The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

The case concerns the drug mifepristone that — when coupled with another drug — is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.

The decision means the conservative-leaning court will again wade into the abortion debate after overturning Roe v. Wade last year, altering the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and triggering more than half the states to outlaw or severely restrict the procedure.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    -37
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    Ask the FDA. What authority does it have to regulate most things.

    Edit: so, they don’t have authority to regulate women’s abortion choices, but do have the authority to regulate every other part of your medical decision?

    Fuck that. You want an abortion? Get one. A joint? Go nuts. Experimental cancer meds? I wish you well.

    Your medical choices should be between you and your doctor, not you, your doctor and a legislature.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      2811 months ago

      The FDA is not in the constitution.

      It explicitly has authority from the government to regulate things.

      A panel of judges assigned in duty by the constitution is not given its authority from the same body as the FDA.

      If you do not understand why youre comparing apples and lemons, you should leave the conversations to the adults.

    • NoSpiritAnimal
      link
      1611 months ago

      The Executive Branch is empowered to carry out the law as interpreted by the Judicial Branch and mandated by the Legislative Branch.

      The FDA is assigned by the executive, empowered by congress, and subject to legal oversight of the courts.

      There are many laws that give the FDA authority, for instance the Food Safety Act of 1906.

      There is nothing that gives the supreme court the power to review medication approved by medical professionals.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
        link
        111 months ago

        The Supreme Court was never going to a review the medication, it was going to review the approval process, Make sure it complied with procedural and substitutive due process as required by the Constitution.

    • @Something_Complex
      link
      1111 months ago

      Well that fucking stupid. Osha bad because regulation bad.

      Wtf kinda shit do you eat in the morning? Is it lead?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -1011 months ago

        I understand that. I was criticizing their view knowing they’d apply it to abortion, but nothing else.

        Lemmings want the fed all up in their shit, except when they don’t.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      511 months ago

      Guys. This commenter sounds Libertarian-esque to me. In this case, individual bodily autonomy, Libertarians are on our side.

      Some the other ideas however . . .

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        211 months ago

        I’m a super liberal libertarian. Anticorp, IP is theft. We should use regs to dismantle corps, not build them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          Yeah. And when it comes to this one issue, Libertarians and Liberals are pretty much on the same page. Maybe different reasons, but the same page.

          The government can fuck off and has no say in my medical . . . well anything.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            1
            edit-2
            11 months ago

            Fuck yes we are. Christians showed up at our last libertarian convention to tell others to support freedom. Libertarian kids took up armed security for the protests. We won in Kansas.

    • Cethin
      link
      fedilink
      English
      211 months ago

      I agree with most of your comment, but regulation to ensure safety also has its place. That said, I mostly agree it should still be available, with a warning about safety.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        011 months ago

        I’m not really commenting on that, to be honest. I’m not a huge fan of many regulations, but I only get worked up about the ones that fuck us.

        Roe v Wade had a standard that was applied nowhere else and it’s frustrating nobody thought to back it up with law.

        • Cethin
          link
          fedilink
          English
          311 months ago

          To be fair, abortion should be covered by the 9th amendment. There shouldn’t be a need for extra laws to cover it.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            111 months ago

            Well, the medical rights you imagine support abortion should also support a lot of other medical rights. I chose the FDA because they do things like tell cancer patients they can’t try experimental medications.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                111 months ago

                These were terminal cancer patients and oncologist recommended, but it looks like we’ve made some effort to fix it. They have a “Right to Try” act program now, so that’s neat.

                I think quacks should be able to be sued into oblivion by their patients victims.