That's a misleading headline. They didn't preserve anything. They are basically saying the plantiffs didn't have grounds. They've left the door wide open for another challenge.
It'll be a hard time finding another plaintiff with propper standing in a case on this question, given the nature of the medicine.
Even if they were to get standing, saying the government not restricting something that may cause harm is actionable seems like a tough position to attend. Especially given this line in the opinion:
Moreover, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions
They've manufactured actual fake cases before, they can do it again.
Writing for the court, Justice Brett Kavanaugh acknowledged what he characterized as the challengers’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections” to elective abortion “by others” and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone. But the challengers had not shown that they would be harmed by the FDA’s mifepristone policies, he explained, and under the Constitution, merely objecting to abortion and the FDA’s policies are not enough to bring a case in federal court. The proper place to voice those objections, he suggested, is in the political or regulatory arena.
I'd almost thought the con side of SCOTUS had forgotten what standing even is.
In this case, remembering standing means they don't have to double down and rule on abortion itself again.
Sounds like they do. SCOTUS shouldnt legislate from the bench.
Maybe you should have a word with Alito and Thomas about that?
Roe v Wade was a court decision, when the congress should have it law. They had decades to fix it, and congress never got its act together.
Wow unanimous decision again
Anyway, everyone will have access at the " museum of screw women everywhere ". It will be a glorious exhibit with ofcourse, a single pill 💊 right at the center on a gold pedestal.
That's a misleading headline. They didn't preserve anything. They are basically saying the plantiffs didn't have grounds. They've left the door wide open for another challenge.
It'll be a hard time finding another plaintiff with propper standing in a case on this question, given the nature of the medicine.
Even if they were to get standing, saying the government not restricting something that may cause harm is actionable seems like a tough position to attend. Especially given this line in the opinion:
They've manufactured actual fake cases before, they can do it again.
I'd almost thought the con side of SCOTUS had forgotten what standing even is.
In this case, remembering standing means they don't have to double down and rule on abortion itself again.
Sounds like they do. SCOTUS shouldnt legislate from the bench.
Maybe you should have a word with Alito and Thomas about that?
Roe v Wade was a court decision, when the congress should have it law. They had decades to fix it, and congress never got its act together.
Wow unanimous decision again
Anyway, everyone will have access at the " museum of screw women everywhere ". It will be a glorious exhibit with ofcourse, a single pill 💊 right at the center on a gold pedestal.