BREAKING: Supreme Court Hands Down Decision On Abortion Pill Access

On Thursday, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge from doctors on the use of the abortion pill, Mifepristone. In a unanimous decision, the justices ruled that the doctors who went after the Food and Drug Administration for making the pill easier to access did not have standing, and thus, the case was dismissed.

In the court's ruling, Justice Brett Kavanaugh explained that the plaintiffs have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone," but that they still lack legal standing since they were unable to show that they were injured by the FDA's decision. "The federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions," Kavanaugh added.

"The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process," the court said. "And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes."

While the Supreme Court did not make a substantial ruling on the case, another plaintiff with standing could bring a case on the abortion pill, or access to it via mail, in the future. The court's unanimous decision comes two years after the conservative-dominant judicial body overturned Roe v. Wade and brought the issue of abortion back to the states. While over a dozen states have full abortion bans, the mailing of Mifepristone into the state still allows for thousands of abortions to take place every year.

This is a developing story and will be updated accordingly.
 

You can follow Sterling on X/Twitter here.

READ THIS NEXT
‘Trump Exists As A F*ck You’: Fmr Obama Advisors Admit ‘Huge Swath’ Of Culture Backs Him
Trump Picks Linda McMahon As Secretary Of Education
From South Texas to the Swing States: Republicans Must Follow Trump Agenda to Replicate Electoral Success
Sign in to comment

Comments

Powered by StructureCMS™ Comments

Get Updated

© 2024 DC Enquirer, Privacy Policy