to pay for new residencies themselves for financial reasons.

 

[panton41]

It was something of a fad for high society ladies to get their nipples pierced. While not showing wrist or ankle. What a weird time.

Also, The Victorians Ruined Everything.

That's a giggity...

I'm on DeviantArt and among my favorite "creators" are people who repost Victorian (and other olden days) era nudes.

 

[Hagen]

So Alito and Thomas want to enforce a 150 year old law against the mailing of obscene material? Man I’m so glad to know that millions of Playboys and Penthouses were never mailed to subscribers for decades. Big weight off my mind.

/s

just some really blatant digging for the weakest excuse to try and ram something in bc Jesus tells them it’s wrong. Which we know he doesn’t.

 

[Bernardo Verda]

So Alito and Thomas want to enforce a 150 year old law against the mailing of obscene material? Man I’m so glad to know that millions of Playboys and Penthouses were never mailed to subscribers for decades. Big weight off my mind.

/s

just some really blatant digging for the weakest excuse to try and ram something in bc Jesus tells them it’s wrong. Which we know he doesn’t.

Somehow, I'm feeling just a smidgeon more charitable towards Larry Flint these days.

 

[panton41]

Somehow, I'm feeling just a smidgeon more charitable towards Larry Flint these days.

Isn't he dead...?

But I have respect for him for Falwell v Flynt, which we studied in my 400-level Journalism ethics class.

Along with the ethics of a photo of Phan Thi Kim Phuc (naked girl who was hit by napalm during an air raid in Vietnam) and a locally famous photograph of a dead Standard Gravure employee killed by Joseph Wesbecker splayed across a roll of newspaper (dead victim of a high profile massacre).

 

[Pooga]

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.

Yep, and that ain't good. I heard NPR coverage of this where Alito was questioning a Danco representative about the FDA and Brown Jackson pushed back:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/26/1240915498/supreme-court-abortion-pill

There was, of course, in Tuesday's case, a larger question, which got short shrift. And Justice Samuel Alito, author of the decision overturning Roe v. Wade, seemed to despair that his colleagues did not seem interested in using this case to directly address the powers of the FDA.

"Is there anybody who could challenge in court the lawfulness of what the FDA did here?" he asked. "Do you think the FDA is infallible?"

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson asked about what she called "the flip side of that question. Which is, do you think that courts have specialized scientific knowledge...do you have concerns about judges parsing medical and scientific studies?"

The deeper implications of this line of questioning is that it's possible they could rule "correctly" on this case based on the standing issue, but still leave the door open to a nationwide abortion ban by indicating that the Comstock argument holds merit:

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...preme-court-fda-medication-abortion-explainer

Regardless of what the ultimate decision on mifepristone is, "if the court says, 'your reading of the Comstock Act is right,' there are any number of anti-abortion groups that will try to find a way to get back to the Supreme Court to explore all those implications," Ziegler says.

 

[A Man A Plan A Canal Panama]

I'm confused: Somehow I thought this case was going to be about the Chevron decision, which affirmed delegation and authority for rule making to Federal departments. But the questioning here is all about standing, nothing about the FDA's ability to certify drugs. Is there another case pending SCOTUS that would address Chevron?

 

[Hagen]

I'm confused: Somehow I thought this case was going to be about the Chevron decision, which affirmed delegation and authority for rule making to Federal departments. But the questioning here is all about standing, nothing about the FDA's ability to certify drugs. Is there another case pending SCOTUS that would address Chevron?

If they can make it past their lack of standing (probably not) then they could maybe try and use that case. If your program fails on the first step, usually it never moves on to the other steps. No point in even trying to use Chevron if you dont have standing in the first place

 

[tenocticatl]

Doctors can just refuse to perform an abortion, even when it's important for the health of the patient? That's nice. If I refused to do my job and claimed it was because of my religion, I'd just be fired.

 

[runemail]

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

Are you

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

Are you suggesting the Christian right do not have at least double standards for ethics?

 

[coolblue2000]

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.

Looking in from the outside. It is baffling that a democracy like the US has politically appointed Judges...

I mean I am not for one minute saying that Judges in the UK do not have opinions that could cause them to be biased (they are after all free thinking humans), however the whole structure of an independent Judiciary means that they generally do their level best to be unbiased.

This is opposed to politically appointed Judges in the US being put in position purely for the purposes of being biased. It is baffling and is not what US citizens deserve.

 

[vonduck]

they'll narrowly reject it due to blatant lack of standing and then some other nut will file again...

Looking in from the outside. It is baffling that a democracy like the US has politically appointed Judges...

I mean I am not for one minute saying that Judges in the UK do not have opinions that could cause them to be biased (they are after all free thinking humans), however the whole structure of an independent Judiciary means that they generally do their level best to be unbiased.

This is opposed to politically appointed Judges in the US being put in position purely for the purposes of being biased. It is baffling and is not what US citizens deserve.

it's america. elected, appointed, whatever, it doesn't really matter because the bunch of morons who do the appointing or electing will guarantee to be a bunch of nuts every few years.

 

[launcap]

"conscious"

When did US English replace "conscience" with "conscious"? I've seen it more and more in books and online which is puzzling because they are two very different things:

"Trump is conscious but doesn't have a conscience" is an example (OK - the first part is also debatable..)

 

[emercer]

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

Besides porn, the Comstock Act also includes "contraceptive" and "abortifacient", together with "sex-toy" and "instrument or article for self-pollution" to the list of "obscene" materials that should not be mailed via USPS.

So unless they intend to interrupt delivery of dirty mags, condoms, dildos and even personal letters with descriptions of sexual acts, it's better to let the Comstock Act die a silent death.

 

[azazel1024]

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.

I might be harmed by treating the nazi or black person. That is effectively what it boils down to if we want the slightly more extreme example.

And there absolutely were cases of that where doctors objected to treating people "of color" back in the day.

IMHO, it violates their Hippocratic oath and the entire idea of being a health care provider to morally object to treating someone because of "thing". I can almost wrap my head around refusing to participate in a very specific treatment because of a moral objection.

Almost, but I still fail there. Heal the person, your beliefs should not matter and need to be left at the door if you are going to be a health care provider. Full stop.

Whether that is gender reassignment surgery, abortion, trauma, black person, nazi, blood transfusion, whatever, whoever. Your obligation is to help the person whether you like them or not, or believe in what you are doing, or don't.

 

[pnellesen]

I'm so fucking sick of this literal War on Women who have sex.
I'll just stop there before I go off on a 2000 word rant about Republicans and so-called "Christians" who would have been first in line to put Jesus Christ on the cross had they been around then.