It seems there is a solid majority to bounce this nonsense claim against a drug that is safer than Tylenol, and has been lawfully on the US market since 2001 -- under FDA approval, after a very complete vetting. [It was re-examined again in 2016, by FDA -- for a reformulated version -- and approved.] Listen to one sensible commenter's plain English take on it all:
. . .[T]he anti-abortion plaintiffs who brought this contrived case don’t have legal standing. If a majority of the court recognizes this plain fact, then the appeal can be resolved on that ground alone, without further thwarting the reproductive rights that the court trashed in its Dobbs decision.
To have standing, people who bring lawsuits need to show that they are — or will soon be — injured in a way that a ruling in their favor can remedy. But the plaintiffs who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s approval and regulation of mifepristone don’t satisfy that rudimentary requirement.
As the Biden administration pointed out in a brief ahead of the hearing, the anti-abortion doctors and groups who brought the suit “do not prescribe mifepristone, and FDA’s actions allowing other providers to prescribe the drug do not require them to do or refrain from doing anything. . . .”
Condor bets the plaintiffs lose, when the opinion comes out -- 6-3 in June 2024. Onward.
नमस्ते
No comments:
Post a Comment