SCOTUS struck down a challenge to restrict access to mifepristone, a pill used in abortions.
The justices voted 9-0.
The ruling is narrow, though, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone. Doctors opposed to abortion and doctors who do not perform abortions challenged the FDA relaxing restrictions on the pill, including not enforcing in-person visits for a prescription.
- 2016: “deeming Mifeprex safe to terminate pregnancies up to 10 weeks; allowing healthcare providers, such as nurse practitioners, to prescribe Mifeprex; and approving a dosing regimen that required just one in-person visit to receive the drug.”
- 2021: “no longer enforce the initial in-person visit requirement.”
The plaintiffs argued that the “FDA has ‘impaired’ their ‘ability to provide services and achieve their organizational missions.”
Justice Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion and stated that the plaintiffs had no standing under Article III of the Constitution. The late Justice Scalia once explained Article III asks the plaintiff, “What’s it to you?”
Did the plaintiffs have a personal stake in the dispute?
“Like an individual, an organization may not establish standing simply based on the ‘intensity of the litigant’s interest’ or because of strong opposition to the government’s conduct,” wrote Kavanaugh. “The plaintiff associations therefore cannot establish standing simply because they object to FDA’s actions.”
That’s because the plaintiffs had no personal stake:
The plaintiffs do not allege the kinds of injuries described above that unregulated parties sometimes can assert to demonstrate causation. Because the plaintiffs do not prescribe, manufacture, sell, or advertise mifepristone or sponsor a competing drug, the plaintiffs suffer no direct monetary injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone. Nor do they suffer injuries to their property, or to the value of their property, from FDA’s actions. Because the plaintiffs do not use mifepristone, they obviously can suffer no physical injuries from FDA’s actions relaxing regulation of mifepristone.
Kavanaugh also denied the plaintiffs’ argument for standing because no one else would have standing to challenge the FDA.
“That suggestion fails because the Court has long rejected that kind of argument as a basis for standing,” continued Kavanaugh. “The ‘assumption’ that if these plaintiffs lack ‘standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing.'”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Wait a minute…I thought the SCOTUS was in the hands of Fascist monsters who intend to end all of women’s rights?
Haha I should have known. I took a look at X and see the BlueAnon spin on this ruling is: it’s a setup. Cue Admiral Akbar. See, the evil Fascists are planning to give Orange Man Bad immunity and this ruling is just for cover.
You would think they could put a case like this on the back burner while taking time to address some of the more pertinent, crucial and pressing issues facing the country at the moment.
True.
However, conservatives are always being bashed by Marxist/Communists about taking away women’s reproductive rights and their autonomy of their bodies (whatever that means, since one of the justify doesn’t know what a woman is).
This ruling is narrow in its scope that prevents groups from claiming harm, while leaving it up to those who are directly harmed (those with standing) the ability to petition the government.
While many want abortion gone, it will never happen, and having Roe v Wade sent back to the states was a wonderful fix.
Thus going back to the 50 individual laboratories of democracy, so to speak.
This ruling takes away one blunt instrument that pro abortion advocates use against the pro life.
I read the opinion when Roe v. Wade came out. I was impressed with it because it was the first time I had ever seen a document consider the issue of abortion that valued the different points of view involved in the discussion.
I also thought, and still think, the opinion embodied good policy. Before it was overturned, there was some survey evidence that most Americans generally agreed with it.
However, it did not stop the debate.
Roe stands for an even larger issue: the SCOTUS literally lacks the power to usurp the role of Congress and the States to decide political issues. It isn’t just the lack of knowledge or means to implement decisions: well-turned policy from the Court will not settle a political question that anybody cares about. Both sides will just keep fighting over it.
This ruling troubles me because there is allegedly a safety issue involved. However, a stronger showing of harm to individuals would likely have supported a finding of standing.
“That suggestion fails because the Court has long rejected that kind of argument as a basis for standing,” continued Kavanaugh. “The ‘assumption’ that if these plaintiffs lack ‘standing to sue, no one would have standing, is not a reason to find standing.’”
I concur the court ruled correctly on Standing. I also note the inherent problem with unlawful executive actions when no one has standings. A prime example is the student loan forgiveness.
Yes they did. The plaintiffs had no personal stake in it.
So there is now an effective legal abortion option in all 50 states?
Well, regardless of my personal feelings about it, can we just promote to voters that this issue is more or less closed for the November elections.
(Oh, I know it won’t be. But that would be my response if I were running – “there is an effective, safe legal option in all 50 states. Next issue please?”)
Least surprising ruling this year.
Chemical abortions are not necessarily safe; there are far more ER visits for the aftereffects of chemical abortions than surgical, and now the FDA basically wants to put it on the shelf next to the Midol.
Talk about sacrificing women’s health on the altar of progressivism…