The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed unlikely to limit access to a key medication used in more than 60 percent of U.S. abortions and first approved more than two decades ago.
A majority of justices from across the ideological spectrum expressed skepticism that the antiabortion doctors challenging the government’s loosening of regulations have sufficient legal grounds — or standing — to bring the lawsuit.
One of the issues at question is whether the folks proposing to overturn the FDA's approval of mifepristone have any standing to bring suit. In cases like this you have to show a genuine injury to someone, but the Christian group that brought the case couldn't do that. Their argument is that easy availability of mifepristone could cause psychic harm to doctors who oppose abortion but have to treat a patient suffering complications in an emergency room. That's too thin even for most of the conservatives on the Court.
But of course, there's also this:
The toughest questions for the Biden administration and the drug manufacturer came from the court’s two most conservative justices, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.
Alito will never vote for a "Democratic" win. The substance of the case doesn't really matter.
Thomas seems to want very much to reverse the decision that found the Comstock Act unconstitutional. Whether he figured out for himself that it could be a powerful weapon for repression in the right hands, or Leonard Leo told him so, is an open question.
The right wing groups that promote cases like this may have gone a little too far for even this Supreme Court to accept, but they'll go on trying, never doubt it.
Alas, it was never removed from the books.
Alito doesn't even want to bother with the Comstock option. He thought this case was perfectly legitimate. What a shameless hack.
The Comstock Act would affect "mailing" of mifepristone. Would it effect sending it by UPS or FedEx? A strict original text interpretaion would seem to say no.
There was am amemdmnt/extension of the comstock act to common carriers including fed ex and UPS.
By this argument, I wonder if a group of doctors who opposed the use of alcohol could get a nationwide ban on alcohol sales enacted. Or for that matter, guns.
Alito will never vote for a
“Democratic”democratic win. FIFY. Alito and Thomas work tirelessly to bring about the theocratic state. The will of the majority must never conflict with their moral vision.Thomas just petulantly lashes out to punish everyone for denying him that lucrative position with a silk stocking east coast law firm he wanted so bad and sticking him with a crummy seat on the Supreme Court instead.
I honestly doubt whether anyone expects the Supreme Court to outlaw mifepristone in an election year. And, most particularly, in this election year which seems like a "do-or-die" moment for the Republican Party in the aftermath of the Dobbs decision. I think most red states with a tame federal judge (like Texas has) will rely on the Comstock option until it's politically safe to simply impose their will on the country again by fiat.
Eventually, however, the Democrats are also going to have to deliver on some of their critical issues and that mean expanding the Court and adding at least two more states (at a minimum). And I seriously doubt whether the Republicans on the court want to take a chance on provoking either a voter backlash or a strong Democratic move against either the Court or the Republican Party. So I think the smart money says they kick this case on standing grounds.
If you don't want to provide standard medical care, you shouldn't be a doctor, just like if you don't want to follow same-sex marriage laws, you shouldn't be a county clerk. The price of a "clean conscience" is you get to work someplace else.