The fate of a commonly used abortion pill is again before the Supreme Court, more than a year and a half after it said it would leave the matter of abortion to elected officials.
The Biden administration had asked the justices to hear a challenge to the drug’s availability after a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit curtailed access to the drug. It had ruled in August that the pill should remain legal in the country but with significant restrictions on patients’ access to it.
That ruling has been temporarily suspended from going into effect while the Supreme Court considers the case.
The battle over the medication could have wide-ranging consequences for access to the drug even in states where abortion is legal, as well as for the Food and Drug Administration’s regulatory authority over other drugs.
At issue is the availability of mifepristone, the first pill taken in a two-drug regimen for medication abortion that is currently used in nearly two-thirds of all abortions in the United States. More than five million women in the United States have used mifepristone to terminate their pregnancies, and dozens of other countries have approved the drug for use.
@PassionateZebraGreen2mos2MO
Maybe the headline should be 'The Supreme Court to Decide on its Future', as any ruling to ban a drug which has been declared safe by medical experts - not a bunch of elderly extremist, mostly men, conservative lawyers - and which has been used safely by millions of women for decades, will undoubtedly lead to their downfall.
They thought they could stay out of the abortion debate, but they can't.
They opened pandoras box, now they have to deal with the consequences.
I'd be willing to bet that none of these great scientific minds of the Supreme Court has taken a single course in a science other than the minimum requirement at their undergraduate college. It often seems that they haven't even taken one course in Constitutional law. And many of the Republican judges who went to religious colleges probably weren't taught and don't believe in evolution.
@EnergeticLocustDemocrat2mos2MO
You are right on all points except this will not lead to their downfall. They are there for as long as they feel comfortable in their chairs. Just look at Clarence Thomas. The legs should have fallen off his chair years ago, but there he sits.
@RightWingKenLibertarian2mos2MO
Access to mifepristone was already responsibly decided upon by some of the smartest people in our country. The Court is not qualified to decide, not even the liberal justices. If they outlaw the drug, it will go underground. Every vehicle and envelope can't be policed. Sweeping consequences will occur, sometimes in unexpected ways like the closing of obstetric units in hospitals. Young doctors will make career and location choices. All this will happen.
With these people, there are two issues that are critical to the Justices donors: They will be able to force a fringe religious view on the majority AND they will push the role of science and reason to the fringes, enabling scientifically illiterates (who can forget Scalia dissenting on whether DNA exists?) to rule that experts can accumulate no nobody if science and evidence that the theocrats cannot dismiss with a wave of the hand.
Make no mistake, they want to oppress women, but they also hate expert agencies
@LobbyCurlewDemocrat2mos2MO
For most Americans, the year is 2023.
But for the six theologians on the Grand Old Patriarchal Supreme Court, an eighth century worldview still holds great appeal to restore 5th class citizenship to half the population.
They really need to buy a calendar.
@R3f0rmVenisonSocialist2mos2MO
Would the Supreme Court like to weigh in on Viagra? Health benefits seem non-existent, but mental attitude may be enhanced. If mental health is justification for Viagra, why can't the same argument be made for the abortion pill?
If you don't like abortion, don't have one. Simple as that.
@SheepNoraDemocrat2mos2MO
Yes it’d be great to see a similarly worded case for viagra. Because clearly God had made a decision for a man that medicine should not overturn.
While we’re at it, should we also withhold cancer drugs from smokers? Deny insulin for obese people? Maybe wheelchairs should be outlawed because God would let folks run marathons if only they believed?
At what point can we the people take back our first amendment right to freedom of, and from, religion?
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
@ISIDEWITH2mos2MO
@B4llotBoxMadelynDemocrat2mos2MO
The plaintiffs in Amarillo have no standing. They did not take the pill, nor suffer any injury and emergency room doctors often see patients experiencing miscarriage which is just part of the job.
The right thing to do is overturn this case
They have No standing
There is No scientific reason - drug is safe
23 years on the market with fewer injuries than viagara or penicillin or Tylenol.
No one was injured.
Mifepristone is safe and has other medical uses and there is no other alternative.
The historical activity of users engaging with this general discussion.
Loading data...
Loading chart...
Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion
Loading data...
