this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
165 points (99.4% liked)

News

23287 readers
3670 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
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
dezmd@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
Blackbeard@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
165
US supreme court to hear first major abortion case since Roe decision (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
27 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Future of mifepristone at issue as rightwing groups seek to roll back measures taken by the FDA to expand drug’s availability

Abortion is back at the US supreme court, with arguments on Tuesday in the first major case on the issue since a 6-3 majority ruled in 2022 to overturn Roe v Wade and end the national right to abortion – a decision that unleashed abortion bans throughout the country as well as a political backlash that Democrats hope will serve them in the coming presidential election.

At issue in the case is the future of mifepristone, a drug typically used in US medication abortions. The rightwing groups that brought the case are seeking to roll back measures taken by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expand the drug’s availability in recent years.

A decision in their favor would apply nationwide, including to states that protect abortion access, and would likely make the drug more difficult to acquire. The loosening of restrictions on mifepristone have helped mitigate the impact of post-Roe abortion bans; if those restrictions are reimposed, abortion rights groups anticipate it will become significantly more difficult to access abortions in the US.

“More than 60% of abortions in the US are medication abortions, so that would impact a substantial number of people, whether you live in a protective state or a restricted state,” said Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University’s School of Public Health.

top 27 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] BossDj@lemm.ee 83 points 7 months ago (1 children)

So to clear this up,

Republicans got rid of Roe v Wade by finally getting their way in the courts system, and a dozen Republican controlled states banned abortion.

Democrats introduced and all voted for a bill to codify right to abortion. It did not pass the Senate because all Republicans voted against it.

Biden and the FDA, which is under executive (presidential) control, tried to expand access to an abortion drug that has been used safely for over twenty years, and the Republicans sued to stop it because they found a technicality from 24 years ago (Got 'em!).

We can talk all day about who is taking away rights and who is trying to preserve rights.

If you're "on the fence" between Trump and Biden, you're a liar or need to find better sources for whatever information you're getting

[–] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 28 points 7 months ago

24 years ago? Try 150 years ago.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comstock_laws

One of these laws was cited.

Luckily it looks like the supreme court is just gonna shoot down the whole case rather than open the box of worms of courts overturning fda approvals.

[–] TechNerdWizard42@lemmy.world 21 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Hahahaha.

I continue to believe that the only way forwards for the USA is to go so far backwards that the populous wakes up and starts to change. Without that, it's a lost cause and a failed nation.

When all those suburban women voters who voted for Trump can't get their teenage daughter an abortion, times will change. It'll be 20 years from now, but that's what it takes.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 16 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

I continue to believe that the only way forwards for the USA is to go so far backwards that the populous wakes up and starts to change.

Prior to 1875, the US ran an unrestricted immigration policy -- you show up at the border, you can stay. That should change things!

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world -2 points 7 months ago (3 children)

Between 1870 and 1900 there were 12,000,000 people who came to the US. That's an average of 400,000 per year

In December of 2023 we had 249,735 that showed up to the Texas /Mexico border.

249,735 x 12 = 2,996,820 that kind of influx would be absolutely unsustainable.

Even if we went with (what looks like an average) for 2023 at the border.. 150,000 per month

That would come to be 1,800,000 per year.. And that is just the Mexico border. That would still be unsustainable.

[–] tal@lemmy.today 9 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Nah, we could sustain way higher rates of population growth than we have now. Right now, we're historically low.

Here's a history of the US showing population growth by decade:

https://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h980.html

Every census up until 1860, we grew at a rate of over 30% every ten years.

The last decade, we did 7.4%, our lowest rate in the history of the country.

The decade before, 9.7%.

The US has consistently seen population growth outpacing that of other developed countries.

That sustained, explosive growth is a very large part part of how the US became a hell of a lot richer and more powerful in a short period of time than other countries did. At the time of the American Revolution, we had a population about a fifth the size of France's. Today, we have a population about five times that of France's. Current UN projections are that we'll be larger than the European Union as a whole before the end of the century (well, though the EU stands to maybe gain a few new joining members, so no guarantee).

[–] SeaJ@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

There were 38 million people in the US in 1870. 400k people coming in is a hell of a lot higher proportion of the total population of 40 million than it is to 340 million.

[–] Socsa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 7 months ago

Why would it be unsustainable? Immigration is pretty much always a net contributor to GDP, even if you only consider the fact that the consumption of calories is economic activity, and completely disregard any additional labor contribution.