Supreme Court
Liz Wolfe | 3.27.2024 9:30 AM
Oral arguments in abortion pill case: Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the abortion pill case it's currently considering, involving access to mifepristone, which is used in medical abortions up until 10 weeks gestation.
"The justices are examining rule changes in 2016 and 2021 that, among other things, made the drug available by mail and from a medical provider other than a doctor," reports The Washington Post.
The majority of justices seemed skeptical "that the plaintiffs, who do not prescribe abortion pills or regularly treat abortion patients, even had standing to bring the challenge," per The New York Times. It seems the plaintiffs may have failed to make their case that they suffer concrete harm from mifepristone being widely available, though Erin Hawley—a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, and wife of Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), who was arguing before the court—made the case that, if women suffer from complications after taking mifepristone, pro-life doctors may be forced to choose between helping such patients and violating their deeply-held convictions.
But, "under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion, correct?" asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general arguing on the government's behalf, said Hawley and co. did not "come within 100 miles of the kinds of circumstances this court has previously identified" as grounds for standing and disputed plaintiffs' arguments about the safety of the abortion pill. The remedy the plaintiffs seek—nationwide restrictions on mifepristone access—also seems unlikely to fly.
"This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action," said Justice Neil Gorsuch yesterday.
Alabama referendum on IVF decision: In February, Alabama's state supreme court ruled, quite controversially, that frozen embryos deserve the same types of legal protections granted to children.
Yesterday, a woman named Marilyn Lands flipped a state House seat from red to blue after campaigning in opposition to the in vitro fertilization (IVF) decision and to restrictions on abortion (including sharing her own story of getting an abortion several decades ago, after doctors determined her baby would not live long outside the womb).
Republicans will, of course, still hold a majority in the statehouse, but it's an interesting outcome that provides more fodder for the hypothesis that abortion restrictions—and, in Alabama's case, IVF restrictions as well—are unpopular among most voters.
For pro-lifers like myself who favor restrictions on the procedure (contra most libertarians), this is disheartening, but a political reality with which we must contend.
Scenes from New York: Today, the Eric Adams administration started giving out prepaid debit cards to illegal immigrants who have entered the city. The program, which is slated to cost $53 million, aims to provide migrants the ability to secure their own food and necessities—via bodega or grocery store—to address the problem of wasted food in migrant shelters (which I covered in this section several months ago).
According to the city's Housing Preservation & Development office, "a family of four would be given $15,000 a year" under this program. "This cost-saving measure will replace the city's current system of providing non-perishable food boxes to migrant families staying in hotels, much of which is often discarded," said an Adams spokesperson. They claim up to $600,000 per month could be saved with the new program.
But this is an extraordinary amount of spending—underwritten by New York City taxpayers—doled out to an uncapped number of people who have not paid (and possibly will not pay) into the system. What happens when people respond to incentives and the number of illegal immigrants seeking government-provided money and shelter absolutely balloons?
It's increasingly hard to escape the conclusion that the continued push for minimum wage increases despite their predictably bad consequences is a triumph of in-group signaling over a concern for the material welfare of the poor https://t.co/nRQYqQpScn
— Chris Freiman (@cafreiman) March 26, 2024
Worship attendance rates @Gallup pic.twitter.com/uzI0nrVZhA
— @markdtooley (@markdtooley) March 26, 2024
Supreme Court Unpersuaded
6
1
27.03.2024
Supreme Court
Liz Wolfe | 3.27.2024 9:30 AM
Oral arguments in abortion pill case: Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the abortion pill case it's currently considering, involving access to mifepristone, which is used in medical abortions up until 10 weeks gestation.
"The justices are examining rule changes in 2016 and 2021 that, among other things, made the drug available by mail and from a medical provider other than a doctor," reports The Washington Post.
The majority of justices seemed skeptical "that the plaintiffs, who do not prescribe abortion pills or regularly treat abortion patients, even had standing to bring the challenge," per The New York Times. It seems the plaintiffs may have failed to make their case that they suffer concrete harm from mifepristone being widely available, though Erin Hawley—a lawyer with the Alliance Defending Freedom, and wife of Sen. Josh Hawley (R–Mo.), who was arguing before the court—made the case that, if women suffer from complications after taking mifepristone, pro-life doctors may be forced to choose between helping........
© Reason.com
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
