393
Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill
(www.nbcnews.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Jun 2024
393 points (100.0% liked)
News
23274 readers
2891 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Curve ball Kavanaugh is so hard to pin down. I’m grateful he voted to protect access, but I can’t seem to predict his position. Maybe with time he’ll turn into the right-wing version of Thomas and become a full throttle traitor to his party.
I read that as "Rephrase the case and send it back".
Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:
They need a more compelling case of mifepristone causing harm. It’s probably best for those who use it to keep their experiences private if possible.
They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Even that wouldn't work. If a drug causes you harm, you sue the company that made it.
They need a compelling case of how the FDA harmed them in order to sue the FDA. I don't think that will be easy.
Perhaps a sovcit can provide the correct forms and precise terms to use, in their proper order.
Not just Kavanaugh in this case. This was a 9-0 decision, even Alito and Thomas voted to protect access.
Alito gotta raise his reputation points after the leaks and flag debacle.
Good point. I realized after I commented that he was just writing on behalf of the court. Regardless, he’s been the only Justice to dissent from party opinion on several cases recently.
They voted that the case is obviously lacking on technical grounds of standing. That's not the same as voting to protect access. They just want a better set of plaintiffs.
"Our corruption to the core would be too obvious if we heard this case"
That's wholly incorrect.
They refused to consider the case because "the plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury".
Pg 3 of the opinion
No one wants to set a precedent for sueing the government every time they don't stop a potential bad thing from happening.
Meanwhile, this case is taking up headlines at the same time the Supreme Court released another decision eroding union rights.
It's taking up headlines because it directly affects millions of women, immediately.
The NLRB decision (also unanimous) limits their ability to obtain injunctions, but the NLRB only does this a couple of times a month nationwide and most people will never notice a change.