• @Evilcoleslaw
    link
    741 month ago

    I think a lot of people are surprised by this, but I think it’s mostly 9-0 because it wasn’t really settled on any merits – these people just did not have standing to sue.

    I’m pretty sure this came out of the 5th Circuit and I’d expect to see more rulings like this smacking the 5th Circuit down because it specifically has gone off the rails and started making insane rulings unsupported by any law or precedent.

    While SCOTUS has made some questionable rulings in the last several years, they’re still going to punt in obvious situations where they can.

    • @SeattleRain
      link
      English
      521 month ago

      This, they aren’t protecting anyone’s right, just picking a better case.

    • @Makeitstop
      link
      41 month ago

      Ah, so they do remember what standing is. Surprising, given their selective amnesia on the topic during the student loan forgiveness case.

    • FenrirIII
      link
      31 month ago

      The 5th’s rulings are supported by the law of God! /s

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    681 month ago

    It is crazy that there are all these fights for women rights at a time where we should focus on making the humanity survive the ecological apocalypse…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      All these things are just distractions.

      Sure, the base loves it, which is why they are doing it, and it keeps the others side’s panties in a bunch, but it’s all just a distraction of the real goal.

      Get power, keep power, make more money.

      Texas just put “intelligent design” back in the class room because of course they would. Dumb people are easier to control and manipulate. Do you still hear anyone talking about that?

      It’s the same with the bathroom thing that was such a scandal a few years back. Do you really really believe these politicians give a single shit about any of that? It keeps people busy and talking about non starters while you erode rights, funnel more money to the select few rich, and make sure you stay in power no matter what.

      Now with climate change, some asshole senator brought a snowball to show that climate change is false, one of those times they actually try and take the issue head on, but that’s getting really hard now that it’s become so bad that there just isn’t any denying anymore…

      So in comes abortion pills!

      Do you really really believe they care? This is just another bone for people to chew on so that they can continue spewing CO2 cheaply and get richer

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        61 month ago

        A-fucking-men.

        It’s fodder for the propagandists to shout at you all night. To manipulate you into voting Republican because they make you so mad about a reality that doesn’t exist or that they invented themselves for you to be mad at. They take Twitter morons and say that person is everyone on the left…

        It’s all culture war bullshit to distract you from fighting for actual causes that are directly affecting ALL OF US.

      • @ripcord
        link
        01 month ago

        They may be distractions but…there are a LOT of true believers. Several SC Justices actually believe this is a war and the most important thing to focus on, for example.

      • @humorlessrepost
        link
        English
        11 month ago

        Counterpoint: With or without us, eventually the planet will be unable to sustain life. As someone who arbitrarily values the continuity of life, and without certainty life exists elsewhere, I consider humanity life’s best and possibly last chance to get off Earth before it’s too late.

        • @ReginaPhalange
          link
          11 month ago

          We would have the science and technology and time to do so IF WE SLOWED THE FUCK DOWN W/ THE CO2.

          • @humorlessrepost
            link
            English
            11 month ago

            For sure. Was just disagreeing with us being the worst species ever.

  • @disguy_ovahea
    link
    51
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, wrote that while plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that does not mean they have a federal case.

    Curve ball Kavanaugh is so hard to pin down. I’m grateful he voted to protect access, but I can’t seem to predict his position. Maybe with time he’ll turn into the right-wing version of Thomas and become a full throttle traitor to his party.

    • Admiral Patrick
      link
      fedilink
      English
      581 month ago

      plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that does not mean they have a federal case.

      I read that as “Rephrase the case and send it back”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        351 month ago

        No, that’s not what it’s saying at all.

        When they say that the doctors lack standing, what they’re saying is that the doctors have not suffered harm as a result of the FDA’s action. The doctors are not obligated to provide the medication that the FDA has authorized. Unless the doctors can prove that they, personally, have been affected negatively by the decision, there can be no court-ordered remedy for their injured moral fee-fees.

        On the other hand, a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing; she would be able to demonstrate that the law had directly, personally affected her ability to get the health care she needed.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 month ago

            …But that’s not what I was saying.

            As far as I know, you are generally correct that you can’t sue a government becuase they didn’t ban a thing. But you can sue when the gov’t has banned a thing, and that ban has caused you direct harm. This would be especially true if her lack of access to reproductive care meant that she had suffered serious physical harm, or lost her ability to have children in the future.

      • @FlowVoid
        link
        English
        141 month ago

        Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:

        “The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process,” Kavanaugh wrote. “And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.”

      • mad_asshatter
        link
        61 month ago

        Perhaps a sovcit can provide the correct forms and precise terms to use, in their proper order.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        61 month ago

        They need a more compelling case of mifepristone causing harm. It’s probably best for those who use it to keep their experiences private if possible.

        • @Evilcoleslaw
          link
          211 month ago

          They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          91 month ago

          Even that wouldn’t work. If a drug causes you harm, you sue the company that made it.

          They need a compelling case of how the FDA harmed them in order to sue the FDA. I don’t think that will be easy.

    • @FlowVoid
      link
      English
      191 month ago

      Not just Kavanaugh in this case. This was a 9-0 decision, even Alito and Thomas voted to protect access.

      • @waddle_dee
        link
        181 month ago

        Alito gotta raise his reputation points after the leaks and flag debacle.

      • @disguy_ovahea
        link
        61 month ago

        Good point. I realized after I commented that he was just writing on behalf of the court. Regardless, he’s been the only Justice to dissent from party opinion on several cases recently.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 month ago

        They voted that the case is obviously lacking on technical grounds of standing. That’s not the same as voting to protect access. They just want a better set of plaintiffs.

        • @NotMyOldRedditName
          link
          31 month ago

          “Our corruption to the core would be too obvious if we heard this case”

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      51 month ago

      voted to protect access

      That’s wholly incorrect.

      They refused to consider the case because “the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury”.

      • @FireTower
        link
        31 month ago

        Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

        Pg 3 of the opinion

        No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don’t stop a potential bad thing from happening.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 month ago

        Meanwhile, this case is taking up headlines at the same time the Supreme Court released another decision eroding union rights.

        • Buelldozer
          link
          fedilink
          31 month ago

          The NRLB case didn’t erode anything. The decision followed precedent and kept things status quo.

        • @FlowVoid
          link
          English
          1
          edit-2
          1 month ago

          It’s taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.

          The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.

  • @dhork
    link
    English
    30
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    It’s a unanimous decision, but they didn’t really vote to protect access at all. They simply agreed that the doctors who filed the lawsuit has no standing to challenge it in the courts in the first place. So they basically said the lawsuit wasn’t valid, they didn’t rule on the merits at all.

    The only good thing out of this is that it indirectly reinforces the rulings of the FDA as legitimate. So the Dismantling of the Administrative State is put on hold temporarily. Although who knows what the next case may bring…

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 month ago

      they didn’t really vote to protect access at all.

      It’s incredible how easily people assume something to be true and take the time to unintentionally spread misinformation in a public forum. Had they just taken two minutes to read the content which they’re commenting on, this could easily be avoided. I mean, “rejected” is right in the headline - really didn’t even need to read the article.

      And yet people are upvoting these inaccuracies because they emotionally agree with the comment even though it’s proven false in the headline.

      • @dhork
        link
        English
        1
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Well, clicking the link and reading it is too much work, why not simply upvote, make a snarky comment, and move on?

    • @FireTower
      link
      21 month ago

      Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions

      Pg 3 of the opinion is pretty clear that launching a case against the government for not banning something will just result in your case being DOA. Yes its technically a standing issue, but they’ve essentially ruled that you can’t have standing to sue under this situation. Effectively ruling on the merits.

      It didn’t protect access in the sense that it prevented legislation restricting it but it did prevent unmerited lawsuits seeking to prevent its national sale.

  • Flying Squid
    link
    101 month ago

    Good, because beyond the abortion issue, there are other legitimate uses of mifepristone.

    Apart from its predominant use in medically induced abortions, mifepristone proves valuable in addressing Cushing syndrome and uterine leiomyomas.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557612/

    So making this illegal wouldn’t have only hurt the abortion rights cause, it would basically be a fuck you to anyone with Cushing syndrome.

    • @Evilcoleslaw
      link
      8
      edit-2
      1 month ago

      To be fair, this was never really about making mifepristone illegal outright. It was mostly about the FDA rules that would allow by mail order without first consulting a doctor. Consulting a doctor for its other uses would allow it to be prescribed for them.

    • Billiam
      link
      41 month ago

      it would basically be a fuck you to anyone with Cushing syndrome.

      Given that conservatives hate women, I can’t see how that wouldn’t be another feature-not-bug.

  • circuscritic
    link
    fedilink
    6
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    This was an easy election year punt.

    The rulings in this case were made by an out of pocket judge and an appellate court district that’s gone off the fucking rails, legally speaking.

    If it wasn’t an election year, SCOTUS might have disregarded all that and plowed ahead anyways.

    However, both Alito and Thomas are likely wanting to retire, and probably will if Trump gets back in office.

    Those desires, combined with how the last abortion ruling hurt the GOP electorally, made this an easy decision for them.

  • @vegetaOP
    link
    31 month ago

    deleted by creator

  • @werefreeatlast
    link
    -41 month ago

    Hopefully after they finish women and LGBTQA people hopefully then we can start a war with Iran, Irak, Israel, China, Ruzzia, Venezuela and or Mexico. That could help the housing crisis. Could help with the incarceration numbers if they use inmates first…if you think about it.