A prominent U.S. lawsuit to ban the abortion pill mifepristone has focused on the drug’s safety and approval process. But the outcome may ultimately rest on a different issue: whether Ingrid Skop, an anti-abortion doctor in Texas, and other physicians behind the lawsuit can justify suing in the first place.
If courts were to adopt the plaintiffs’ argument for standing, these experts said, emergency room doctors could sue over almost any regulation that impacted their workload, from oversight of guns to alcohol to teen drivers.
I think this article really shows the ridiculousness if the doctor did have standing to sue like this. It really opens a big can of worms most of which conservatives would not enjoy
It only opens a big can of worms if you apply logic. The supreme court could (and has) made explicit carveouts (e.g. You can only sue over this one thing). Never underestimate how corrupt the court can be.
The topic is standing
_
because of the legal concept known as standing, which holds that plaintiffs must have suffered harm or face an imminent injury traceable to the defendant
_
The judge that ruled on this case just wanted to get it before the Supreme Court. There is nothing in his ruling that is in good faith. The entire case is bullshit. The Supreme Court is so far right but I do not think even they can agree with this ruling. No legal basis whatsoever. They would look like utter fools if they leave this ruling in place.
SCOTUS looked like fools for ruling against Roe vs Wade so I’m not sure they care about how they’re perceived.
But I am hoping they boot this stupidity into the nearest bin anyway.
Roe v Wade relied on a relatively novel interpretation of the 14th amendment, leaving it vulnerable to a SCOTUS who would allow challenges to their own precedence. Current court is scummy AF for overturning the precedent, and the legal theory they used in the majority decision for Dobbs v Jackson is shaky at best (no surprise, given it’s just a way for a politicized court to do what they’ve wanted for decades), but there’s at least some weird mental hoops you can jump through to justify it.
This case though? Slam dunk commerce win IMO. The federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce, congress delegated authority of drugs to the FDA, and if congress wanted to explicitly limit access to mifepristone they could have overridden the FDA at any time. That’s assuming SCOTUS agrees the doctors have standing in the first place, and that’s tenuous at best too.
I don’t think our current SCOTUS cares about whether their rulings make them look bad or not, but I do think they care about making sure they have some legal foundation to avoid obvious looks of impropriety. I just don’t see any way they can twist the law with this case like they did with Jackson.
Even Ginsburg admitted Roe was shaky ground
(I mean she knew how easy it would be to strike down)
There really hasn’t been enough (any, from what I’ve seen) blowback on the Democrats for not pro-actively defending a woman’s right to body autonomy. There was a chance to frame this in a way that would be appeal to the personal liberties crowd on the right, and there were plenty of opportunities to push for a legal backup.
Considering the GOP spent my entire lifetime with abortion as its primary PR weapon (until racism made a surprise comeback to take the top position in 2016), it’s crazy that Dems didn’t see the weakness of Roe as a real threat that they needed to get in front of.
Abortion is and has been incredibly popular in general, but like always the Dems were scared of pissing off the right even though they will be portrayed as evil commies no matter what they do.
In the last 50 years, the Democrats had two instances when they had a filibuster-proof majority. One of those was under Carter, who was very religious. The other was a couple of years under Obama. So, there was one missed chance.
So the Dems could only pass laws they support one time in the last 50 years? That’s an absurd argument.
When is the last time a Democratic candidate or elected representative promoted legislation to legalize abortion? Not just talk, not just campaigning as pro-choice. Actual action of any kind. Compare that to the number of times a Republican did the opposite. Whether these actions were plausible to succeed is irrelevant.
Democrats coasted on the free PR without actually doing anything to ensure this very important right was protected.
I said, “filibuster-proof majority”. There was only one time that they could pass something without at least the cooperation of the republicans.
… Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe. from here
I ordered some just in case before the original ruling. plancpills.org
Thankfully aidaccess will continue to ship despite whatever restrictions the US puts on it.
