╌>

Unanimous Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication | AP News

  
Via:  Texan1211  •  one month ago  •  41 comments

By:   AP News

Unanimous Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication | AP News
The Supreme Court has preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year.

Leave a comment to auto-join group We the People

We the People


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously preserved access to a medication that was used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the U.S. last year, in the court's first abortion decision since conservative justices overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago.

The justices ruled that abortion opponents lacked the legal right to sue over the federal Food and Drug Administration's approval of the medication, mifepristone, and the FDA's subsequent actions to ease access to it.

The case had threatened to restrict access to mifepristone across the country, including in states where abortion remains legal.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote for the court that "federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions." Kavanaugh was part of the majority to overturn Roe.

The high court is separately considering another abortion case, about whether a federal law on emergency treatment at hospitals overrides state abortion bans in rare emergency cases in which a pregnant patient's health is at serious risk.

More than 6 million people have used mifepristone since 2000. Mifepristone blocks the hormone progesterone and primes the uterus to respond to the contraction-causing effect of a second drug, misoprostol. The two-drug regimen has been used to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks gestation.

Health care providers have said that if mifepristone is no longer available or is too hard to obtain, they would switch to using only misoprostol, which is somewhat less effective in ending pregnancies.

President Joe Biden's administration and drug manufacturers had warned that siding with abortion opponents in this case could undermine the FDA's drug approval process beyond the abortion context by inviting judges to second-guess the agency's scientific judgments. The Democratic administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, which makes mifepristone, argued that the drug is among the safest the FDA has ever approved.

The abortion opponents argued in court papers that the FDA's decisions in 2016 and 2021 to relax restrictions on getting the drug were unreasonable and "jeopardize women's health across the nation."

The mifepristone case began five months after the Supreme Court overturned Roe. Abortion opponents initially won a sweeping ruling nearly a year ago from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump nominee in Texas, which would have revoked the drug's approval entirely. The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals left intact the FDA's initial approval of mifepristone. But it would reverse changes regulators made in 2016 and 2021 that eased some conditions for administering the drug.

The Supreme Court put the appeals court's modified ruling on hold, then agreed to hear the case, though Justices Samuel Alito, the author of the decision overturning Roe, and Clarence Thomas would have allowed some restrictions to take effect while the case proceeded.


Red Box Rules

No personal insults
No death wishes of any individual
All of NT's rules apply

PS

Calling members "trolls" or ""dishonest" will result in your comment being deleted.


Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
 

Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
[]
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago

Even though this was found on the AP's pages, it may very well be fake news, as many on the left have already proclaimed the Court to be illegitimate and assured us all that the Court was intent on stripping rights away from women.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
Professor Principal
1.1  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago

The left is claiming the court is illegitimate because they have lost several cases by unanimous decision.  Throw into that their unfounded rant against Justice Thomas and the pathetic outrage against Justice Alito over something they made up.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1    one month ago

Maybe the decision would have been different if only Alito didn't have any flags.................

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Expert
1.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1    one month ago
"...unfounded rant against Justice Thomas..."

UNFOUNDED????   How can anyone even THINK that such a comment could gain even a microbe of respect?

If any Supreme Court of Canada Justice were to have succumbed to even much less than such corruption they would not only be thrown off the court but lose their law licence as well.  

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago

The indictment, trial, and conviction of Hunter Biden hasn’t prevented Trump and his worshippers from insisting that everything about his trial - including the larger state and federal justice systems are corrupt and anti-conservative. So there’s plenty of that to go around.

In any event, your analogy is problematic - as analogies often are - because the Court never got around to addressing the core issues. The Court routinely dismisses cases because of issues with standing. Ignoring the standing requirements would lead to all sorts of problems that nobody wants.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2    one month ago
The indictment, trial, and conviction of Hunter Biden hasn’t prevented Trump and his worshippers from insisting that everything about his trial -

There are always plenty of articles to vent about Trump on, but this isn't the one. Trump doesn't have a thing to do with it, no matter how convoluted the "thinking" or how weirdly it is spun.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.2  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.1    one month ago

You made a comment about people claiming the Court was illegitimate. I think that reasonably connects to other claims about other courts being illegitimate, and that's why I made the comment. I have no need to vent about Trump and was not doing that.

My interest is in the general trend we see these days to claim corruption or illegitimacy in our institutions if we don't like the outcome. That strikes me as something you brought up, but if it bothers you, I won't comment further on it unless you prompt me to.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.2    one month ago
have no need to vent about Trump and was not doing that.

And yet, you did.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Guide
1.2.4  Tacos!  replied to  Texan1211 @1.2.3    one month ago

No need to be dickish. I said what my intent was and you have no call to say otherwise.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.2.5  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Tacos! @1.2.4    one month ago

Good intentions don't always work out well.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.3  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @1    one month ago

Are you at all embarrassed by your out-of-the-gate reaction to this? Just wishthinking it to be fake news so that you could bash the left over the head with it? [removed][.][]

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.3    one month ago

Out of the gate reaction?

I admit I was happy with the ruling, aren't you?

Maybe you should read what I actually write before making assumptions.

[removed][]

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.3.2  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.1    one month ago

“Your response is very droll,

no surprise from a ____.”

 - poet who didn’t know it

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.3.3  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @1.3.2    one month ago

I am sure sorry you appear to be so unhappy with the decision. Better luck next time!

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
Professor Guide
1.3.4  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Texan1211 @1.3.3    one month ago

[]

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
2  Sean Treacy    one month ago

IMPOSSIBLE!  The trump court only votes as directed by  the cabal of  christian nationalists who control the country.  There’s no way the hysterical conspiracy obsessed left wing partisans who told me that could be wrong. 

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago

I guess it isn't fake news, I see someone else posted an article about the very same thing.

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
3.1  evilone  replied to  Texan1211 @3    one month ago

I deleted mine when I found yours.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
3.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  evilone @3.1    one month ago
I deleted mine when I found yours.

That's great that you found another source for the same story.

Confirms it isn't fake news despite what we have been led to believe about the Court.

Thanks!

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4  evilone    one month ago

A unanimous ruling the plaintiffs don't have standing to sue. For now the court sidesteps the arguments, but they will return soon enough.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @4    one month ago

No it won’t.  It’s unlikely any plaintiffs  will have standing under this opinion.   But you can try and name one. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.1  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1    one month ago
It’s unlikely any plaintiffs  will have standing under this opinion.

Are saying that states can't ban the use of abortifacients like mifepristone, or are you saying that people won't be able to file suite to block those attempts?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @4.1.1    one month ago

I’m saying no one has standing to overturn the approval of the drug by the fda. 

 
 
 
evilone
Professor Guide
4.1.3  evilone  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.1.2    one month ago
I’m saying no one has standing to overturn the approval of the drug by the fda. 

Sure, Sean... I'm saying the anti-choice crowd lost this gamble, but are still trying. The court has only kicked this can down the road. So, yes arguments to ban mifepristone and other abortifacients will end up back in front of the court. 

I also saw Thomas did a little virtue signaling in his concurrent opinion. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
4.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  evilone @4.1.3    one month ago

By who? On what grounds will they have standing after this decision?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
5  Ozzwald    one month ago

Looks like a broken clock can be correct twice a day.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @5    one month ago

That comment has no value.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6  seeder  Texan1211    one month ago

I guess the real question will be:

How can leftists impugn the unanimous Court while not tarring the left-leaning Justices with their broad brush strokes?

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
6.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Texan1211 @6    one month ago

Some people are immune to cognitive dissonance.  

in a few hours we will see the same, tired memes of justices dressed up in costumes…  that the supposed christian nationalists just unanimously declined to limit the availability of the drugs used in 60% of abortions won’t even begin to crack  the simple fanstasy world they’ve constructed for themselves.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Sean Treacy @6.1    one month ago
in a few hours we will see the same, tired memes of justices dressed up in costumes

Oh, we can't forget about the FLAGS, man!!

One would have thought the world as we know it was going to end because some flag flew somewhere.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7  Nerm_L    one month ago

Hey, guys, the news ain't that SCOTUS upheld access to mifepristone.  That's actually not a very surprising outcome. 

The real news is that this was a unanimous decision.  There was no dissent from any of the justices. 

The Bidenistas should be rejoicing over this decision because now Biden doesn't need to stumble over the word 'mifepristone'.   But Harris will still be giggling over abortion.  Come'on, Kamala, give us another of those Clinton nods.  

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1  Vic Eldred  replied to  Nerm_L @7    one month ago
The Bidenistas should be rejoicing over this decision

Actually, I think they would have preferred to run against a decision that might have gone the other way.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

At least it would have been something else for them to whine about endlessly.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
7.1.2  Vic Eldred  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.1    one month ago

They only have one real issue and that is "abortion." That decision left them empty.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Professor Expert
7.1.3  Nerm_L  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago
Actually, I think they would have preferred to run against a decision that might have gone the other way.

Pelosi issued a statement that puts the kibosh on that.  Pelosi has flatly stated SCOTUS did the 'right thing' for women.  However, the unbiased liberal press seems to be pushing the narrative that SCOTUS only rejected the plaintiffs standing (which is accurate) and didn't address the merits of the case.  But even that narrative undermines allegations SCOTUS is an activist conservative court.

No doubt Democrats will be scrambling to put an anti-abortion spin on the SCOTUS ruling simply because they got nothing else to run on.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Principal
7.1.4  Sean Treacy  replied to  Vic Eldred @7.1    one month ago

100%.  They need to believe they are oppressed. 

 
 
 
charger 383
Professor Silent
8  charger 383    one month ago

This is a good decision

 
 
 
George
Junior Expert
8.1  George  replied to  charger 383 @8    one month ago

Agree, Courts and legislatures should stay in their own lanes, FDA decides safety and effectiveness, Doctors decide if it is necessary. Karens and Kens need to mind their own business. This should have never been entertained at the state level, let alone getting to this point.

 
 
 
sandy-2021492
Professor Expert
9  sandy-2021492    one month ago

Locking this article until the proper image is used.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
Professor Expert
10  Perrie Halpern R.A.    one month ago

Article reopened with proper image.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
10.1  seeder  Texan1211  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @10    one month ago

Thank you. Is there some technical reason Fetch wouldn't do that when I seeded the article?

 
 

Who is online



23 visitors