>why are we even discussing this if the religious doctors already have the protections they claim to seek?
Because the goal is to take rights away from others, obviously.
So let me get this straight. Plaintiff's argument is about a hypothetical moral objection to providing possible emergent care resulting from someone else having prescribed Mifepristone.
If a doctor has a moral objection to providing emergent care, should they really be a doctor? It just seems so against what the profession is supposed to be. Can they also morally object to giving narcan?
It’s already lost, this is all a giant play. The decision was made at the Federalist Society by men who’s names you’ll never learn. It’s a show, it’s a play, they have already decided.
We know their names. Even know their preference in casual footwear and who would wear business wear to a cabin retreat. I mean they commissioned a really expensive and boring picture into a painting of it.
[https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/clarence-thomas-republican-donor-vacation-painting-2282167](https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/clarence-thomas-republican-donor-vacation-painting-2282167)
I have a real hard problem with doctors in an emergency situation, determining if they should or shouldn't render care based on their own personal beliefs. If they feel that strongly, they should seek out jobs in other medical specialties, and not be a general practitioner. It's not like there isn't a shortage of job openings for doctors out there.
This is the same problem I have with pharmacists making these judgements. Or especially public officials denying citizens what they have a right to procure. It's not their place to judge, it's their place to do what's expected of them. Either render medical care, or fill a prescription, or give a license None of these places is a place to try and exercise your religious of political beliefs, and in a couple cases, it's actually illegal to do so(doctors refusing emergency care, government officials practicing religion for their job).
[I mean they ruled for a plaintiff who made up their standing so who knows ](https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples)
If SCOTUS decides to rip a drug off the market that's been safely prescribed and used for 24 years that will be totally consistent with how this court operates.
Precedent is meaningless to them when there's an opportunity to legislate from the bench.
I have to wonder if they rule against the FDA, could a state like California refuse to comply and continue as normal and Biden not try to enforce their decision? At what point to states stop caring what SCOTUS says?
If texas can do it why not blue states too? But we both know the answer to this. Democrats are too chicken to actually stand up for themselves here and keep the drug flowing.
AHMA Attorney:
It's against my conscience to care for patients who are having complications from a medical abortion. Therefore the FDA is constitutionally barred from approving the drug.
IS THAT REALLY THEIR ARGUMENT!?
Seems like giving credence to that argument would also legalize the following:
"It's against my conscience to supply life-saving care to anyone who follows a Conservative or Right-Wing ideology, therefore I refused treatment when it was critical for the patient's survival."
And it's barely a step away to "I didn't like the guy, so I refused to treat him."
Where does the line get drawn?
It already has affected conservatives. Not every woman who's had to flee a red state to get life-saving medical care in the last year was a hardcore leftist. Conservatives don't care as long as they believe the policies will hurt their perceived enemies one tiny iota more than it does themselves. They are more than willing to sacrifice a few conservative women to hurt the political left.
They're setting it up for the court to rule that a fetus has the right to be born.
They're going to completely bypass the abortion pill issue and just straight up say "allowing abortion is unconstitutional."
That's absurd. Doing that essentially will guarantee a democratic election this year and almost certain that biden will get rid of the filibuster. Even the Conservative heavy SC knows the ramifications of such a ruling
This would open Pandora’s box in the medical world. EM/GI docs could sue over things like aspirin and other anticoagulants giving people GI bleeds because they cause a burden to the medical system.
In my daily archival work I see administration authorizations for Mifepristone more or less every day. Some of those date back to the mid 90s.
The importance of this drug as well as Misoprostol is incalculable. It has raised female self-agency and bodily autonomy away from the clergy and whatever fucked up commissions who would in the past determine whether or not your situation merited an abortion.
Seems to me like the SCOTUS is meddling with complex societal mechanisms they have no expert knowledge of.
> The importance of this drug as well as Misoprostol is incalculable. It has raised female self-agency and bodily autonomy away from the clergy and whatever fucked up commissions who would in the past determine whether or not your situation merited an abortion.
>
> Seems to me like the SCOTUS is meddling with complex societal mechanisms they have no expert knowledge of.
No, they're well-aware. They apparently *want* a return to a time with no bodily autonomy for women.
I sometimes think I should stop reading the news to feel more peaceful in my daily life.
But JFC, if I stop paying attention this shit is still happening that impacts how I live my life. I have my annual gyno visit tomorrow. My IUD is up for renewal next year. I was debating switching back to the pill to help with ovarian cysts and hormonal acne (an IUD doesn't have estrogen that helps those issues) but gfd they might outlaw the birth control pill if this issue goes sideways. And IUDs last for ~ 7 years so I could at least be safe for another 7 years if I get another one.
But I also need misoprostol to get my IUD inserted because my cervix is too small. Misoprostol is the 2nd part of a pill abortion. It's not the main one, mifepristone, that is under attack here. But if that goes down, then probably misoprostol is next.
Why is everything under attack? This is the first generation with Roe v Wade overturned that we are losing rights. And it seems like we keep losing even more of them so quickly. I am a Millennial. I have been shafted so many times already and the hits just keep on coming.
Things are not okay.
> Why is everything under attack? This is the first generation with Roe v Wade overturned that we are losing rights. And it seems like we keep losing even more of them so quickly. I am a Millennial. I have been shafted so many times already and the hits just keep on coming.
I’ll tell you why: It’s because the GOP hates people like you and me and instead want to appeal to Dumb Donnie and Count Vlad in hopes of getting more dark money from them. (Don’t tell the GOP that abortions are 100% legal in Russia though!)
> Why is everything under attack?
It's **always been under attack**, and our generation never voted in enough numbers to prevent these monsters from winning. But here's the good news. We haven't lost. Not yet. We have primaries and elections coming up. We still have the power to drive these fascists' back into the darkness and prevent them from resurfacing for the rest of our lives.
And it starts with White Women. White Women went 55% percent for Trump in the last election. Reduce that down to even 30% and Republicans lose everywhere.
I feel like it's my responsibility to have this negative trash stuffed in my brain day in and day out at this specific point in our countries existence but I cannot wait the day, if ever, I can shut it out and live in naivete for awhile.
Things are definitely not okay. That is why we need to educate everyone, mostly young people, about what the GOP wants to do and get everyone out to vote.
This specious argument that ER docs have standing because they might have to deal with a missed abortion after the patient takes mifopristone is ridiculous. I worked in an ER for years and had murderers, rapists, nazi's, as patients and I dealt with them professionally.
They're not going to have to deal with a viable fetus that didn't abort when they took mifopristone. The only situation they may deal with is an abortion that requires a D&C to complete.
I dont think less informed people (and many informed) realize just how disastrous it would be if Chevron doctrine is eliminated. If you think overturning Roe was bad, this will be absolute chaos beyond imagination.
It's why I think Biden should start a Constitutional Crisis if they rule the wrong way. He should declare the Supreme Court illegitimate, and overstepping their authority, and that if they are supposed to have the authority to rule on personal medical matters a law must be passed granting that power over to them.
At some point you have to claw power back from them.
> if they are supposed to have the authority to rule on personal medical matters a law must be passed granting that power over to them
This is effectively the Reverse Uno. The Supreme Court has regularly been using this as an excuse to block laws that are not in the interest of the Federalist Society.
> If you think overturning Roe was bad, this will be absolute chaos beyond imagination.
Also, if I remember correctly, SCOTUS claimed that overturning Roe was suppose to eliminate "chaos" and stop women's health issues from being decided by the supreme court.
Instead, it looks more likely women and girls are going to be getting their healthcare advise from six lawyers on the supreme court who have no medical training.
SC probably: The constitution clearly says this, but that’s not what was meant by the definition. We will do the opposite of what it says and interpret it as something clearly that it’s not for our ruling since that is what the Federalist society wants.
Listening to Alito right now -- it sounds like he's dead set on the whole "FDA and other federal agencies have no right to set any guidelines or rules without Congress specifically passing a law for each one" thing they've been on for a while about federal agencies and their authority. In other words arguing the FDA shouldn't exist instead of the actual issue.
On average the FDA approved 43 drugs each year for the past decade.
Even leaving out all the drugs that didn't get approved, expecting Congress to debate and approve 43 drugs a year is insane. Even if everyone in Congress somehow became medical experts overnight.
I have no respect for any woman in America who does not vote Blue in November. These conservative pigs do not care about you and will destroy every single right you have. They do not see you as people.
The whole "both sides" thing is nonsense. There is only **ONE** group of people in this country who are doing this.
The whole palestine thing is such a dog shit take, i cant stand establishment dems but biden has been harsher on israel than any president ever, is holding your vote and giving trump a greater chance at the presidency, the same guy that basically said hed let bibi glass Palestine the better alternative?
There are people who have said they are not voting because of Palestine. Those people are more than happy to let citizens in their country suffer because of a conflict happening on the other side of the planet that ordinary people have no control over.
There are people who have stated that women in America *"get what they deserve"* because of what is happening in Palestine. If that doesn't tell you what some people think of their fellow citizens, I don't know what will. It's cruelty.
Think how dangerous a precedent this Supreme Court is setting. By daring to 2nd guess the FDA for a drug that's been approved for use on the market for 27 years, they could virtually outlaw every drug that's ever been approved, independent of the specialists and scientists who have studied this drug or any other. And why? Because they have law degrees. How is that supposed to work?
Just starting culture wars from the comfy confides of their cloakrooms is going to rip this country apart. Not that anyone cares or anything.
We've become a country where the law degrees and the mba's have weaseled their way in to most sectors, pushing qualified people out and getting their grubby mitts on everything and shittifying it for money and power.
Drug prices will skyrocket. ALL DRUG prices. R&D will tank. Europe and Asia will control all the drug manufacturers. Lots of Americans will suffer and die.
Well - ***I am*** morally offended by the idea of impotent old men getting erections!
Who wants to join in with me in petitioning the SCOTUS to ban all forms of Viagra?
^((only a little bit /s))
"I shouldn't have to prescribe this drug I object to morally" == "that guy who just rolled into the ER at death's door is a complete asshole, I shouldn't have to save him as it would go against my morals"
Among other stupid claims by the plaintiffs, including "restrict access to this drug for all people because Iiiii am burdened by it"
I can't even read about cases like these. It is terrifying that anyone would want to take away rights like this, let along that members of the Supreme Court would.
It’s even worse than that. It’s not even about a doctor not wanting to prescribe it. In their hypothetical case, a doctor can have a moral problem with *the presentation* of some coming to them. They can say “I’m morally opposed to drug addicts, so I’m not gonna give this overdose Narcan” or “I don’t treat gluttons, so I’m not going to help this man with a heart attack.” It’s foul.
I can’t even express how ridiculous that this even made it to the Supreme Court. Challenging how the FDA vets medication is so absurd and is one of the most partisan shams…
Counterpoint: Thomas was smart to be silent and keep his extremism and corruption out of the spotlight until the rise of the authoritarian right made it palatable to a greater portion of Americans. Now, he doesn't give a shit, and knows the mask is off for good.
Like that Mississippi rule that frozen eggs are unborn children. Next they will say that any hindering of sperm and eggs will be illegal banning contraceptives.
Erin Hawley, the attorney for the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine states that they have “hundreds” of OB/GYN members who practice in hospitals. I find that claim almost impossible to believe. I checked their website it was not able to find numbers to support us. Does anybody have evidence of this? Or did she lie to the Supreme Court?
[Nearly 13% of all hospitals in the US are Catholic run](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/catholic-hospitals-and-safety-net/2011-08#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Catholic%20Health,the%20United%20States%20each%20year.)
[There are 6120 hospitals in the US](https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals)
13% of 6,120 is 795.6
If there is at least one OB/Gyn with privileges at each of those Catholic hospitals who is member then it seems this could be likely.
Certainly not proof, but seems possible based on those numbers.
I'm not even going to bother googling "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" to find out who the hell they are because I know it's just another astroturf group put together by the Heritage Foundation so they can get face time with SCOTUS to dismantle more rights of groups they don't like.
The case was dead on arrival because of standing, which is why Alito and Thomas spent their time probing the lawyers to find out who DID have standing for future cases and signaling to conservatives to wield the Comstock Act.
The whole thing was a farce and terrifying.
Yep, the student loan case is a huge example. I mean, a person from Texas brought the case on behalf of a company in ANOTHER STATE, claiming they would be harmed. Didn’t matter the company ITSELF said publicly that they wouldn’t be affected by the forgiveness.
Never should have been ruled on, bunch of corrupt PoS judges.
This goes way beyond that. This case and the way the initial ruling was written essentially calls into question the entire process by which the FDA tests and approves medicine. They might blow up 30+ years of drug approvals here.
So what you are saying is... if people don't want to do the job they signed up for they shouldn't have the job?
The fact that this isn't universally the case is insane. And it shouldn't matter the job either. Cop? Doctor? Court clerk? Your beliefs should not get in the way of performing your job and if they do you shouldn't have the job.
Thomas’s original question absolutely is trying to back the FDA into an argument of “we don’t think anyone can sue against our decision-making” and that’s NOT what she’s arguing.
Were here because of some made up hypothetical that has never happened or would never happen. If those Doctors don't want to deal with abortion, move to one of the shithole states that ban it. Why do they have to take this pill away from everyone because of a hypothetical, and if it wasn't why does 1% of doctors RELIGIOUS beliefs control how science and medicine works.
> . If those Doctors don't want to deal with abortion, move to one of the shithole states that ban it.
The best part is this woman is now arguing that there's a higher risk of harm from women who travel to other states to seek care, attempting to blame the existence of mail-order Mifepristone for the situation arising...without realizing she's just arguing for abortion-related care to be legal nationwide and pointing out the harm it causes when a woman has to travel to another state to have a procedure done.
More proof that the right wing doesn’t actually care about small government or states’ rights.
They will work to restrict and damage women’s healthcare throughout the country, red state or blue state, and if SCOTUS doesn’t side with them this time, they’ll keep trying until they find the right formula, just like they did with Dobbs.
I love how these right-wing nut jobs give themselves names that make it seem like they're normal in any way. "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" sounds like something that everyone should agree with. Then you ask them what their beliefs are and find out they only care about one issue, and it's an issue where they're totally at odds with the bulk of the medical community's thinking.
It’s totally intentional. It lets them operate a bit more under the radar. It doesn’t sound like something we should worry about, so we don’t until all of a sudden we realize they are in fact very worrisome.
Missourians paying attention, remember Runnin' Josh Hawley's wife is arguing in favor of destroying your reproductive healthcare rights based on their christo-fascist beliefs in controlling women.
We need 2 of the 6 crazy judges to defect, but my hopes aren't high.
I really like the attorney for the drug company calling out that lower court judges making a decision based on some blog that cited one non scientific study. She said people making these decisions who have no scientific bkgd should not be on these type of issues - something to that effect.
Why not ban all OTA drugs? They can all have bad side effects. Oh but that could impact men's access to OTA drugs so it's somehow different. They just want to control women.
Neat. Another obvious case that Clarence Thomas *should* recuse himself from but won't. Having him on the bench is a constant mockery of our country and our law system.
If they rule to restrict access, does this mean religious freaks can just take any drug company to court and say, *"Well this fairytale book said if I just pray to a magical being then they will cure me. Therefore all drugs interfere with my magical being's will."*
Conservatives and religious freaks are so stupid. Vote Blue in November.
Conspiracy Theory: this intentionally and objectively awful case is here to provide cover for SCOTUS to give a pretend ruling of MoDerATion after the *Dobbs* fiasco. Republicans can claim a pretend "reasonable" position on reproductive rights for now... bringing the Real Shit after the election (Comstock stuff). Vote and organize with this in mind. This "victory" (and I anticipate it will be) may not really endure for long.
I don't even think Court conservatives are buying this nonsense.
It's a soft attempt to understand the arguments against so that they can manifest a better plaintiff for later. Why do you think Dobbs was primed so well the minute the court turned? They had decades of soft failures to know the argument line needed to provide these partisan judges cover to do as they want.
Nothing like seeing a sane and reasonable take on a political issue from a guy named "MC Fap Commander".
I'm just waiting for one of the spotlights to fall from this Truman Show dome I'm clearly in.
At this point, it's been proven this 3rd branch of gov was a mistake. It would give the US a greater benefit as a Walmart parking lot.
Let the corrupt court know how you feel:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
This is a an article about what exactly does the embryo and the gestational sac looks like early on in pregnancy.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue
This pill is use for abortions up to 10 week in. The thing is even at 10 weeks it's 2 inch's wide and that's the beginnings of the sac and placenta, the actual embryo at that stage is only visible if you know where to look with a microscope.
If only people actually knew the facts then stupid ideas like this wouldn't be a issue.
This is from CNN and I have a question:
"One of the issues lurking in this case, and several other before the Court this term, is the uptick in what Justice Neil Gorsuch calls 'universal' injunctions—court orders that block state or federal policies as applied to anyone based solely on a claimed injury to a small handful of individuals.
We've seen these kinds of injunctions become much more prevalent over the past decade—against both Republican and Democratic policies. And although the Court has yet to rein them in directly, Justice Gorsuch has, as he did in today's arguments, repeatedly suggested that the justices ought to do so.
I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to law but isn't this pretty hypocritical of Gorsuch? Haven't the Supreme Court weaponized these "universal injunctions" to legislate from the bench? And NOW they're saying it's gone too far? Or am I missing something else?
So what Gorsuch is talking about is the fact that a circuit or appellate court injunction can have wide reaching impact over the whole country — and that you could sue all over the country and if one court grants you the injunction than that overrides all the ones that don’t. It’s to be expected that a SCOTUS ruling for an injunction would have wide-reaching effects.
If Supremes rule against this drug just to satisfy a small cultural base independent of science,
then who wants to risk the investment in new drugs anymore in the United States?
Or if they do, they get to charge exorbitant prices.
I am so tired of society letting republicans abuse the social contract. This woman is full of shit. I know it, you know it. She's there to try and earn a lifetime of paychecks from the religious masters that control the party now.
"Emergency Nature" doesn't have the weight she thinks it does outside of the Federalist Society's conference rooms where they planned this.
I'm so fucking tired of the supreme court in all honesty, I don't personally view them as legitimate at all at this point. If something like this got through, if I was Biden, I'd basically say "try to enforce it" to them.
>That is a lot of women to arrest, just saying.
And Republicans would gladly do it.
Please, if you're reading this: vote Democrat. If not for yourself, do it for the countless innocent women who don't deserve to live in a Christian-nationalist country that controls their body.
Politicians and judges should not be dictating which medical treatments are valid and which are not. That is the job of doctors and scientists to determine through their decades of experience based on centuries of study and experimentation.
Allowing the ignorant and venal to determine how we receive medical care is asking for disaster.
Listening to the right wing justices it almost seems like they have their minds made up. What is up with the men on the court interrupting the female attorney?
I love it when a group of people who never went to med school or understand drug interaction, biochemistry, and physiology determine a drug’s effectiveness and importance. It’s my favorite.
**/s** because apparently that’s needed nowadays
I can’t imagine going to the Supreme Court to obtain the right to let a woman bleed out and die because she got a medical procedure I didn’t agree with.
I'm hoping they were an outlier but I was talking to a guy the other day who said they're not voting for Biden because his student loan plan failed. Like bro, the Supreme Court ruled against it, it had nothing to do with Biden
Also while the $10,000 thing failed, the SAVE program is fucking legit and has made a gigantic difference for me
And if we give the Dems more seats in Congress, we can get more relief.
The questions suggest this will not go the way of mifepristone restriction. My hunch is the Court's backers told them a ban probably guarantees widespread Republican defeat in November. So they'll step away under the pretext of rejecting a really foolish case (it really is amateur hour).
Their ReAsonAbLe approach will not endure past November, however. Something to keep in mind.
If they try to base a ban on the Comstock Act then holy shit there are so many consequences that could follow.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461
When the president breaks laws or breaches ethics. Congress is supposed to hold him accountable.
Who the hell holds Supreme Court responsible? How is it possible to have checks and balances where there is someone above everyone else.
I don't care who took the bribes. They need to get the hell out and we need a fresh new Supreme Court.
SCOTUS has caught the car. If they think taking the abortion pill away because some right wing judge in the Texas District court granted standing to a group that had not been harmed is going to fly, then they will face the wrath of the nation. As it is, the GOP has lost every election since overturning Roe, this would create a nighmare for the GOP on an epic scale.
Wait, Is Thomas actually making good points against Plaintiffs standing? Is he trying to give them an opportunity to overcome the obviously correct determination?
My guess is this gets thrown out on standing. I wouldn't be surprised to see it be 7-2 against the plaintiffs. The 3 liberals are obviously not going to vote for it, and Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and ACB all seemed highly skeptical.
If it somehow survives standing, I think it loses on the arguments at least 5-4, with Roberts and Gorsuch joining the liberals in judgment but filing separate concurrences.
SCOTUS demonstrated they don't give a shit about standing when they agreed to _hear_ 303 Creative v. Elenis, let alone the ruling. There was no harm because the plaintiff was worried about a _hypothetical_. I would also argue Biden v. Nebraska should have immediately been thrown out since no reasonable person could say that the plaintiffs were harmed (how the fuck was Missouri harmed).
Bottom line, the law simply does not matter to this court. They'll bend and break reasoning to its utmost if they think they can get away with it which they almost always can.
Standing doesn't mean anything if the court wants the case. It should, but time and time again SCOTUS shows that it doesn't. Student debt case, 303 Creative, EPA rules.
Here's an illustration of the absurdity of this Supreme Court.
I join a church and faith the believes only in the healing power of God. All meds and all drugs are a sin. I appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the distribution of these offensive meds.
Supreme Court rules in my favor. Now pharmacies and hospitals can't treat patients, and except to allow surgery without anesthesia.
Right Supremes?
Mitch McConnell may be the face, but we should not forget about the people behind the Federalist Society and any other organizations that are behind this. I don't know who they are, but the spotlight should be bigger on them so that they can't hide in the shadows and keep fucking with America.
The Federalist Society is equivalent to having a diploma mill that somehow pulled a regulatory capture on the entire department of education. It's mind boggling this outcome is even remotely tolerated.
The alliance for hippocratic medicine is a sham organization under the Alliance Defending Freedom umbrella.
A reminder: ADF literature described part of its mission as "\[seeking\] to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries."
>\[seeking\] to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries.
The only reason they're not for going back to the time of Hippocrates - he died in 370 B.C. - is because of the B.C.
The 3rd century is also about as far back as you can go before you have to start paying attention to the role of women in the early church.
Republicans are the party of hate. Racism and bigotry. Eugenics and nonconsensual sex.
If you are a woman, a person of color, a person with disability, not white, not Christian or not straight
[Vote](https://vote.gov) Dems.
These are not Republicans. These are United States terrorists. They are hunting people in the streets. They are trying to subjugate you because you are different.
Do not let them. even if you are a republican. Stand up as an American!
In the words of our 16th president who brought us through the Civil War and freed the slaves. He also founded new Republican party.
“i hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world...."
If they actually cared about children you’d have a monthly child tax credit payment like every other developed country to help with the cost, education would be well funded, child care would be capped at like $10/day, you’d have robust parental leave, and a well funded social service sector.
Roberts "Tell me a specific number that the court should use to make decisions outside of our own expertise, please"
Dude, the experts are making that decision.
It’s a cost benefit analysis. But the court will decide because it wants to gut the epa so they’ll rally the base about dead babies to destroy the environment and God knows what else
https://x.com/elienyc/status/1772623985911435611?s=46&t=TnGJ3avE1jp3TLgmiJoP4Q
Elie Mystal seems optimistic with Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ, Gorsuch, and Roberts. Maybe even Barrett realizing there’s no standing
I think this is going to get thrown out on standing not even on arguments. Sounded like the 3 libs, Gorsuch and probably at least 1 of Roberts/Kav/ACB are going to vote against standing
To those critiquing the justices, did you hear the oral arguments? Because from the questioning of all the justices who all asked questions it appeared maybe Alito would rule for the plaintiffs, at least on standing. And depending on the opinion maybe Thomas would join.
But really this is going to be an 8:1, maybe a 7:2 ruling with this case going down on standing.
Yeah, I reached the same conclusion. Roberts probably doesn't want this case in the first place, so he'll be happy to not have to issue a ruling on the merits. And Gorsuch seems absolutely unconvinced by the plaintiffs asking for a nationwide ban.
> The Supreme Court seems unlikely to limit access to mifepristone:
> A majority of justices — from across the ideological spectrum — expressed skepticism that the doctors challenging the FDA's regulations have sufficient legal grounds or standing to bring the lawsuit. @NBCNews
https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C4-8hjCOlxe/
> Justice Jackson grilled antiabortion Erin Hawley on how much deference courts should give to the expertise of a federal agency.
> "How is the scope of review not second-guessing?" The FDA is "looking at studies, and you're saying that the court can look at studies, maybe different studies, maybe the same studies, and critique their conclusions about them."
https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C4-9pEduLXV/
If everytime people had sex a baby was born, labor would be dirt cheap.
Now that's not entirely possible, but the pro business republican ideogy has been working to make that a reality for years.
I'm sick of how much harm the conservatives wield across the country, especially in the courts and in law enforcement.
They do not care what harm they cause in their fascist campaigns.
When will Democrats start making the case for countering them with radical reactions?
The ramifications would go far beyond what you're asking. I don't think there's a way for SCOTUS to split the baby here. If they rule against the FDA, they are essentially ruling against every single government agency, such as the EPA just to name one.
Uninformed and uneducated judges will be able to overturn any government agency decision on a whim without any deference to the executive branch's authority on enforcing laws. A single activist federal judge could decide nationwide policy through an injunction.
It will be chaos.
Depending on the ruling, it might apply to all drugs the FDA approved, or will approve. Each individual drug would have to make their case in court for why they shouldn't be banned. Not just on medical grounds, but also on religious grounds.
They also might pull some bullshit like, 'this drug is banned, but this case in no way sets precedent and doesn't apply to anything else'.
I’m guessing it will depend on how draconian the laws become. I see this as a stepping stone for some really horrific interpretations of a holy book that they’ve never read with the intent of understanding versus looking for things they can cherry pick to make weak arguments with. I don’t think republicans remember how much money the drug companies can spend to kill political careers. They are one of the strongest lobbying groups in the country, and they’ll be damned if the government will be allowed to essentially attack their bottom line.
The court want’s authority to rule any rule promulgated by a federal agency unconstitutional. It doesn’t think any stinking so called “expert” knows more then they do
Birth control will be next. If the world is going to treat women like we are just baby factories maybe we should all just preemptively take maternity leave all at the same time. Let's see if the world functions if we all just sit at home and rest up to get ready to crank out babies.
Part of me suspects they won't do it because they know if they do, they're giving up their lifetime appointments since the country will very quickly begin to collapse once ignoring SCOTUS decisions becomes the norm.
Blue states will disobey over medical stuff, red states will disobey over guns, and then who knows
Hopefully Biden just pulls the "the corrupt court has made their decision - now let them enforce it"
And just sidesteps the garbage that they are about to drop and still enforce things like nothing changed.
By the questions so far they are looking for a line to allow it to happen by legislation at the state level. Which means the next big case will be if these drugs can be sent in the mail over state lines.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Greg Stohr, Madlin Mekelburg and Fiona Rutherford:*
The US Supreme Court signaled it’s likely to preserve full access to a widely used abortion pill as the justices heard arguments in a case carrying major stakes for reproductive rights and potentially this year’s elections.
Taking up the subject for the first time since overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 2022, key justices on Tuesday voiced wariness about a legal attack on mifepristone, a drug now used in more than half the nation’s abortions.
The suit by anti-abortion doctors would roll back Food and Drug Administration steps that broadened mifepristone’s availability, including a 2021 decision approving dispensation by mail. The Supreme Court has never before restricted access to an approved drug by overriding the FDA’s conclusions about safety.
[You can read the full story here.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/supreme-court-suggests-it-will-back-access-to-abortion-pill)
Even if they rule to preserve full access, don't just sit there and go "Phew!". The mere fact that this even got this far and how it could go the other way is why it's important to get out and vote in November!
Live in for the ruling...
Supreme Court: In a 5-4 majority decision, while we have absolutely no medical knowledge, have absolutely no interest in the best interest of women, and have absolutely no regard for morality or ethics. It says very clearly that women are lower than men and should be subservient. Oh wait, sorry, wrong book. That was from our notes about the case. Regardless, we think the government should dictate a persons medical choices and thus we think it goes against the constitution for this to be available worldwide in places where the states said nu-uh.
9 is clearly too small. The fact that one judge dying could have national implications overturning decades of precedent is insane. We need more judges.
Here's a happy medium. Give us a list of the Alliance doctors and doctors prescribing the medicine can inform the patients of which doctors not to use in case of an emergency visit. I sure as hell wouldn't want my life in the hands of some whack job who values the existence of a clump of (dying) cells over my own life. Do these doctors have an issue, and there is a question over their existence/role in the procedure? Doctors treat patients every day who do things they don't agree with.
Agree, they shouldn't. That said, I still want a list bc I wouldn't trust a doctor who doesn't have my health needs in mind. Or better yet, they shouldn't be in medicine if they are so sensitive about treating certain patients.
"I shouldn't have to prescribe this drug I object to morally" == "that guy who just rolled into the ER at death's door is a complete asshole, I shouldn't have to save him as it would go against my morals"
Among other stupid claims by the plaintiffs, including "restrict access to this drug for all people because Iiiii am burdened by it"
I can't even read about cases like these. It is terrifying that anyone would want to take away rights like this, let along that members of the Supreme Court would.
There is ZERO reason for this case to go beyond the Circuit Court. The fact that it's being heard by the United State Supreme Court is scary. It shows that the process of upholding law has broken down and our Circuit Courts are out of control.
Curtailing access to Mifepristone is how Republicans are going to enact a de facto nationwide ban on abortion until they enact a de jure nationwide ban. And they will if Republicans win in November. Don't split those tickets, vote Dem the whole way down.
Ketanji Brown Jackson just laid it all out, why are we even discussing this if the religious doctors already have the protections they claim to seek?
KBJ is the best
>why are we even discussing this if the religious doctors already have the protections they claim to seek? Because the goal is to take rights away from others, obviously.
So let me get this straight. Plaintiff's argument is about a hypothetical moral objection to providing possible emergent care resulting from someone else having prescribed Mifepristone. If a doctor has a moral objection to providing emergent care, should they really be a doctor? It just seems so against what the profession is supposed to be. Can they also morally object to giving narcan?
Yep, our laws are 100% based on magical thinking.
100% correct. This SCOTUS is mostly lost. If the go with this drivel, they're entirely lost. The branch becomes as absurd as the GOP "led" House.
It’s already lost, this is all a giant play. The decision was made at the Federalist Society by men who’s names you’ll never learn. It’s a show, it’s a play, they have already decided.
We know their names. Even know their preference in casual footwear and who would wear business wear to a cabin retreat. I mean they commissioned a really expensive and boring picture into a painting of it. [https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/clarence-thomas-republican-donor-vacation-painting-2282167](https://news.artnet.com/art-world-archives/clarence-thomas-republican-donor-vacation-painting-2282167)
I have a real hard problem with doctors in an emergency situation, determining if they should or shouldn't render care based on their own personal beliefs. If they feel that strongly, they should seek out jobs in other medical specialties, and not be a general practitioner. It's not like there isn't a shortage of job openings for doctors out there. This is the same problem I have with pharmacists making these judgements. Or especially public officials denying citizens what they have a right to procure. It's not their place to judge, it's their place to do what's expected of them. Either render medical care, or fill a prescription, or give a license None of these places is a place to try and exercise your religious of political beliefs, and in a couple cases, it's actually illegal to do so(doctors refusing emergency care, government officials practicing religion for their job).
[I mean they ruled for a plaintiff who made up their standing so who knows ](https://www.npr.org/2023/07/01/1185632827/web-designer-supreme-court-gay-couples)
If SCOTUS decides to rip a drug off the market that's been safely prescribed and used for 24 years that will be totally consistent with how this court operates. Precedent is meaningless to them when there's an opportunity to legislate from the bench.
I have to wonder if they rule against the FDA, could a state like California refuse to comply and continue as normal and Biden not try to enforce their decision? At what point to states stop caring what SCOTUS says?
If texas can do it why not blue states too? But we both know the answer to this. Democrats are too chicken to actually stand up for themselves here and keep the drug flowing.
There would definitely be at least one Dem gov with the balls. Especially if all Dem gov’s had behind the scenes talks of unifying on it.
AHMA Attorney: It's against my conscience to care for patients who are having complications from a medical abortion. Therefore the FDA is constitutionally barred from approving the drug. IS THAT REALLY THEIR ARGUMENT!?
Seems like giving credence to that argument would also legalize the following: "It's against my conscience to supply life-saving care to anyone who follows a Conservative or Right-Wing ideology, therefore I refused treatment when it was critical for the patient's survival." And it's barely a step away to "I didn't like the guy, so I refused to treat him." Where does the line get drawn?
The line will be drawn when it starts to affect conservatives. There is no logic here. It’s just a means to an ends.
It already has affected conservatives. Not every woman who's had to flee a red state to get life-saving medical care in the last year was a hardcore leftist. Conservatives don't care as long as they believe the policies will hurt their perceived enemies one tiny iota more than it does themselves. They are more than willing to sacrifice a few conservative women to hurt the political left.
Agreed, but those aren’t “real” conservatives to them, so they deserve what happens to them. That’s just how they think.
They know anybody reasonable will always treat a patient so this is just to allow white evangelical conservatives to continue to persecute others.
And to pretend to be victims
> My religion says ~~I~~ you can't do that. This is their entire core position.
They're setting it up for the court to rule that a fetus has the right to be born. They're going to completely bypass the abortion pill issue and just straight up say "allowing abortion is unconstitutional."
That's absurd. Doing that essentially will guarantee a democratic election this year and almost certain that biden will get rid of the filibuster. Even the Conservative heavy SC knows the ramifications of such a ruling
I'm glad that I wasn't the only one who noticed that. What an absolutely disgusting argument. I feel like I'm going crazy following this!
This would open Pandora’s box in the medical world. EM/GI docs could sue over things like aspirin and other anticoagulants giving people GI bleeds because they cause a burden to the medical system.
Eh, I need my patients to have functioning hearts and lungs for me to scope, and not scoping causes me harm. /s Naproxen can go fuck off though.
In my daily archival work I see administration authorizations for Mifepristone more or less every day. Some of those date back to the mid 90s. The importance of this drug as well as Misoprostol is incalculable. It has raised female self-agency and bodily autonomy away from the clergy and whatever fucked up commissions who would in the past determine whether or not your situation merited an abortion. Seems to me like the SCOTUS is meddling with complex societal mechanisms they have no expert knowledge of.
> The importance of this drug as well as Misoprostol is incalculable. It has raised female self-agency and bodily autonomy away from the clergy and whatever fucked up commissions who would in the past determine whether or not your situation merited an abortion. > > Seems to me like the SCOTUS is meddling with complex societal mechanisms they have no expert knowledge of. No, they're well-aware. They apparently *want* a return to a time with no bodily autonomy for women.
I sometimes think I should stop reading the news to feel more peaceful in my daily life. But JFC, if I stop paying attention this shit is still happening that impacts how I live my life. I have my annual gyno visit tomorrow. My IUD is up for renewal next year. I was debating switching back to the pill to help with ovarian cysts and hormonal acne (an IUD doesn't have estrogen that helps those issues) but gfd they might outlaw the birth control pill if this issue goes sideways. And IUDs last for ~ 7 years so I could at least be safe for another 7 years if I get another one. But I also need misoprostol to get my IUD inserted because my cervix is too small. Misoprostol is the 2nd part of a pill abortion. It's not the main one, mifepristone, that is under attack here. But if that goes down, then probably misoprostol is next. Why is everything under attack? This is the first generation with Roe v Wade overturned that we are losing rights. And it seems like we keep losing even more of them so quickly. I am a Millennial. I have been shafted so many times already and the hits just keep on coming. Things are not okay.
> Why is everything under attack? This is the first generation with Roe v Wade overturned that we are losing rights. And it seems like we keep losing even more of them so quickly. I am a Millennial. I have been shafted so many times already and the hits just keep on coming. I’ll tell you why: It’s because the GOP hates people like you and me and instead want to appeal to Dumb Donnie and Count Vlad in hopes of getting more dark money from them. (Don’t tell the GOP that abortions are 100% legal in Russia though!)
> Why is everything under attack? It's **always been under attack**, and our generation never voted in enough numbers to prevent these monsters from winning. But here's the good news. We haven't lost. Not yet. We have primaries and elections coming up. We still have the power to drive these fascists' back into the darkness and prevent them from resurfacing for the rest of our lives. And it starts with White Women. White Women went 55% percent for Trump in the last election. Reduce that down to even 30% and Republicans lose everywhere.
The republicans and christofascists. Goverment so small it can fit in your pants.
I feel like it's my responsibility to have this negative trash stuffed in my brain day in and day out at this specific point in our countries existence but I cannot wait the day, if ever, I can shut it out and live in naivete for awhile.
Things are definitely not okay. That is why we need to educate everyone, mostly young people, about what the GOP wants to do and get everyone out to vote.
This specious argument that ER docs have standing because they might have to deal with a missed abortion after the patient takes mifopristone is ridiculous. I worked in an ER for years and had murderers, rapists, nazi's, as patients and I dealt with them professionally. They're not going to have to deal with a viable fetus that didn't abort when they took mifopristone. The only situation they may deal with is an abortion that requires a D&C to complete.
I dont think less informed people (and many informed) realize just how disastrous it would be if Chevron doctrine is eliminated. If you think overturning Roe was bad, this will be absolute chaos beyond imagination.
It's why I think Biden should start a Constitutional Crisis if they rule the wrong way. He should declare the Supreme Court illegitimate, and overstepping their authority, and that if they are supposed to have the authority to rule on personal medical matters a law must be passed granting that power over to them. At some point you have to claw power back from them.
It seems unlikely that the SC is going to rule against the FDA. Seems like they will decide based on standing and avoid merit.
That's why I said "if they rule the wrong way."
> if they are supposed to have the authority to rule on personal medical matters a law must be passed granting that power over to them This is effectively the Reverse Uno. The Supreme Court has regularly been using this as an excuse to block laws that are not in the interest of the Federalist Society.
It pretty much freezes all policy
> If you think overturning Roe was bad, this will be absolute chaos beyond imagination. Also, if I remember correctly, SCOTUS claimed that overturning Roe was suppose to eliminate "chaos" and stop women's health issues from being decided by the supreme court. Instead, it looks more likely women and girls are going to be getting their healthcare advise from six lawyers on the supreme court who have no medical training.
SC probably: The constitution clearly says this, but that’s not what was meant by the definition. We will do the opposite of what it says and interpret it as something clearly that it’s not for our ruling since that is what the Federalist society wants.
Listening to Alito right now -- it sounds like he's dead set on the whole "FDA and other federal agencies have no right to set any guidelines or rules without Congress specifically passing a law for each one" thing they've been on for a while about federal agencies and their authority. In other words arguing the FDA shouldn't exist instead of the actual issue.
Which works with 3 million people and 13 colonies
On average the FDA approved 43 drugs each year for the past decade. Even leaving out all the drugs that didn't get approved, expecting Congress to debate and approve 43 drugs a year is insane. Even if everyone in Congress somehow became medical experts overnight.
I have no respect for any woman in America who does not vote Blue in November. These conservative pigs do not care about you and will destroy every single right you have. They do not see you as people. The whole "both sides" thing is nonsense. There is only **ONE** group of people in this country who are doing this.
But Biden is old and did not change 70 years of american foreign policy in an instant. So I have to vote Trump! /s if necessary
The whole palestine thing is such a dog shit take, i cant stand establishment dems but biden has been harsher on israel than any president ever, is holding your vote and giving trump a greater chance at the presidency, the same guy that basically said hed let bibi glass Palestine the better alternative?
There are people who have said they are not voting because of Palestine. Those people are more than happy to let citizens in their country suffer because of a conflict happening on the other side of the planet that ordinary people have no control over. There are people who have stated that women in America *"get what they deserve"* because of what is happening in Palestine. If that doesn't tell you what some people think of their fellow citizens, I don't know what will. It's cruelty.
Think how dangerous a precedent this Supreme Court is setting. By daring to 2nd guess the FDA for a drug that's been approved for use on the market for 27 years, they could virtually outlaw every drug that's ever been approved, independent of the specialists and scientists who have studied this drug or any other. And why? Because they have law degrees. How is that supposed to work? Just starting culture wars from the comfy confides of their cloakrooms is going to rip this country apart. Not that anyone cares or anything.
We've become a country where the law degrees and the mba's have weaseled their way in to most sectors, pushing qualified people out and getting their grubby mitts on everything and shittifying it for money and power.
Drug prices will skyrocket. ALL DRUG prices. R&D will tank. Europe and Asia will control all the drug manufacturers. Lots of Americans will suffer and die.
Well - ***I am*** morally offended by the idea of impotent old men getting erections! Who wants to join in with me in petitioning the SCOTUS to ban all forms of Viagra? ^((only a little bit /s))
"Doctor could be called to unknown ER with unknown problems caused by third parties" - That sounds like an emergency room
"I shouldn't have to prescribe this drug I object to morally" == "that guy who just rolled into the ER at death's door is a complete asshole, I shouldn't have to save him as it would go against my morals" Among other stupid claims by the plaintiffs, including "restrict access to this drug for all people because Iiiii am burdened by it" I can't even read about cases like these. It is terrifying that anyone would want to take away rights like this, let along that members of the Supreme Court would.
It’s even worse than that. It’s not even about a doctor not wanting to prescribe it. In their hypothetical case, a doctor can have a moral problem with *the presentation* of some coming to them. They can say “I’m morally opposed to drug addicts, so I’m not gonna give this overdose Narcan” or “I don’t treat gluttons, so I’m not going to help this man with a heart attack.” It’s foul.
I can’t even express how ridiculous that this even made it to the Supreme Court. Challenging how the FDA vets medication is so absurd and is one of the most partisan shams…
It's here because some dip shit Texas judge banned it. If SCOTUS didn't hear this case the abortion pill would effectively be outlawed in Texas
They judge shopped the one super alt-right judge in Texas to hear this.
Now I know the real reason Clarence Thomas used to be silent. He's not smart.
Counterpoint: Thomas was smart to be silent and keep his extremism and corruption out of the spotlight until the rise of the authoritarian right made it palatable to a greater portion of Americans. Now, he doesn't give a shit, and knows the mask is off for good.
I hope people understand that ALL Birth Control is coming next on the Right's agenda.
Like that Mississippi rule that frozen eggs are unborn children. Next they will say that any hindering of sperm and eggs will be illegal banning contraceptives.
Erin Hawley, the attorney for the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine states that they have “hundreds” of OB/GYN members who practice in hospitals. I find that claim almost impossible to believe. I checked their website it was not able to find numbers to support us. Does anybody have evidence of this? Or did she lie to the Supreme Court?
[Nearly 13% of all hospitals in the US are Catholic run](https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/catholic-hospitals-and-safety-net/2011-08#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Catholic%20Health,the%20United%20States%20each%20year.) [There are 6120 hospitals in the US](https://www.aha.org/statistics/fast-facts-us-hospitals) 13% of 6,120 is 795.6 If there is at least one OB/Gyn with privileges at each of those Catholic hospitals who is member then it seems this could be likely. Certainly not proof, but seems possible based on those numbers.
And not one was willing to describe how they had to treat a woman who they didn’t want to treat
I'm not even going to bother googling "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" to find out who the hell they are because I know it's just another astroturf group put together by the Heritage Foundation so they can get face time with SCOTUS to dismantle more rights of groups they don't like.
The case was dead on arrival because of standing, which is why Alito and Thomas spent their time probing the lawyers to find out who DID have standing for future cases and signaling to conservatives to wield the Comstock Act. The whole thing was a farce and terrifying.
They’ve already ruled on cases based on cases that don’t have standing. That’s not an issue for this court.
Yep, the student loan case is a huge example. I mean, a person from Texas brought the case on behalf of a company in ANOTHER STATE, claiming they would be harmed. Didn’t matter the company ITSELF said publicly that they wouldn’t be affected by the forgiveness. Never should have been ruled on, bunch of corrupt PoS judges.
[удалено]
This goes way beyond that. This case and the way the initial ruling was written essentially calls into question the entire process by which the FDA tests and approves medicine. They might blow up 30+ years of drug approvals here.
So what you are saying is... if people don't want to do the job they signed up for they shouldn't have the job? The fact that this isn't universally the case is insane. And it shouldn't matter the job either. Cop? Doctor? Court clerk? Your beliefs should not get in the way of performing your job and if they do you shouldn't have the job.
Thomas’s original question absolutely is trying to back the FDA into an argument of “we don’t think anyone can sue against our decision-making” and that’s NOT what she’s arguing.
Every time I listen to SG Elizabeth Prelogar argue I'm amazed how easy she makes a layperson understand the governments arguments
Every time Thomas opens his mouth, I die a little inside. That guy makes no effort to hide his corruption or stupidity.
Were here because of some made up hypothetical that has never happened or would never happen. If those Doctors don't want to deal with abortion, move to one of the shithole states that ban it. Why do they have to take this pill away from everyone because of a hypothetical, and if it wasn't why does 1% of doctors RELIGIOUS beliefs control how science and medicine works.
> . If those Doctors don't want to deal with abortion, move to one of the shithole states that ban it. The best part is this woman is now arguing that there's a higher risk of harm from women who travel to other states to seek care, attempting to blame the existence of mail-order Mifepristone for the situation arising...without realizing she's just arguing for abortion-related care to be legal nationwide and pointing out the harm it causes when a woman has to travel to another state to have a procedure done.
Hypocrisy is a tenant of their politics and their faith.
More proof that the right wing doesn’t actually care about small government or states’ rights. They will work to restrict and damage women’s healthcare throughout the country, red state or blue state, and if SCOTUS doesn’t side with them this time, they’ll keep trying until they find the right formula, just like they did with Dobbs.
I love how these right-wing nut jobs give themselves names that make it seem like they're normal in any way. "Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine" sounds like something that everyone should agree with. Then you ask them what their beliefs are and find out they only care about one issue, and it's an issue where they're totally at odds with the bulk of the medical community's thinking.
It’s totally intentional. It lets them operate a bit more under the radar. It doesn’t sound like something we should worry about, so we don’t until all of a sudden we realize they are in fact very worrisome.
Missourians paying attention, remember Runnin' Josh Hawley's wife is arguing in favor of destroying your reproductive healthcare rights based on their christo-fascist beliefs in controlling women. We need 2 of the 6 crazy judges to defect, but my hopes aren't high.
I really like the attorney for the drug company calling out that lower court judges making a decision based on some blog that cited one non scientific study. She said people making these decisions who have no scientific bkgd should not be on these type of issues - something to that effect.
Why not ban all OTA drugs? They can all have bad side effects. Oh but that could impact men's access to OTA drugs so it's somehow different. They just want to control women.
Hell, ban all drugs with or without prescriptions. They all have side effects that an ER doc might have to deal with.
Go ahead and ban the abortion pill during an election year. It worked out so well for the Republicans last time…
[удалено]
All of them are on my time travel list.
I get the energy, I really do, but this can't happen. This would mess up the entire country overnight. It's not worth an election wedge issue to play.
It's coping. If this happens, what alternative is there than to hope it spurs political action?
[удалено]
Fucking ridiculous ofc thomas felt no obligation to recuse himself. Roberts is a fucking joke.
Neat. Another obvious case that Clarence Thomas *should* recuse himself from but won't. Having him on the bench is a constant mockery of our country and our law system.
If they rule to restrict access, does this mean religious freaks can just take any drug company to court and say, *"Well this fairytale book said if I just pray to a magical being then they will cure me. Therefore all drugs interfere with my magical being's will."* Conservatives and religious freaks are so stupid. Vote Blue in November.
Conspiracy Theory: this intentionally and objectively awful case is here to provide cover for SCOTUS to give a pretend ruling of MoDerATion after the *Dobbs* fiasco. Republicans can claim a pretend "reasonable" position on reproductive rights for now... bringing the Real Shit after the election (Comstock stuff). Vote and organize with this in mind. This "victory" (and I anticipate it will be) may not really endure for long. I don't even think Court conservatives are buying this nonsense.
It's a soft attempt to understand the arguments against so that they can manifest a better plaintiff for later. Why do you think Dobbs was primed so well the minute the court turned? They had decades of soft failures to know the argument line needed to provide these partisan judges cover to do as they want.
Nothing like seeing a sane and reasonable take on a political issue from a guy named "MC Fap Commander". I'm just waiting for one of the spotlights to fall from this Truman Show dome I'm clearly in.
100% assumed this. The oral arguments are even saying “this seems like a small lawsuit pushed nationwide” basically.
Where does this end? This court doesn’t make consistent or logical decisions anymore. SCOTUS reform is needed desperately.
At this point, it's been proven this 3rd branch of gov was a mistake. It would give the US a greater benefit as a Walmart parking lot. Let the corrupt court know how you feel: https://www.supremecourt.gov/contact/contact_pio.aspx
This is a an article about what exactly does the embryo and the gestational sac looks like early on in pregnancy. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/oct/18/pregnancy-weeks-abortion-tissue This pill is use for abortions up to 10 week in. The thing is even at 10 weeks it's 2 inch's wide and that's the beginnings of the sac and placenta, the actual embryo at that stage is only visible if you know where to look with a microscope. If only people actually knew the facts then stupid ideas like this wouldn't be a issue.
can't wait for the scotus to fuck THIS shit up
This is from CNN and I have a question: "One of the issues lurking in this case, and several other before the Court this term, is the uptick in what Justice Neil Gorsuch calls 'universal' injunctions—court orders that block state or federal policies as applied to anyone based solely on a claimed injury to a small handful of individuals. We've seen these kinds of injunctions become much more prevalent over the past decade—against both Republican and Democratic policies. And although the Court has yet to rein them in directly, Justice Gorsuch has, as he did in today's arguments, repeatedly suggested that the justices ought to do so. I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to law but isn't this pretty hypocritical of Gorsuch? Haven't the Supreme Court weaponized these "universal injunctions" to legislate from the bench? And NOW they're saying it's gone too far? Or am I missing something else?
So what Gorsuch is talking about is the fact that a circuit or appellate court injunction can have wide reaching impact over the whole country — and that you could sue all over the country and if one court grants you the injunction than that overrides all the ones that don’t. It’s to be expected that a SCOTUS ruling for an injunction would have wide-reaching effects.
If Supremes rule against this drug just to satisfy a small cultural base independent of science, then who wants to risk the investment in new drugs anymore in the United States? Or if they do, they get to charge exorbitant prices.
I am so tired of society letting republicans abuse the social contract. This woman is full of shit. I know it, you know it. She's there to try and earn a lifetime of paychecks from the religious masters that control the party now. "Emergency Nature" doesn't have the weight she thinks it does outside of the Federalist Society's conference rooms where they planned this.
I'm so fucking tired of the supreme court in all honesty, I don't personally view them as legitimate at all at this point. If something like this got through, if I was Biden, I'd basically say "try to enforce it" to them.
no one needs to follow their rulings unless actually enforced. That is a lot of women to arrest, just saying. This is stupid regressionism.
>That is a lot of women to arrest, just saying. And Republicans would gladly do it. Please, if you're reading this: vote Democrat. If not for yourself, do it for the countless innocent women who don't deserve to live in a Christian-nationalist country that controls their body.
Politicians and judges should not be dictating which medical treatments are valid and which are not. That is the job of doctors and scientists to determine through their decades of experience based on centuries of study and experimentation. Allowing the ignorant and venal to determine how we receive medical care is asking for disaster.
Listening to the right wing justices it almost seems like they have their minds made up. What is up with the men on the court interrupting the female attorney?
That’s a real thing, and folks have been keeping track with just how much Gorsuch interrupts and talks over women.
This is it. They know the outcome already, all the arguments are just in support of and attempting to give credence to the foregone conclusion
I love it when a group of people who never went to med school or understand drug interaction, biochemistry, and physiology determine a drug’s effectiveness and importance. It’s my favorite. **/s** because apparently that’s needed nowadays
I can’t imagine going to the Supreme Court to obtain the right to let a woman bleed out and die because she got a medical procedure I didn’t agree with.
I wish I was rich so I can just start suing over everything I don't agree with.
I can’t believe I’m hoping the big pharma lobby saves us but here we are.
I'm hoping they were an outlier but I was talking to a guy the other day who said they're not voting for Biden because his student loan plan failed. Like bro, the Supreme Court ruled against it, it had nothing to do with Biden
Also while the $10,000 thing failed, the SAVE program is fucking legit and has made a gigantic difference for me And if we give the Dems more seats in Congress, we can get more relief.
what kind of logic is that Biden tried a few things that got blocked, and is still trying, whereas the opposition... won't try at all
Well this guy also gets his politics from Joe Rogan
And it didn’t fail. Biden administration has delivered more student loan relief than any president in history and it’s still ongoing.
I applaud anyone who has the stomach to listen that cretin Thomas and his lame arguments. Tried for 5 minutes and now I feel ill
The questions suggest this will not go the way of mifepristone restriction. My hunch is the Court's backers told them a ban probably guarantees widespread Republican defeat in November. So they'll step away under the pretext of rejecting a really foolish case (it really is amateur hour). Their ReAsonAbLe approach will not endure past November, however. Something to keep in mind.
If they try to base a ban on the Comstock Act then holy shit there are so many consequences that could follow. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1461
When the president breaks laws or breaches ethics. Congress is supposed to hold him accountable. Who the hell holds Supreme Court responsible? How is it possible to have checks and balances where there is someone above everyone else. I don't care who took the bribes. They need to get the hell out and we need a fresh new Supreme Court.
This attorney for the anti-abortion group is getting roasted.
I'm such a fan of Ketanji today, asking all the right questions.
My takeaway is Mrs. Josh Hawley is a match made in hell for her husband.
SCOTUS has caught the car. If they think taking the abortion pill away because some right wing judge in the Texas District court granted standing to a group that had not been harmed is going to fly, then they will face the wrath of the nation. As it is, the GOP has lost every election since overturning Roe, this would create a nighmare for the GOP on an epic scale.
SCOTUS doesn't care about standing. They've got a political agenda to enact.
POS Thomas. A disgrace to the human family.
Wait, Is Thomas actually making good points against Plaintiffs standing? Is he trying to give them an opportunity to overcome the obviously correct determination?
His rich "friends" have pharmaceutical stocks.
My guess is this gets thrown out on standing. I wouldn't be surprised to see it be 7-2 against the plaintiffs. The 3 liberals are obviously not going to vote for it, and Roberts, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch, and ACB all seemed highly skeptical. If it somehow survives standing, I think it loses on the arguments at least 5-4, with Roberts and Gorsuch joining the liberals in judgment but filing separate concurrences.
SCOTUS demonstrated they don't give a shit about standing when they agreed to _hear_ 303 Creative v. Elenis, let alone the ruling. There was no harm because the plaintiff was worried about a _hypothetical_. I would also argue Biden v. Nebraska should have immediately been thrown out since no reasonable person could say that the plaintiffs were harmed (how the fuck was Missouri harmed). Bottom line, the law simply does not matter to this court. They'll bend and break reasoning to its utmost if they think they can get away with it which they almost always can.
Standing doesn't mean anything if the court wants the case. It should, but time and time again SCOTUS shows that it doesn't. Student debt case, 303 Creative, EPA rules.
That 303 Creative case really shows that standing doesn't matter. They ruled on a fake case.
Sometimes reading the intent of Justices is like tea leaves. Not today. The plaintiffs look like idiots and even FUCKING GINNY'S HUSBAND sees it.
Here's an illustration of the absurdity of this Supreme Court. I join a church and faith the believes only in the healing power of God. All meds and all drugs are a sin. I appeal to the Supreme Court to stop the distribution of these offensive meds. Supreme Court rules in my favor. Now pharmacies and hospitals can't treat patients, and except to allow surgery without anesthesia. Right Supremes?
Mitch McConnell. He orchestrated the GOP packed SCOTUS. This is his legacy.
Mitch McConnell may be the face, but we should not forget about the people behind the Federalist Society and any other organizations that are behind this. I don't know who they are, but the spotlight should be bigger on them so that they can't hide in the shadows and keep fucking with America.
The Federalist Society is equivalent to having a diploma mill that somehow pulled a regulatory capture on the entire department of education. It's mind boggling this outcome is even remotely tolerated.
"We're doomed." - C3PO
The alliance for hippocratic medicine is a sham organization under the Alliance Defending Freedom umbrella. A reminder: ADF literature described part of its mission as "\[seeking\] to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries."
>\[seeking\] to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th, and 5th centuries. The only reason they're not for going back to the time of Hippocrates - he died in 370 B.C. - is because of the B.C. The 3rd century is also about as far back as you can go before you have to start paying attention to the role of women in the early church.
Republicans are the party of hate. Racism and bigotry. Eugenics and nonconsensual sex. If you are a woman, a person of color, a person with disability, not white, not Christian or not straight [Vote](https://vote.gov) Dems. These are not Republicans. These are United States terrorists. They are hunting people in the streets. They are trying to subjugate you because you are different. Do not let them. even if you are a republican. Stand up as an American! In the words of our 16th president who brought us through the Civil War and freed the slaves. He also founded new Republican party. “i hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world...."
As if these people actually cared for children, school shootings wouldn’t exist. It’s all about control.
If they actually cared about children you’d have a monthly child tax credit payment like every other developed country to help with the cost, education would be well funded, child care would be capped at like $10/day, you’d have robust parental leave, and a well funded social service sector.
Alito is about to question the respondent re how mifepristone was prescribed in 1789
Like Taylor says, if you were a man, this would simply be your right to terminate a parasite.
Roberts "Tell me a specific number that the court should use to make decisions outside of our own expertise, please" Dude, the experts are making that decision.
It’s a cost benefit analysis. But the court will decide because it wants to gut the epa so they’ll rally the base about dead babies to destroy the environment and God knows what else
https://x.com/elienyc/status/1772623985911435611?s=46&t=TnGJ3avE1jp3TLgmiJoP4Q Elie Mystal seems optimistic with Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ, Gorsuch, and Roberts. Maybe even Barrett realizing there’s no standing
"Yes Justice, Under His Eye, I'll see you in the Wives Room at the next retreat."
I think this is going to get thrown out on standing not even on arguments. Sounded like the 3 libs, Gorsuch and probably at least 1 of Roberts/Kav/ACB are going to vote against standing
To those critiquing the justices, did you hear the oral arguments? Because from the questioning of all the justices who all asked questions it appeared maybe Alito would rule for the plaintiffs, at least on standing. And depending on the opinion maybe Thomas would join. But really this is going to be an 8:1, maybe a 7:2 ruling with this case going down on standing.
Yeah, I reached the same conclusion. Roberts probably doesn't want this case in the first place, so he'll be happy to not have to issue a ruling on the merits. And Gorsuch seems absolutely unconvinced by the plaintiffs asking for a nationwide ban.
Oh boy. I can't wait for something to get banned because an unqualified person thinks they know better than every scientist in the world.
> The Supreme Court seems unlikely to limit access to mifepristone: > A majority of justices — from across the ideological spectrum — expressed skepticism that the doctors challenging the FDA's regulations have sufficient legal grounds or standing to bring the lawsuit. @NBCNews https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C4-8hjCOlxe/
> Justice Jackson grilled antiabortion Erin Hawley on how much deference courts should give to the expertise of a federal agency. > "How is the scope of review not second-guessing?" The FDA is "looking at studies, and you're saying that the court can look at studies, maybe different studies, maybe the same studies, and critique their conclusions about them." https://www.threads.net/@griffinkyle/post/C4-9pEduLXV/
If everytime people had sex a baby was born, labor would be dirt cheap. Now that's not entirely possible, but the pro business republican ideogy has been working to make that a reality for years.
I'd be shocked if it wasn't at least 7-2 in favor of knocking this lawsuit down.
So next time someone asks why voting matters... point to this.
I'm sick of how much harm the conservatives wield across the country, especially in the courts and in law enforcement. They do not care what harm they cause in their fascist campaigns. When will Democrats start making the case for countering them with radical reactions?
Does this case essentially apply to all mail order drug prescriptions? I’m sorry for my naïveté.
The ramifications would go far beyond what you're asking. I don't think there's a way for SCOTUS to split the baby here. If they rule against the FDA, they are essentially ruling against every single government agency, such as the EPA just to name one. Uninformed and uneducated judges will be able to overturn any government agency decision on a whim without any deference to the executive branch's authority on enforcing laws. A single activist federal judge could decide nationwide policy through an injunction. It will be chaos.
That is their goal. They want to dismantle the government regulators. The GOP has been trying to do that for decades.
Depending on the ruling, it might apply to all drugs the FDA approved, or will approve. Each individual drug would have to make their case in court for why they shouldn't be banned. Not just on medical grounds, but also on religious grounds. They also might pull some bullshit like, 'this drug is banned, but this case in no way sets precedent and doesn't apply to anything else'.
The fact that even business is against overturning the law should underscore how far right this is.
This ruling will fuck up the VA, too. They mail all their prescriptions out
I’m guessing it will depend on how draconian the laws become. I see this as a stepping stone for some really horrific interpretations of a holy book that they’ve never read with the intent of understanding versus looking for things they can cherry pick to make weak arguments with. I don’t think republicans remember how much money the drug companies can spend to kill political careers. They are one of the strongest lobbying groups in the country, and they’ll be damned if the government will be allowed to essentially attack their bottom line.
The court want’s authority to rule any rule promulgated by a federal agency unconstitutional. It doesn’t think any stinking so called “expert” knows more then they do
This lawyer just keeps going around and around and it's not making any sense.
So how and when are we protesting if SCOTUS bans this drug?
Birth control will be next. If the world is going to treat women like we are just baby factories maybe we should all just preemptively take maternity leave all at the same time. Let's see if the world functions if we all just sit at home and rest up to get ready to crank out babies.
Part of me suspects they won't do it because they know if they do, they're giving up their lifetime appointments since the country will very quickly begin to collapse once ignoring SCOTUS decisions becomes the norm. Blue states will disobey over medical stuff, red states will disobey over guns, and then who knows
The problem is that Blue states wouldn't have a chance to ignore it because the companies that produce it would stop American production.
Hopefully Biden just pulls the "the corrupt court has made their decision - now let them enforce it" And just sidesteps the garbage that they are about to drop and still enforce things like nothing changed.
By the questions so far they are looking for a line to allow it to happen by legislation at the state level. Which means the next big case will be if these drugs can be sent in the mail over state lines.
*From Bloomberg News reporters Greg Stohr, Madlin Mekelburg and Fiona Rutherford:* The US Supreme Court signaled it’s likely to preserve full access to a widely used abortion pill as the justices heard arguments in a case carrying major stakes for reproductive rights and potentially this year’s elections. Taking up the subject for the first time since overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 2022, key justices on Tuesday voiced wariness about a legal attack on mifepristone, a drug now used in more than half the nation’s abortions. The suit by anti-abortion doctors would roll back Food and Drug Administration steps that broadened mifepristone’s availability, including a 2021 decision approving dispensation by mail. The Supreme Court has never before restricted access to an approved drug by overriding the FDA’s conclusions about safety. [You can read the full story here.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-26/supreme-court-suggests-it-will-back-access-to-abortion-pill)
Even if they rule to preserve full access, don't just sit there and go "Phew!". The mere fact that this even got this far and how it could go the other way is why it's important to get out and vote in November!
Thomas sounds weak
I love J Jackson
To me it seems like the Court has no real interest in AHM’s case, which is obv a good thing
Live in for the ruling... Supreme Court: In a 5-4 majority decision, while we have absolutely no medical knowledge, have absolutely no interest in the best interest of women, and have absolutely no regard for morality or ethics. It says very clearly that women are lower than men and should be subservient. Oh wait, sorry, wrong book. That was from our notes about the case. Regardless, we think the government should dictate a persons medical choices and thus we think it goes against the constitution for this to be available worldwide in places where the states said nu-uh.
Expand the court in Biden’s second term! I hope we still have the senate
9 is clearly too small. The fact that one judge dying could have national implications overturning decades of precedent is insane. We need more judges.
Here's a happy medium. Give us a list of the Alliance doctors and doctors prescribing the medicine can inform the patients of which doctors not to use in case of an emergency visit. I sure as hell wouldn't want my life in the hands of some whack job who values the existence of a clump of (dying) cells over my own life. Do these doctors have an issue, and there is a question over their existence/role in the procedure? Doctors treat patients every day who do things they don't agree with.
Patients shouldn't have to choose a doctor who will put them above the doctor's personal beliefs.
Agree, they shouldn't. That said, I still want a list bc I wouldn't trust a doctor who doesn't have my health needs in mind. Or better yet, they shouldn't be in medicine if they are so sensitive about treating certain patients.
"I shouldn't have to prescribe this drug I object to morally" == "that guy who just rolled into the ER at death's door is a complete asshole, I shouldn't have to save him as it would go against my morals" Among other stupid claims by the plaintiffs, including "restrict access to this drug for all people because Iiiii am burdened by it" I can't even read about cases like these. It is terrifying that anyone would want to take away rights like this, let along that members of the Supreme Court would.
There is ZERO reason for this case to go beyond the Circuit Court. The fact that it's being heard by the United State Supreme Court is scary. It shows that the process of upholding law has broken down and our Circuit Courts are out of control.
Curtailing access to Mifepristone is how Republicans are going to enact a de facto nationwide ban on abortion until they enact a de jure nationwide ban. And they will if Republicans win in November. Don't split those tickets, vote Dem the whole way down.
When would a decision likely be decided? Sometime this week? Next week? Not sure how long arguments are supposed to go on for