this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
450 points (99.1% liked)

News

23296 readers
4433 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
 

The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

The case concerns the drug mifepristone that — when coupled with another drug — is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.

The decision means the conservative-leaning court will again wade into the abortion debate after overturning Roe v. Wade last year, altering the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and triggering more than half the states to outlaw or severely restrict the procedure.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The entire situation is top down nonsense, so hopefully the court sees it as such. Regulatory changes made in good faith is exactly what the FDA is empowered by Congress to do. It's up to Congress to decide if they're acting outside of their scope, not the courts.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

Tripartite governance? Checks and balances? It's up to the Congress and the Courts. Congress can pass a new Statute, the Court can rule on the existing ones.

[–] roguetrick@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

There's just no grounds here. If it was bad faith, outside the power delegated, against the Constitution, sure. If it's within their power and following their rules (good faith), the court has zero place.

The idea that they're acting in bad faith because the court interprets the evidence differently than the agency put together to interpret the evidence is a ridiculous argument.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

If it’s within their power and following their rules (good faith)

That's the issue before SCOTUS! It's being claimed that the FDA didn't follow its own procedure when relaxing the prescription and dispensing rules for mifepristone.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Right, it's a bullshit, bad faith lawsuit, funded by far right extremists. Twenty years is too late. Statutes of limitations, statutes of repose, laches. Fifth Circuit is on crack.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Twenty years is too late.

Yes, which is why I think SCOTUS didn't grant a writ of Certiorari for it. The argument about mifepristone's FDA approval is dead.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

They aren't interpreting the same evidence. The court isn't ruling on the science.

The issue is stated as:

Issue: (1) Whether the Alliance's challenge to the Food and Drug Administration’s 2000 mifepristone approval is timely; and (2) whether FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone under 21 C.F.R. 314.500, which applies only to drugs that “treat[ ] serious or life-threatening illnesses,” and FDA’s subsequent approval of generic mifepristone were unlawful.

[–] Buelldozer@lemmy.today 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The court isn’t ruling on the science.

Correct, they are ruling on the matter of whether or not the FDA followed its own processes as it relaxed restrictions around the prescribing, dispensing, and use of mifepristone.

FTFA:

"Though the justices on Wednesday agreed to consider an appeals court decision that restricted access to the drug, they declined a separate appeal by the abortion foes to consider if the FDA’s 2000 approval of the drug was unlawful."

The question of mifepristone's legality isn't before the court and it becoming illegal or banned isn't even a remotely possible outcome.

Edit: You can read it for yourself direct from SCOTUS here. The Alliance petition for a writ of certiorari on 23-395 was denied.

[–] BoastfulDaedra@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 11 months ago

Not that I'm a fan of SCOTUS, but torches and pitchforks have always been such a reliable medium for civil political debate!