Don’t worry.
The conservative justices gave the forced birth psychos plenty of tips on how to bring a stronger case next time.

The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Anonymous wrote:The right has certainly perfected how to get cases through certain judges and to the supreme court.

This particular case can undo the whole FDA regime, not to mention the ability for drugs to be shipped via mail.

Yes, and it's really objectionable. One thing I'd like to see in Court reform is the requirement to get standing clearly established on the record in order to preserve the right to appeal. And that plaintiff needs to be grilled about the circumstances under which they sought legal counsel. No more fake plaintiffs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we are all on the same page. SCOTUS is not reviewing the actual approval of this medication. It declined to review that part of the case. It is not in danger of being pulled from the market. SCOTUS is reviewing subsequent regs (including a COVID Reg) that made it easier to dispense this medication (ie, you don’t have to go to a doctors office and have them watch you take the pills). On one hand, this SCOTUS could very well rule against the changes making the pills easier to get, and thus allow Courts to overrule the FDA when they place restrictions on the use of medicine. It’s a bad place for Courts to be. And one would think they learned their lesson with Dobbs about Courts practicing medicine. But they probably didn’t. And if they didn’t, I hope viagra is the next drug up. Needs to be taken in an MD’s office every single time and BP measured, and an EKG run and patient’s penis observed because of cardiac risks and risk of erections that last for hours. But your love bunny can join you for observed copulation (in case you have a heart attack midway). That’s where the plaintiff’s reasoning could go.

BUT, there is an issue they need to consider first as to whether the plaintiffs having standing to bring this suit. Smart legal scholars I follow are betting that SCOTUS decides no standing and gets rid of the case without ever looking at the merits of the Regs at issue.

Since when do these far right activists care about “standing”?

SCOTUS cares because standing decisions affect a lot of different issues. A rogue judge in TX— not so much. My Civ Pro isn’t decent (or used enough) for me to make a prediction on the standing issue. But, what was once legal Twitter (and is now threads and substack) folks who know this stuff are predicting that it doesn’t make it past the issue of standing.

I too would have to blow dust off of my civ pro text book. The pro life docs who brought the case haven't actually treated any patient who was harmed by mifepristone. They have no patient who's been harmed. They are only guessing, which does not give them standing.

Anonymous wrote:Thomas repeatedly asked about the Comstock Act.

Funny how precedent doesn't matter, until it does.

Thomas repeatedly asked about the Comstock Act.

Anonymous wrote:This feels like an incredible self-own for Republicans.

Are Americans super upset about the loss of reproductive rights, and it's making us lose elections? Hey I have an idea!

Exactly. This is the monster they created and it's about to kill them all. Constant reminders that Roe v. Wade is no longer "settled law" is something they cannot get around.

The good news is that they are using some of the same logic that they used to overturn the Colorado ruling vs Trump here.

First, they are checking standing and questioning whether any of the doctors on the case were actually affected by the women who they are apparently trying to block from getting the drug. The argument is that women who take the drug can have complications and would have to have emergency medical support. But apparently none of the doctors on the suit actually treated any such patient. The justices have asked the lawyer representing the doctors to bring forth a doctor who had to treat such a patient.

Secondly, the justices are questioning, like in the Colorado ruling, how a single or small handful of local instances of this issues should have a nation-wide effect. Why does one doctor in one state having this issue cause a nationwide restriction on access to the medication that was approved by the FDA. In most medical cases, single instance issues are not addressed by sweeping rulings against the medication, but are treated as single instances of malpractice or insurance. It takes a known group of such cases that display a repeatable effect that would cause such a wide-scale response and the justices are pointing out that there is no such example of multiple instances of patients having complications that require extensive medical care to treat.

So, from the questions from the justices and the lack of suitable responses from the lawyers representing the doctors, this doesn't look very promising for banning the medication from sale. It doesn't look like the conservative right is going to get this one through.

This feels like an incredible self-own for Republicans.

Are Americans super upset about the loss of reproductive rights, and it's making us lose elections? Hey I have an idea!

Hey for once they may be paying attention to standing?
“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.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/03/26/abortion-pill-supreme-court-arguments-mifepristone/

The right has certainly perfected how to get cases through certain judges and to the supreme court.

This particular case can undo the whole FDA regime, not to mention the ability for drugs to be shipped via mail.

Oral arguments at SCOTUS are today.

And the wife of one of the judges who banned mifepristone—James Ho, a Trump appointee—took at least six payments between 2018 and 2022 from the conservative legal group that brought the case to court.
https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/25/judge-james-ho-wife-mifepristone-abortion-pill

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just so we are all on the same page. SCOTUS is not reviewing the actual approval of this medication. It declined to review that part of the case. It is not in danger of being pulled from the market. SCOTUS is reviewing subsequent regs (including a COVID Reg) that made it easier to dispense this medication (ie, you don’t have to go to a doctors office and have them watch you take the pills). On one hand, this SCOTUS could very well rule against the changes making the pills easier to get, and thus allow Courts to overrule the FDA when they place restrictions on the use of medicine. It’s a bad place for Courts to be. And one would think they learned their lesson with Dobbs about Courts practicing medicine. But they probably didn’t. And if they didn’t, I hope viagra is the next drug up. Needs to be taken in an MD’s office every single time and BP measured, and an EKG run and patient’s penis observed because of cardiac risks and risk of erections that last for hours. But your love bunny can join you for observed copulation (in case you have a heart attack midway). That’s where the plaintiff’s reasoning could go.

BUT, there is an issue they need to consider first as to whether the plaintiffs having standing to bring this suit. Smart legal scholars I follow are betting that SCOTUS decides no standing and gets rid of the case without ever looking at the merits of the Regs at issue.

Since when do these far right activists care about “standing”?

SCOTUS cares because standing decisions affect a lot of different issues. A rogue judge in TX— not so much. My Civ Pro isn’t decent (or used enough) for me to make a prediction on the standing issue. But, what was once legal Twitter (and is now threads and substack) folks who know this stuff are predicting that it doesn’t make it past the issue of standing.

Anonymous wrote:Women who want autonomy over there bodies better vote for Dems straight ticket.

But what about her emails?? How am I supposed to sleep election night if I don't have a clear conscience and vote for a third party who has no viability and completely screw over everyone else in the country for the next century?.

Anonymous wrote:Just so we are all on the same page. SCOTUS is not reviewing the actual approval of this medication. It declined to review that part of the case. It is not in danger of being pulled from the market. SCOTUS is reviewing subsequent regs (including a COVID Reg) that made it easier to dispense this medication (ie, you don’t have to go to a doctors office and have them watch you take the pills). On one hand, this SCOTUS could very well rule against the changes making the pills easier to get, and thus allow Courts to overrule the FDA when they place restrictions on the use of medicine. It’s a bad place for Courts to be. And one would think they learned their lesson with Dobbs about Courts practicing medicine. But they probably didn’t. And if they didn’t, I hope viagra is the next drug up. Needs to be taken in an MD’s office every single time and BP measured, and an EKG run and patient’s penis observed because of cardiac risks and risk of erections that last for hours. But your love bunny can join you for observed copulation (in case you have a heart attack midway). That’s where the plaintiff’s reasoning could go.

BUT, there is an issue they need to consider first as to whether the plaintiffs having standing to bring this suit. Smart legal scholars I follow are betting that SCOTUS decides no standing and gets rid of the case without ever looking at the merits of the Regs at issue.

Since when do these far right activists care about “standing”?