News

83 readers

1 users here now

Breaking news and current events worldwide.

founded 2 years ago

US abortion pill access could hinge on whether doctors had right to sue (www.reuters.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by Remillard@kbin.social to c/news@kbin.social

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 18 points 2 years ago (2 children)

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.

[–] snuxoll@kbin.social 6 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] Jon-H558@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Even Ginsburg admitted Roe was shaky ground

(I mean she knew how easy it would be to strike down)

[–] QHC@kbin.social 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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.

[–] DevCat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

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.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago

... 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