438
submitted 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 273 points 6 months ago

I guess it wasn't about states rights, guys.

[-] WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 130 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Lol. They've only ever used "states rights" like "small gubberment"; as a means to impose their will on the largest scale they currently hold power. As soon as they gain the upper hand and can impose their will via a higher government (or regulator) — such as imposing their will on local governments via state law, or imposing their will on states via federal law (or the EPA) — they don't give it a second thought.

This is how fascists and authoritarians operate. They lie, because words mean nothing to them but a means to achieve authoritarian rule... They don't stop at the national level either.

[-] tygerprints@kbin.social 34 points 6 months ago

In Utah, our legislature is so committed to rejecting the will of large government and their attempts to control what happens. And yet, the Utah legislature itself controls every single thing that happens in this state, and so long as everyone agrees with their ultra-conservative point of view, then everything is great in their view of things. So in the end, we end up being slaves to THEIR beliefs anyway, and the victim of their own form of big government interfering in everything in our lives here all the time.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] ObviouslyNotBanana@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Pat_Riot@lemmy.today 72 points 6 months ago

State's Rights means slavery. That's all it ever meant.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] SharkEatingBreakfast@sopuli.xyz 133 points 6 months ago

This will eventually extend to birth control.

Just you wait.

[-] killeronthecorner@lemmy.world 47 points 6 months ago

Supreme court: Imaginary babies are still babies

[-] Wahots@pawb.social 27 points 6 months ago

STDs are going to go through the roof. They already are, in part due to deteriorating public infrastructure and shittier sex ed. But this is going to make the quality of life for Americans go down. And increase DOA babies due to congenital syphilis.

[-] Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

Keep your voice down. You're giving the conservatives an erection.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] tygerprints@kbin.social 72 points 6 months ago

I'm so sick of this goddamn stupid supreme court shit. Abortion is a woman's god-given right. And these drugs are the safest and easiest way. Taking them away will ONLY MEAN MORE ABORTIONS THAT ARE BOTCHED BY COAT HANGERS. It WILL NOT stop women from having abortions!! These stupid god damn filthy father fucking pieces of walking god damn dog excrement. I'm so fucking sick of this nonsense!!! There are just no words in the English language that can convey the level of hatred and loathing I feel for these black robed assholes.

[-] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 32 points 6 months ago

Abortion is a woman's god-given right.

Why has no one argued that rules against abortion infringe on religious liberty? The Bible contains directions for a priest to perform an abortion. In any case, someone could simply claim the law stops them from practicing their chosen faith.

[-] greenfish@lemmy.world 32 points 6 months ago

The satanic temple has. Those folks are out there doing the lord's work, ironically

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] JustZ@lemmy.world 10 points 6 months ago

The appeals in the two major abortion cases Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade were thought by some to have been taken up prematurely. There were a number of cases that came before those that were honing in on the issue from a gender discrimination standpoint. RBG is one who thought the cases were premature. For example, she had successfully argued that a disability benefit law granting survivorship benefits only to widows was illegally discriminatory against men. She had planned to do the same thing in a challenge to an abortion statute, and thought the Court would strike it down on grounds that it forced only women to carry a child to term after which only the woman had a legal duty to raise and care for the child. Before the Court could consider the argument, abortion statutes were struck down on based on penumbral reasoning, privacy grounds.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

Your mistake is thinking that this position is one of ignorance. They hate women, plain and simple. It was never about a tumor that happens to turn into a human if you leave it alone long enough.

[-] MamboGator@lemmy.world 16 points 6 months ago

I love this description. I know some tumors in their thirties+ that never became human. Most of them are conservatives.

[-] tygerprints@kbin.social 10 points 6 months ago

Oh I totally get that. I even wrote an editorial about the "women hating" so called "justices" of the Supreme court, and it didn't go over very well here in women-hating Utah. I agree with you on that completely.

[-] captainlezbian@lemmy.world 25 points 6 months ago

Yeah bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. This is the government tyranny that we’re theoretically allowed to have guns to prevent.

load more comments (13 replies)
[-] wellee@lemmy.world 11 points 6 months ago

THANK YOU. This is the kind of outrage this deserves. WHAT. THE. FUCK.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Rapidcreek@reddthat.com 70 points 6 months ago

They brought upon themselves an unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states.

[-] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 87 points 6 months ago

To which it isn't authorized to rule because that falls to the FDA. They are religious zealots and not qualified to rule on medicine.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 47 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

If this is actually successful, expect republicans to begin going after more fda approvals in the courts for things like hiv medications or vaccines. Anything that appeals to their religious zealot base, doesn't matter how many people they harm.

Edit: Didn't think of this originally, and not strictly related to abortion access debate, but the ruling as it stands could allow for pharmaceutical companies to sue each other and try to overturn the approvals of competitors' drugs. It's just such an unfathomably bad ruling on soooooo many levels.

[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 21 points 6 months ago

Not just FDA, all regulating bodies.

[-] Ranvier@sopuli.xyz 18 points 6 months ago

You're right, the more I think about this ruling the worse it gets. The fifth circuit court should be fired...

Out of a canon and into the sun

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 13 points 6 months ago

Yeah, people don't really understand the precedent that would be set here.

Chevron deference is extremely important, and the GOP is openly working to "dismantle the administrative state," to use their own words.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 14 points 6 months ago

That is because the conservative majority are a bunch of hypocritical lying liars.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world 69 points 6 months ago

The constitution says nothing about this. Which means any ruling is judicial overstep

load more comments (10 replies)
[-] KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml 67 points 6 months ago
[-] IHadTwoCows@lemm.ee 56 points 6 months ago

What authority does the Constitution give to dispense medical advice and regulate medical treatment?

load more comments (26 replies)
[-] BigMacHole@lemm.ee 50 points 6 months ago

The Supreme Court, NOT medical professionals, will get to decide what life saving medications YOU get to take! It's a good thing they aren't corrupt and we're appointed on merit without lying!

[-] MaxVoltage@lemmy.world 13 points 6 months ago

go buy plan b while you can guys

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Laughbone@lemmy.world 43 points 6 months ago

Capitalism needs meat for the grinder I guess? Can’t wait to see the court restrict this then let those Purdue pharma fuck heads off the hook for unleashing a plague on humanity .

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] ZombieTheZombieCat@lemmy.world 29 points 6 months ago

I thought their whole reason behind repealing Roe v. Wade was about "letting the states decide." Of course that was total bullshit, otherwise this wouldn't even be a question.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 27 points 6 months ago

I suspect the Court is politically savvy enough to avoid making mifepristone illegal right before the election. They'll make a soft open-ended decision that leaves it unrestricted and come back to it in a few years, then make it illegal.

[-] snooggums@kbin.social 27 points 6 months ago

Have you been living under a rock for the last couple of decades? The newest chucklefucks appointed to SCOTUS don't give two shits about appearances and will do whatever they want at any time.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 11 points 6 months ago

They care a lot about appearances, what they don't care about is actual popular opinion or democracy.

[-] EatYouWell@lemmy.world 8 points 6 months ago

If they cared about appearances they'd adopt a code of ethics.

[-] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 17 points 6 months ago

They did though, right?

One that has no mechanisms of enforcement, which makes it exclusively about appearances.

I think you have a good point though: we shouldn't be surprised when they make another egregious ruling.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] prole@sh.itjust.works 17 points 6 months ago

Why even have regulating bodies? Chevron deference cannot go away. This is how the right continues to "dismantle the administrative state," to use their own words.

This is real bad.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] pinkdrunkenelephants@lemmy.world 14 points 6 months ago

So is anyone gonna organize smuggling of mifepristone before they ban it or what?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Jaysyn@kbin.social 13 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

By all fucking means, do it, fash.

This lying & fuckery combined with the shit show that just occurred in Texas will give us a Federal trifecta in 2025 & then we will can start impeaching & incarcerating these corrupt & unqualified "justices".

Polling has been proven to be complete garbage since 2019. The GOP have caught the car & they are about to get pulled under the political tire.

[-] FluffyPotato@lemm.ee 10 points 6 months ago

I'm not American so maybe someone can explain this, the way your supreme court works sounds insane to me. Like what power does the US supreme court have that they can just ban drugs? Also what is stopping the states from just ignoring them on decisions like this?

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 13 Dec 2023
438 points (99.3% liked)

News

21676 readers
3021 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. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.


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