Supreme Court Stays Lower Court Ruling That Limited Access to Abortion Pill
Mifepristone will remain on the market for now with no changes to how it can be prescribed.

The Supreme Court on Friday granted the government's request for a stay in a case concerning access to mifepristone. The ruling means the status quo will hold—for now—with regard to prescribing the abortion-inducing drug, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit considers the merits of the case.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the majority.
The Court's ruling follows an April 7 decision from U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk saying that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was wrong to approve the abortion-inducing drug mifepristone in 2000. Kacsmaryk's order—which he gave seven days to take effect—stayed the FDA's approval of mifepristone and several subsequent actions related to that approval, including FDA orders from 2016, 2019, and 2021 that loosened restrictions on prescribing the drug.
The Department of Justice and mifepristone manufacturer Danco Laboratories quickly appealed Kacsmaryk's decision, also asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to stay Kacsmaryk's order as the appeals process plays out.
The 5th Circuit granted that appeal in part, suspending for now Kacsmaryk's ruling against the initial FDA approval of mifepristone. However, it allowed parts of the ruling related to subsequent FDA actions—such as its extension of the time in which mifepristone and companion drug misoprostol could be prescribed from seven to nine weeks of pregnancy and its removal of a requirement that doctors must dispense the drug to patients in person—to go forward.
Despite the limited nature of the appeals court's order, it was still met with outrage by abortion access advocates. The ruling "blatantly ignores both the law and the science just like the lower court did," commented Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project. "It ignores both the scientific experts at the FDA and over 100 studies on the safety and efficacy of mifepristone in favor of a few anecdotes provided from anti-abortion extremists."
The DOJ and Danco quickly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
SCOTUS temporarily stayed the 5th Circuit's decision and requested more information.
"If allowed to take effect, the lower courts' orders would upend the regulatory regime for mifepristone, with sweeping consequences for the pharmaceutical industry, women who need access to the drug, and FDA's ability to implement its statutory authority," the DOJ argued in its appeal.
The DOJ asked the Supreme Court to "stay the district court's opinion in full and maintain the long-settled status quo pending the completion of orderly appellate review" or, barring that, "to grant an administrative stay" and then "set this case for expedited briefing and argument on a schedule that would allow it to be argued and decided before the Court's summer recess."
The plaintiffs in this case, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argued that the Court should deny the government's motion. They also requested that if the Court did decide to do an expedited review of the case on its merits, it expand the questions presented to include, among other things, whether the Comstock Act's ban on mailing articles "intended for producing abortion" included mifepristone.
Last Friday, Justice Samuel Alito administratively stayed the district's court order through Wednesday, April 19, a stay that on Wednesday it extended through today.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
How much of the mainstream media had to rewrite their stories after this ruling?
No particular reason to think any would have to.
You don’t think they assumed the SC would agree with the lower court because “they’re a bunch of Christofascist who think they own women’s bodies!”?
Oh wow!
That's Mike for you.
Alas, there will be a great many "FASCISM IS HERE!!!" articles that wont see the light of day...until the next round of histrionics, likely in a week from now.
Why would they have to? "How many fingers?"
Why do we even NEED the FDA and medical doctors now that Judges know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING?
The ignorant always know what is best for everyone.
What could possibly go wrong with women carrying Benjamins into dark back alleys to buy smuggled pills from drug dealers?
Less dead babies?
The issue was the FDA had to contend that pregnancy was a "life threatening illness" and use the emergency process of drug approval for drugs that treat cancer and HIV, etc. If the abortions-for-everyone crowd want to get the drug approved, they should follow the correct process.
The FDA green lights baby ejecting drugs but tells us that ivermectin is a horse dewormer and shouldn't be taken despite studies showing efficacy.
"despite studies showing efficacy"
Ivermectin is effective in deworming horses. That's it.
You are an ignorant knownothing parrot
I think your sarc meter is broken
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/
"Human" (human use) very frequently mentioned in your link. So ThanksForTheFish was clearly wrong...
"Virus" never mentioned ONCE in the link! Using this med for the COVID virus isn't supported.
https://www.kumc.edu/about/news/news-archive/jama-ivermectin-study.html
Ivermectin shown ineffective in treating COVID-19, according to multi-site study including KU Medical Center
Results of the study of the antiparasitic medication, once a much-discussed potential treatment for COVID-19, were published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
Not just judges! State legislators are giving doctors free instruction in how to do their jobs!
Welcome to modern America.
You democrats never have a problem with that until it interferes with your holy sacraments, like ritual infanticide.
But Mandatory jabs are ok .
You mean like when California outlaws gay conversion therapy?
"Don't say natural immunity"
"Don't say vax aren't effective"
lol
"Why do we even NEED the FDA"
Should have stopped there, sqrlsy!
We NEEEEED the FDA like we need intestinal parasites! We NEEEEED the FDA to keep us SAFE from dangerous medical implements of death, devastation, and suffering! (Such ass the much-feared, infamous "lung flute", of course.)
To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!
Lung flutes were invented in the Wuhan lab. It is known.
I think your criticism is well founded in general but not this case. My understanding is that the question here was whether or not the FDA followed it's own rules and properly approved the drug or if it was much like the mRNA "vaccines" being thrown out there with no testing and not following the guidelines.
I love that the people getting all outraged over this are the same ones that also wanted to force everyone to get an experimental shot or be banished from society. Where were they then? Where was the failed ACLU?
Why do we even NEED the FDA and medical doctors now that Judges know EVERYTHING about EVERYTHING?
We dont need the FDA, you finally figured it out.
Or the judges.
“Women who need the drug.”
Bigots
Touche
They need this drug like I need $100 million.
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit considers the merits of the case.
Do non-uterus-possessing people have standing?
One would sure think so... But in a Power-mad society the State has to OWN EVERYONES parts.
From the ADF brief:
"Not only did FDA violate the APA [Administrative Procedure Act], but its actions also run afoul of longstanding federal criminal laws. The Comstock Act prohibits the mailing or delivery of “[e]very article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion” and “[e]very article … which is advertised or described in a manner calculated to lead another to use or apply it for producing abortion.” 18 U.S.C. 1461–62. Yet FDA’s 2021 Non-Enforcement Decision and 2021 Petition Response authorized the mailing of chemical abortion drugs. These actions flouted unambiguous federal law—and, in doing so, further violated the APA, which requires federal agencies to follow all laws. FCC v. NextWave Pers. Commc’ns Inc., 537 U.S. 293, 300 (2003). Thus far FDA’s primary defense has been to argue that federal regulations require it only to evaluate a drug’s safety and effectiveness, not its compliance with federal criminal law. But as this Court has held, the APA requires agencies to follow “any law, and not merely those laws that the agency itself is charged with administering.” Ibid.
"FDA’s second defense, a weak statutory argument, fares no better. FDA contends that historically the Comstock Act never prohibited the distribution of abortion drugs for lawful uses. But the Comstock Act’s text controls over any such history.2 N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2137 (2022). When FDA acted, the Comstock Act plainly prohibited the mailing of chemical abortion drugs.
"FDA suggests that Congress, in the FDAAA, silently repealed the Comstock Act’s plain meaning. As the Fifth Circuit noted, “repeals by implication are not favored,” and exist only when “Congress’ intention to repeal is clear and manifest.” Me. Cmty. Health Options v. United States, 140 S. Ct. 1308, 1323 (2020) (cleaned up). And the FDAAA did not expressly legalize mifepristone. Its brief text only created “a statutory framework governing REMS and drugs [like mifepristone] with then-existing distribution restrictions.” FDA.App.41a. The Fifth Circuit was thus appropriately hesitant to “find clear and manifest intention to repeal a 150-year-old statute that Congress has otherwise repeatedly declined to alter in the far reaches of a single section of the cavernous FDAAA.” FDA.App42a."
So? FDA does follow every law. FDA has no jurisdiction over laws it is not charged with enforcing. It would be up to the now-nonexistent Post Office Dept. to enforce this one. FDA licenses drugs for sale in interstate commerce; nobody ever said that license was sufficient to make it legal, any more than being licensed to drive allows you to violate other rules of the road. It's the same as when FDA licenses a drug while DEA prohibits its possession.
Courts must set aside federal agency actions which are “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/5/706
Allowing mail-order abortion pills is not in accordance with law because of the Comstock Act's ban.
But you misread "allow". FDA doesn't allow the drug to be shipped. They only don't stand in the way on the basis of criteria in the FFDCA — lack of safety or effectiveness. They don't prevent the Post Office from doing its job by banning it from the mails. Same way they don't "allow" a controlled substance to be shipped, they only declare it safe and effective and leave it to DEA.
Similarly, FDA is acting in accordance with the patent laws when they allow someone other than the holder of a patent on a drug to license it. The prohibition imposed by the patent law has nothing to do with FDA's action.
FDA acts in accordance with the Comstock Law. You just don't realize how little they need to do (i.e. nothing) to act in accordance with it.
How many more examples do you need that this is legal and standard practice? There is no federal agency that can determine anything to be totally legal, unfortunately. They can only say that they, the particular agency, won't stand in the way regardless of what other federal or state law might prohibit it.
"There is no federal agency that can determine anything to be totally legal, unfortunately."
The courts.
FDA has no jurisdiction
Correct. FDA has no right to exist.
It's depressing to see the Christian Taliban trying to bring back the Comstock act. It's literally creating morality police. What's next, making sure women have their ankles and heads covered at all times in public?
The ban on sending abortion pills through the mail or through express companies has been on the books for a while - it was suspended in its operation because of Roe, but without Roe, what excuse is there for ignoring it?
And I'll see you your Christian Taliban rhetoric and raise you - why are Marcusian Marxists promoting immorality? It's not from any love of America.
Yep, everyone who is against abortion is a Christian Fundamentalist.
You’re doing a great job making us pro-choice people look totally rational and not at all like retarded fucking bigots.
Justice Alito is the whining voice of conservatives in the "lamentations of their women" phase of the modern American culture war.
You’re just a babbling impotent bitch.
So you've added sexism to your racism, classism, and other bigotries.
Bigotry is all Artie has left, let him at least have that.
As long as he stays in his garage apartment.
The FDA needs to be abolished and Americans need to be able to take whatever medication they choose without the government (no matter which branch) getting in the way.
That used to be the case. What happened is that the market was flooded with fake and dangerous "medications". It was impossible for consumers to know which ones were safe and effective. Also there was no control over manufacturing and no rules on labeling.
Everyone died!
What a load of Nazi BULLSH*T...
There's a million in a half things on the market that doesn't require the Gov-Gods to "approve" of their sale. All of them 'can' be dangerous. All of them 'can' be ineffective to the wrong purpose.
Oh dear; what will you do? Ask your Gov-Gods to make all those choices for you and FORCE them onto everyone else?
If you find the need to be babysat there are more than enough private standards organization for you to live your life by. Some of us don't need a babysitter.
Then fuck off to some island and leave the rest of us to live in a civilized society.
Fuck off, slaver.
The "rest of us" can go find YOUR babysitters......
Not a single bloody thing is stopping you and every member of society like you. EVERYTHING Democrats want they can have 100% by contract membership. Universal Healthcare, Universal Basic Income, etc, etc, etc.....
WHY... Do tell WHY won't they just go DO IT?
I'll tell you why. Their desire lies in using Gov-Guns against the UN-willing. Obviously Democrats want to CHEAT and STEAL from others what others aren't willing to voluntarily give/join.
"It was impossible for consumers to know which ones were safe and effective"
Back in the day of Dr. Quinn Medicine Woman this may have been the case but obviously, this would no longer be the case today due to instant 24/7 access to information. The market would easily and readily expose the shady and dangerous players.
PS: This is a libertarian publication, hon. We don't need "rules" on labeling and manufacturing. Those rules have not helped one bit - get rid of them.
Are you fucking kidding me? How many jackasses are following this Q bullshit?
Acting as if the modern person can at all decipher actual information from bullshit is...well, lunacy. I mean hell- look at your dumbass arguing that people are smart enough to do so.
Thanks for identifying so easily who I should place on Mute. Buh-bye! But before you disappear, here’s a tip – you might be able to better advance whatever argument you were trying to make by (a) not being insulting and (b) not using so many curse words.
It was impossible for consumers to know which ones were safe and effective
Incorrect.
It was impossible for consumers to know which ones were safe and effective.
You must mean from the before times, when the FDA didn't tell us which medications were 100% safe and effective, with no downsides, as opposed to now when they tell us they're 100% safe and effective and we still have no clue.
^This^.
I would suggest that companies along the lines of Underwiter's Laboratories could do independent drug reviews and approvals for those manufacturers that want them.
Alternately (as I've said many times before), if it's approved in another economically advanced western country, it should be approved here by default.
That needs to be a carefully selected list.
Thalidomide was a dangerous medication, that destroyed people, but not in the US because the FDA refused to approve it.
BZZZZZZZZZZZ WRONG.
Thalidomide
FDA reversed the ban on thalidomide in the mid '90s, as it has significant impact in the treatment of Hansen's disease and certain aggressive cancers. It took over a decade to get it reversed. How many cancer patients died as a result?
The "side effect" that caused birth defects also reduced the ability of myelomas to generate new blood vessels.
It was introduced as a treatment for morning sickness and rightly banned. It wasn't until years later that it was suggested for use in cancer treatment.
Go gaslight elsewhere.
Thanks for correcting the record. There is a big difference between using Thalidomide for morning sickness and for cancer.
What record was corrected? That it was banned, and then reversed? Did I say there's no difference between morning sickness and cancer?
I'm gaslighting? What in my statement is incorrect? That is was reversed in the mid '90s? That it took over 10 years to get reversed?
Learn what words mean before you use them.
"destroyed people"
Fetuses are people now?
...and the weather changing is killing everyone!
Same psycho babble from both sides of the isle.
Tends to happen when people stop caring about Individual Liberty and Justice for all and instead worships [WE] mobsters RULE ideology.
And I give you the Fauci before Fauci was a thing, the FDA's own John Nestor.
"But then it turned out that John Nestor wasn’t just a metaphor for FDA; he actually worked there. In fact, in 1972 he had been transferred out of FDA’s cardio-renal-pulmonary unit because that division “had approved no new chemical entities … from 1968 to 1972, an experience that contrasted with the experience of every other medical modern nation and with the experience of other divisions of the FDA.”
on beta blockers:
"Finally, in 1981 FDA approved the first such drug, boasting that it might save up to 17,000 lives per year. That meant, of course, that as many as 100,000 people may have died waiting for FDA to act —an explosive point, but one that very few journalists pursued."
"if it’s approved in another economically advanced western country, it should be approved here by default."
Approved by... wait for it... a government regulatory agency. And mifepristone is approved in Europe.
Approved by… wait for it… a government regulatory agency.
No sher, shitlock. On both accounts.
If the same faithful Conservative Catholics on the SCOTUS who overturned Roe v Wade last year ban abortion pills this year, fiscally irresponsible left wing carbon banning race bating transgender promoting Democrats will very likely win the White House and House next year, and may even hold onto the Senate next year.
Unfortunately, it appears that theocratic abortion prohibitionists don’t care if they keep electing Democrats.
Why would they? Their goal is to get rid of abortion, not play election politics. Eye on the prize.
For the abortion-fancier, anything short of abortion pills in junior high bathrooms is theocratic fascism. No form of compromise will appease them.
Yeah; People get pretty adamant about owning their own body for some reason.. How dare they! /s
Now do the FDA
The FDA is a Nazi-Rogue agency as I've said many times.
There is NO Constitutional authority for food and drug regulation in the US Constitution.
It's interesting that people who cheered abortion being returned to the states are now trying to subvert the 10th amendment and stop miso/mofo drugs at the federal level.
I’m not sure I see the problem; if these drugs could circulate freely then of course the Post Office, FedEx, etc., will simply send these things into prolife states, undermining federalism – *assuming* that federalism is a good thing with abortion.
But federalism in this context is simply a dead-end position of having no preference whether abortion is voted up or voted down.
https://iusetiustitium.com/little-giant-constitutionalism/
"Alliance Defending Freedom" my arse.
Someone remind me: How did someone get standing to sue the government to not be allowed to sell a pill?
Because they're the right kind of plaintiff, evidently.
But what does their complaint say? In what way does not prohibiting the marketing of the product in interstate commerce hurt them? They can act the same regardless.
They came up with some utterly spurious and speculative rationale dealing with future consequences of having to attend to patients who used mifepristone which Kaczmaryk, the 5thC and the representative of the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith on the SC gratefully accepted.
OMG! How will the [WE] puritan mobsters punish those sluts now? /s
Welcome to the 'new' federal war on drugs.
Get out of the Republican party control freaks. Go join your lefty Power-mad nut jobs.
at least you recognize who the primary consumers of on-demand abortion are...
The abortion dilemma should be easy, but you have two entrenched sides where neither side is reasonable. Childbirth and abortion involves 3 human lives more or less directly and potentially many more superficially.
The three that are more or less directly involved should have some degree of influence over the decision. The claim that this only involves the potential mother is false. The potential father should have some amount influence over the decision although not equal amount of influence.
The potential mother should have more influence because the child is growing in her womb. If the potential father is a rapist or there was incest, the any rights to influence the decision would be forfeited and the potential father should be convicted and jailed.
The other human live that has a vested interest in the decision is the child growing in the potential mothers womb. The reality is that over time as the child is growing the become more viable and consideration of their rights should increase.
It is not reasonable that child can be carried for 8 months only to be aborted moments before delivery. If the child were killed due to a crime, the perpetrator charged with murder. So why is it different if the murder was committed due to an abortion?
The rational resolution to the abortion dilemma is not to outlaw all abortions nor is it to allow abortions at any time for any reason. Roe vs Wade was bad law and should have been struck down. Federal laws such as Roe vs Wade which unnaturally force a position will only foment an equal and opposite reaction.
The decision of exactly where to set the cut off for when abortions should be allowed and under what conditions should not be at the federal level but at the local level. Some states will go too far in one direction or the other, but over time a more reasonable consensus will develop.
Personally I feel that the typical European ban after 12 to 15 weeks is reasonable. Honestly, 3 to 4 months which should be ample time to make the decision. As with any law there will be exceptions or circumstances that may warrant a review of a specific case.
Even under unusual circumstances where the mothers life is at risk, when they are close to term the lives of both the mother and child need to be considered. Doctors should uphold the Hippocratic oath to do no harm which includes both the mother and the child.
It is appalling to be that one side is advocating for eliminating the rights of the child with some going right up to the moment of birth or to not render aid to an abort that didn't succeed and the child lived through it. The very notion that there would not be a limit is sinister and evil.
Likewise it is appalling to me that the other side is advocating for the outright removal of the mothers rights. If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, then an outright ban will fail. Setting a reasonable time limit will sway the majority and the result will be less late term abortion. You attract more bees with honey than vinegar.
All people are human and have different life experiences and circumstances. It is only natural that there would be some differences in opinion as we are individuals. The child in the womb is also human and there should be some degree of consideration over the decision.
It seems you're literally trying to split the baby.
No, he's trying to split the rights of the pregnant woman among several people.
^^^ BINGO ^^^. That's not your pregnancy; That's [OUR] pregnancy! /s
When the “baby” is still just a ball of cells, it is literally splitting.
The three that are more or less directly involved should have some degree of influence over the decision. The claim that this only involves the potential mother is false.
No one makes that claim. Others might have an interest in the pregnancy, but the pregnant woman is the owner of her body, and so the decision about whether to continue the pregnancy is hers alone. If she wishes to consult with the sperm donor, that’s her decision.
The reality is that over time as the child is growing the become more viable and consideration of their rights should increase…Roe vs Wade was bad law and should have been struck down.
But what you suggest is exactly what Roe did: it acknowledged that the state has an increasing legitimate interest in the welfare of the fetus as it passes viability and approaches full term.
It is not reasonable that child can be carried for 8 months only to be aborted moments before delivery.
And that isn’t happening, and won’t.
Republicans *were* wise when they wrote Roe v Wade. A pre-viable pregnancy has no inherent right to life. The problem was it also gave State’s the ability to legislate Women after pre-viable. Where a little POWER is granted MORE is always DEMANDED (by Power-Mad freak jobs). The Pro-Life crowd doesn’t give a CRAP about respecting rights or life else they’d conclude that every woman has a right to —>fetal ejection<— on demand. They care about shoving their self-righteous moral code onto Women who have sex out of marriage.
If you cannot support ?baby? freedom (i.e. fetal ejection)
UR supporting Gov-Gun FORCED reproduction.
The elephant in the room is; That Pro-Life's legislation doesn't even match their concern. They aren't interested in stopping doctors from "murdering" viable ?babies? they're interested in FORCING/punishing pregnant women.
We actually *had* the rational compromise position in Roe v Wade and the bible-thumpers blew it up. Early rights favored the mother's choice, though there were other interested parties, she was given the priority in the decision since its her body that hosts. Late term abortions were not permitted as a matter of course, only in life threatening scenarios. This WAS the most rational decision position; we had the best case scenario out of multiple competing ideals; and it got torpedoed by the radicals.
The compromise was Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992). Roe was abortion on demand throughout a pregnancy. It spoke of allowing States to ban abortion post-viability, but provided a health exception so wide that in truth States couldn't ban it even then. Casey maintained the right, but allowed for alot of regulation under the undue burden standard.
Dobbs threw out all of that. Some States have responded by banning abortion, while others protect a woman's ability to obtain an abortion throughout the pregnancy. No States are interested in bringing back Casey or any other middle ground. Each State is all in one way or the other.
State-owned Women/Wife's... What a grand concept....
My only advice to Women are cut your uterus out and have it send to your State Politicians. If you keep it; the State WILL enslave you for it's usage.
If only progressives and Democrats could be even slightly libertarian about any other issue.
Which [WE] identity-affiliation gang one is part of is far more important than common-sense, liberty and practical justice in today's times.
And that symptom is 100% a reflection of throwing away the USA (US Constitution / principles) for [WE] mobs RULE! (democracy) ideology.
^ This. x1000
The term “pro-life” is a public relations lie and political propaganda, as sexist theocrat Republicans who insist upon banning all women from having an abortion also insist upon executing many convicts.
States that have banned all or most abortions have executed far more inmates than states that haven’t banned abortion.
So stop calling abortion prohibitionists "pro life", because they (except for Catholics who also oppose the death penalty) strongly support (and insist upon) state sanctioned executions of people.
I tend to focus on the difference between the lives of people who are guilty of such serious crimes as first degree murder, and who have been duly sentenced to death, and the lives of people who are not in that category – executing the former is different from deliberately killing the latter, or at least, the burden is on those who deny any distinction.
My reservations about the American death penalty involve cases in which the courts convicted people of stuff they didn’t do.
I’m not so worried about the execution of someone like Ted Bundy.
The abortion-fanciers don’t think they’re being inconsistent if they defend the sanctity of Ted Bundy’s life while being careless of the lives of unborn humans, because they sincerely believe THAT’S TOTALLY DIFFERENT! Outside of the pro-abortion bubble, of course, this difference in attitude in the two situations looks depraved..
“banning all women from having an abortion”
Transphobia! Men can get pregnant and have abortions, too! And some women have penises but not uteruses!
How, then, can it be sexist to protect the unborn from abortion?
I love how you people can talk about protecting the non-existent.
Don’t kill my unicorn!!! /s
My UN-Alive Grandpa needs a lung transplant… It’s only ‘right’ to use Gov-Guns and FORCE someone to donate a lung to save his UN-Alive life…. ???? Geez!!! You only need one of those wtf!… Save my UN-Alive Grandpa…
Too many wouldn't know BS propaganda if it slapped them upside the face.
Yeah, and they also claim to be "pro-liberty," even though they insist upon throwing many convicts into prison. Hypocritical bastards.
Strange how many screaming about "body autonomy" and "women's right to chose their healthcare" are the same ones just a few months ago screeching about vaxing everyone whether they like it or not.
Well when abortion becomes contagious, you let me know.
Try again dumbass.
Next up, forced abortions.
Already here, forced births.
Oh yeah; It's the most hypocritical subject on the political map.
Did someone say 'abortion'... Stop the music! Everyone switch sides.
Welcome to Christian fascism. All these fascists gotta do is shop a case with no standing to an extremist activist judge of their choosing and overrule all manner of science and data with an argument so pathetic a fifth grader wouldn't be caught making it.
“Christian fascism”
You don’t know what either of those words mean.
Neither does she
Is the Supreme Court dominated by a Christofascist majority? Of course.
Abortion is not a religious matter.
It's actually Catholics (The Pro-Life mobs very roots). While it's a christian denomination history shows Catholics aren't very good at keeping politics and religion separate.
The justices granted emergency requests from the Biden administration and New York-based Danco Laboratories, maker of the drug mifepristone. They are appealing a lower court ruling that would roll back Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of mifepristone.
The drug has been approved for use in the U.S. since 2000 and more than five million people have used it. Mifepristone is used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, in more than half of all abortions in the U.S.
https://worldabcnews.com/u-s-supreme-court-preserves-access-to-abortion-pill-mifepristone-for-now/
I may be overlooking some, but I'd still like to see some reasonable posts about the fact that 15-20% of all conceptions end in miscarriage, usually before 15 weeks of pregnancy and very frequently before the woman knows she's pregnant. Half of all miscarriages seem to be due to chromosomal abnormalities. Others seem to be caused by smoking and advancing maternal age. If life begins at fertilization or conception, who's responsible for all these murdered babies? The woman, if she's a smoker or 40 years old? God?
I'd also like to hear what folks think about in vitro fertilization, which must surely be seen as a pro-life choice for infertile couples. Except that IVF most often entails multiple fertilizations, for backup embryos you know, just to be sure. These backup pre-borns are kept frozen until 1) the couple needs one or more to try again, avoiding the costs and risks of multiple ova harvestings; or 2) the couple decides not to try for another pregnancy. Either way, these pre-borns are simply disposed of. Should the couple and the IVF clinic be charged with homicide for murdering these microscopic citizens? Inquiring minds want to know.
I'm trying to remember how old I was when I understood that accidental deaths aren't murders. 6 maybe? 7 tops?
Explain that to the people who want Alec Baldwin to go to prison.