Unanimous Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge
A "desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue," wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Court's opinion.

It's been a whirlwind year or so for mifepristone, part of a two-drug regimen commonly prescribed to induce abortions and one whose legal status was thrown into question by an Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (AHM) lawsuit. But a Supreme Court decision released today puts an end to the uncertainty (for now), ruling that the group did not have standing to bring the case.
"The plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone. And FDA is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything," noted Justice Brett Kavanaugh in the Court's opinion, which was unanimous.
"Rather, the plaintiffs want FDA to make mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain," pointed out Kavanaugh. "Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff's desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue. Nor do the plaintiffs' other standing theories suffice. Therefore, the plaintiffs lack standing to challenge FDA's actions."
Mifeprex, a brand-name version of mifepristone, was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2000. The AHM and four doctors challenged both this initial approval and the FDA's later approval of generic equivalents, as well as the FDA's more recent loosening of rules for their prescription.
In 2023, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled in the group's favor, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit only upheld his ruling with regard to the prescription policies, not approval of Mifeprex or its generic equivalents overall. The Biden administration and Mifeprex maker Danco Laboratories appealed the 5th Circuit's ruling, which brought the matter to the Supreme Court case before us today.
"We are relieved the Supreme Court didn't take this bait, but unfortunately we know that this is far from the end of the line," Jennifer Dalven, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. "Although the Court refused to allow these particular people to bring this case, anti-abortion politicians are waiting in the wings to attempt to continue pushing this case before an extremist judge in Texas in an effort to deny people access to medication abortion care."
Some have argued that if the AHM and the specific doctors in this case lack standing to sue, no one will have standing to sue.
"It is not clear that no one else would have standing to challenge FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone," wrote Kavanaugh. "But even if no one would have standing, this Court has long rejected that kind of 'if not us, who?' argument as a basis for standing.…Rather, some issues may be left to the political and democratic processes."
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
Disappointing. This court clearly needs more wingnuts.
Now do the 2nd amendment.
I believe the ATF's authority has just been trimmed on a 9 - 0 vote.
Miscarriage of justice?
Good. I haven't had a chance to read this decision, but I recall following it when it was in the 5th Cir.
The religious nutbags (and doctors) who fund these suits and set up shop/their practice in locations specifically for venue related reasons (to get the judge they want to hear their bs cases) can fuck right off. Prof Blackman talks about forum shopping as a both sides/all sides do it thing (which is true)... but wonder if he has anything to say about this more extreme version of it over at Volokh.
Hey Mr not an attorney, I'm sure you're just as outraged in cases where the left does this such as in their climate lawsuits and settle and sue practices.
If you think thisnis the extreme version youre dumber than I thought.
The primary issue in this case was FDA not following their own statutory guidelines. If you read up on the case you would know that.
Keep in mind, some people go to law school to become an activist.
Fair.
The 'alliance' set up shop specifically in the district to get/file suits in front of 'their guy.' Venue can be manipulated and is by plaintiffs in many contexts. But setting up permanent shop specifically in a district knowing you will always get the 'right' judge is something somewhat unique.
The fact that their guy got reversed 9-0 because the whole argument was stupid doesn't seem to register for you d-bags.
You still haven't made a legal argument on the merits outside of standing Mr not a lawyer.
The APA was clearly violated. Your tribe utilized multiple APA violations to go after Trump regulations. So your care for the law doesn't seem to matter, your politics do.
This is similar to the Ga petition from democrats that went after the voter protection laws and utilized a guy who admitted in court he could easily get an ID to gain standing.
Youre not a lawyer.
A lot of reality doesn't register with these douche bags.
This ruling should of stated the obvious.
The FDA is a treasonous UN-Constitutional Agency.
Decision is here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf
A very clear and well-written opinion by Kavanaugh.
Kacsmaryk can fuck right off.
Not a fan of standing, especially to the level Kavanaugh stated. His decision stated courts don't have to identify potential people that could have standing. This rule is often used to dismiss suits against the executive agencies that are clearly in violation of the laws they operate under. Courts even use standing to dismiss lawsuits generated by states and congress members.
In order to dismiss on standing the courts should identify potential standing as a means to execute who could initiate a charge against an unlawful action by the state.
One example of this is the extreme difficulty in challenging Bidens student loan bailouts. Most of the suits against this clear handout of taxpayer money have been dismissed on standing. It is a lazy way for courts to dismiss issues they don't want and protects clear violations of the state.
Fair points - it seems ridiculous that any arm of the government, Federal or state, can do something that runs counter to law, constitutional or otherwise, yet there's no practical remedy to stop them. On the other hand, not requiring standing would open up the floodgates (though that's not a proper legal rationale). And if you are not personally affected by some government action, should you really be allowed to sue?
FWIW Roberts particularly seems a fan of standing requirements - possibly because, as you say, it lets the courts duck or punt.
And in this specific case, standing was clearly remote, if not actually pretextual. "We might have to work harder and may get a sad if we have to treat women with adverse effects of mifepristone."
In some cases, the violations amount to conflicts between Exectuive and Legislative and courts are notoriously reluctant to interpose themselves.
Why the simple addition of judges identifying potential avenues of standing should be required to dismiss on standing.
I think there needs to be some balance. Yes, you need to have standing, but any interpretation that ends with the conclusion that NO ONE has standing on an act of government is absurd on its face.
On the other hand, I cannot see fault with Kavanaugh's conclusion that this is something outside the realm of the court that would need to be decided by Congress.
So while I'm perfectly fine with a conclusion that it's out of scope, I have my concerns about a judgement based on simple lack of standing.
ditto on the "standing".
Requiring them to list who WOULD have standing seems
like a good and reasonable change. Because it sure seems like no one has standing.
While I'd like to abolish the FDA and the EPA.
They get sued for not following normal procedures all the time ... what's different here?
The US courts don't issue advisories.
Really, it's up to Congress to legislate.
We need a constitutional amendment stating that any citizen has standing to challenge the constitutionality of any law.
You might want to think that through as it would just be chaos for the American court system. Something has no effect on you, but you can sue because you are a citizen. Not a good idea.
That’s partially the point?
Yes.
Allowing unconstitutional laws does affect everyone.
The expense of pursuing a federal lawsuit would limit how often they can happen.
This was probably discussed here before, but how was there standing in the Trump overvaluing lawsuit?
well see you can let the first one expire as long as you tie it to a yet to be determined underlying no I'm sorry I can't even finish this ...
Government has standing to sue. It's rest of us who don't.
Certain governments or certain people in them have standing to sue.
If you're a former President or a Governor suing to get other states to adhere to their own election laws; no standing.
That particular NY law was written stating a victim was not required so was left to the discretion of the state.
Another terrible precedent.
The law may not be a good one, but consider that in almost every criminal case, the state or its agents are not themselves injured, and hence would lack standing under these general principles were it not for the fact that states inherently and automatically have standing in criminal cases.
Victimless crimes aren't something libertarians support shrike.
Standing doesn't effect the state as they have the police power to prosecute, outside of a few conventions scattered through the nation, citizens do not.
Still not shrike, and so you continuing to lie.
We were not talking about political principles but jurisprudence and the fact that states have standing though they not be injured. not whether apparently victimless crimes should be prosecuted (and in general the answer is, no. But as you went there, if someone takes $100 from a cash register, goes to Belmont, backs a winner and gets $500 back and returns the $100 before anyone else finds out anything is missing, should they be held not guilty of any crime?)
Anyone who can form an argument that they can't understand is called a sock of one of the infamous posters. Shrike, whoever that is, is a favorite. They often accuse me of being one of Sarcasmic's sock puppets.
In criminal cases they are representing someone who is a victim.
I was thinking standing only applies to civil cases, requiring standing in criminal cases too seems like a good idea to me. No victim, no case.
That's third-party standing...
Not a fan of standing, especially to the level Kavanaugh stated.
The 'Texas has no standing in the manner in which another State conducts its elections' decision sat in the fridge, aging like fine milk, until CO tried to kick Trump off the ballot for insurrection.
Yes and we saw that in the election challenges.
Yup, in the majority of them. But some judges, recognising the unsatisfactory, if legitimate, dismissing of suits on grounds of standing, then went onto considering the merits anyway, and the plaintiffs lost both ways.
Yes. As seen by multiple judiciaries finding violations of state law. Oh.. wait.
But no judicial finding of fraud.
How is a ballot done outside of legal rules not fraud? They were illegally submitted its as being legal retard.
On top of that they had hundreds of affidavits of voters showing as having voted when under terms of perjury they said they did not.
Ga had thousands of double voters. But that 2nd ballot must not be fraud.
Youre not very smart shrike.
Fuck off, liar, I'm still not shrike.
Fraud is when someone who is not entitled to vote nonetheless votes. When someone entitled to vote doesn't follow legal procedures for voting = at least, you have claimed this - that's not the same thing. Duh. But you need to elide between the two because otherwise your hysterical and overblown claims of fraud simply evaporate. Just as you elide between pre- and post-election cases when counting Trump wins, And of course there's your occasional citing of a random instance of minor fraud as though that was representative of the election overall, rather than the provable exception. I'll bet you thought that the Cyber Ninjas were going to find fraud in AZ.
And all this "evidence" - affidavits, etc. - vanished when submitted to court scrutiny. Some of it because it was outright bullshit, hearsay, etc. and some of it because witnesses unfamiliar with the process and the law didn't understand what they were seeing, whether it was covering windows or pulling out suitcases.
>>does not establish standing to sue
immediate conversation above ^^ notwithstanding (lol) this case shouldn't have been within telescope view of the Supreme Court on justice grounds.
Nor should Kacsmaryk have gone along with the plaintiffs’ arguments.
^^
" American Civil Liberties Union's Reproductive Freedom Project"
That is the one with the totenkopf logo?
Seems like people are already free to reproduce. Seems like the Project has different aims.
Freedom to reproduce also includes the freedom to not reproduce. Just like freedom of religion invludes freedom from religion.
Does the production occur after the magic birth canal fairy signs a form?
"freedom of" vs "freedom from".
You have no freedom from religion.
That's like saying someone has Freedom from Pride Month.
Freedom from Democrats.
Freedom from idiots.
Freedom of religion includes freedom of non-religion.
Yes I do. If congress is to "make no law" regarding the establishment of a religion that means you can't make me join your church. I am free to pursue any religion I wish or pursue no religion at all and there is nothing you can get the government to do about it. You have to burn me on a stake yourself, you can't farm it out.
I am free from pride month. I don't recognize it, celebrate it or give any more of a shit than I already do. No law demands I pay it any more attention than Columbus Day or Arbor Day.
The rest of your points are just stupid.
The reproduction has already happened if there is a fertilized egg….
Mike obviously isn't a scientist.
Ya know like houses are already built once the plans are drawn?
Someone destroyed my house! See - plans! FORCE them to build my house! /s
You know what’s hilarious? I’ve explained my position to you in the past, and you still come at me with shit like this.
There’s such a fundamental difference between the various stages of human development from embryo to newborn and a set of building plans that I have to believe you are being absurd on purpose.
The absurdity is thinking Gov-Guns can force Women to create children. If that wasn't entirely true there would be no excuse not to separate the two (i.e. Fetal Ejection).
You understand the embryo/fetus/baby (whatever stage in development you want to choose) has already been created, right?
And again, I’m not even trying to advocate for or against forced gestation (which is the biological process that abortion stops), I’m just asking people to not use retarded analogies and unscientific bullshit claims like that the (insert preferred term here) doesn’t exist or that the anti-abortion people are calling for forced reproduction/creation.
You do understand you’re trying to sell the idea that…
– “Ya know like houses are already built once the plans are drawn?”
Yes; there are stages. No; that doesn’t make it sensible to say a fertilized egg is a ‘baby’ ... NO; It hasn’t already been created.
Also it can, and in a statistically significant number of cases does, terminate on its own without any medical assistance.
If that fertilized egg is a baby then shouldn't the mother be prosecuted for some kind of neglect? I mean, if you really are crazy enough to believe a fertilized egg is a baby.
Trying to make these two things analogous is Jeff levels of ridiculous. If you wanted to try and make an analogy, DNA would be the blueprint, not the embryo.
Also, If you notice, I very specifically did not just call it a baby, I listed three distinct stages of development (baby being more of a colloquial term for anything between finding out you are pregnant to it turning 1). Because at the end of the day it doesn’t matter what someone calls the goddamn thing, once the egg is fertilized, a separate distinct organism has been created. This is basic fucking biology.
Even if there is a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) somewhere in the middle of the developmental process (which Mxy, is why I have the stance I do, if you had bothered to ever ask. I don’t trust the idiots in government to not swing too far the other direction like some Latin American counties and be charging women for miscarriages), that doesn’t change the biological reality that it was already created through the act of sexual reproduction.
I get it, the woman has sinned by having sex out of marriage and must be punished by an 18 year sentance of parenthood. Yada Yada Yada.
A fertilized egg doesn't have a 100% chance of being carried to term. Sometimes a pregnancy will self terminate. It may be because the woman doesn't eat right, isn't in good health to begin with, has faulty genetics or it can end for no discernable reason. Even if it survives to the third trimester it can die in the womb even if the mother is taking all the precautions. Shit happens. I know a couple that had exactly that happen. She gave birth to a dead body. They even buried the body... in their front yard.... eeeewww....
Do you want to punish all the women who fail to carry to term for accessory to murder or some nonsense? If you mean to be consistent in defending what you think is a human life then why not prosecute them? They are guilty of some kind of neglect at the very least.
Aren't they?
Neat trick changing from 'Reproductive' to 'Reproduce'.
reproductive [adj ] - reproductive organs; relating to the process of reproduction.
Another 9-0 from our deeply divided partisan court.
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-court-gives-starbucks-unanimous-win-longstanding-union-battle
What is that three 9-0 decisions today.
Most divided court ever!
It's almost like being given a lifetime appointment to the court has an effect on the justices to make them consider long term effects of their rulings instead of just making politically advantageous decisions.
Here you have an agency that is both empowered and required by statute to license products for introduction into interstate commerce according to statutory rules that someone who is not being denied permission to do anything complains were not followed. Meaning the agency is more lenient to the people, or a segment thereof, than the legislature allegedly prescribes. Why should anyone be allowed to sue over that? Nobody is damaged by it in anything that's rightly theirs to begin with. Even if the agency completely neglected the law and said, "Everything's legal now," how could anyone be said to be hurt by that?
It doesn't seem to make sense to me at all that someone can sue to be more restrained than otherwise, regardless what the mechanism was by which they were less restrained. And it seems totally evil to be able to sue to make government restrain someone else who's not injuring them. If you want tyranny, that's what elections are for, not courts.
Current precedent requires any major change in the Executive by a derived entity in the Executive to follow rules and procedures for the change. Suing against changes on regulations that did not follow proper procedures is exceedingly common and has been enforced by the courts removing changes for decades. Both parties love violations of procedures to undo changes implemented by the President. The left did this a lot under Trump.
Why this change is excluded from normal jurisprudence is strange.
Under Trump the left even undid regulation changes under a theory of administration animus. Somehow they had standing.
""If you want tyranny, that’s what elections are for, not courts.""
Tell that to NYS's AG.
Even if the agency completely neglected the law and said, “Everything’s legal now,” how could anyone be said to be hurt by that?
Not to defend the administrative state, and not necessarily applicable to this decision, but all those PharmD's can just learn to code I guess.
At least the administration will be more free to forgive their student loans without all the hoops to jump through.
Safe and effective drugs like Mifepristone are the road OUT OF this stupid ass abortion debate. But it's not good enough for the "life begins at the twinkle in his eye" crowd. Disgusting.
I am pro-life personally, but I don't want to see females tossed into prison for being pregnant. This is crazy. Life doesn't begin at sex. Nowhere in the Bible they thump does it say this. It begins somewhere between conception and birth. The point is not to determine exactly when it happens, but what do we as a society do about it?
A safe abortion drug administered early is the a solution that will please the most number of people. It's cheap, it's early, and make it over the counter, and not even the doctor need be involved.
It's a helluva lot more Christian than the coat hanger! Just saying.
Safe and effective drugs like Mifepristone are the road OUT OF this stupid ass abortion debate. But it’s not good enough for the “life begins at the twinkle in his eye” crowd. Disgusting.
ENB has said, for years, that no abortion after 10 weeks is disgustingly inhumane… despite the fact that mifepristone is only recommended out to 70 days (10 weeks) *after last menses*, not confirmation of pregnancy (even though it is effective, with risk, beyond that).
Once again, the issue isn’t and never has been “life begins at the twinkle in his eye” crowd but the utter retards who can’t do math, say “sonograms detect electrical signals”, and hold up artificial “birthing sacks” and say “See no bodies!” like a Nazi showing off a delousing chamber.
The issue isn’t and wasn’t Biblical. It’s inherently existential no matter your religious belief. From both the “When does a person become a person?” angle *and* “When is it OK to allow a person claiming not to be in control of their own faculties visit their consequences, including death, on anyone else?”. The need to ascribe opposition to immorality to Christianity and having the choir sing it back to you has led to the point where Roe was reversed by the most Conservative court the country has seen in decades and you still have to lie… like it wasn’t the same court that made this decision. Your idiotic pathos is rampant and obvious to the point where women are still beaten, subjugated, and stoned in parts of the world and you claim victory for women’s agency not by getting them equal rights but by celebrating the inability of women who are already free and among the most privileged humans ever to walk the Earth to take responsibility for their own actions.
You aren’t fooling anyone with your retardation.
The issue isn’t and wasn’t Biblical
FWIW if it were truly Biblical, abortion would be legal.
So what should be done when a human life in a woman's womb ends because she didn't take her prenatal vitamins? What statute should she be prosecuted under?
You are a clown. A sad, stupid, intentionally ignorant clown.
Pre-natal vitamins are a relatively new thing. Their existence today has no bearing on anything.
If someone drove their car at high speed into a wall with their kids in the back, you'd be asking, "Did the car have airbags?" Like, if they did or didn't that'd have some kind of importance.
No, you retard. The point is: intentionally taking actions that will kill your offspring is wrong.
You came at this candidly and respectfully, so I’m going to do the same and hope you take it as intended.
I am pro-life personally, but I don’t want to see females tossed into prison for being pregnant.
Nobody – not one single woman – would be tossed in prison for being pregnant. They’d be tossed in jail for intentionally killing or trying to kill tiny humans they deem “inconvenient.”
And, honestly, it shouldn’t even be like “go outside and plant a garden” minimal security jails. It should be straight up hard-time prison where they spend the rest of their life in a hole. Ideally, in the deepest darkest levels of it along with the sadistic criminals so depraved that they intentionally targeted kids, the elderly, the handicapped, the retarded – the most vulnerable – for unspeakable abuses and killing.
Because that’s what we’re talking about here, Brandy. Intentionally targeting the most vulnerable. And even if you don’t believe that’s what in utero humans are, you should – and here’s why:
It begins somewhere between conception and birth. The point is not to determine exactly when it happens, but what do we as a society do about it?
Do what we do in literally every other situation on literally every other subject (except death penalty, which is also wrong to support): give the benefit of the doubt to LIFE. When we’re not certain, we err on the side of life. If a guy clutches his heart and drops on the sidewalk, you act in a way that ASSUMES his life and aims to protect it. Heck, we do it even if he flatlines!
Most of us even do this on pure impulse, because it’s so hard-wired into us to protect life. A child in the path of a speeding car. Your neighbor’s house on fire. Most decent people don’t even think before they act, unconsciously doing both a risk analysis and then acting on the conclusion – often putting themselves in potential peril in order to preserve life. And when it’s a parent to a child (especially their child), that risk analysis skews even MORE in favor of preserving life regardless of the peril.
And the reason we do this is because if we’re wrong, if we make a mistake, it’s one we can’t take back. This is made abundantly clear with capital punishment. If we death penalty the wrongly convicted, there’s nothing we can do to fix it. The decision NOT to give the benefit of the doubt to life, to choose certain death instead, is irreversible.
Abortion (and capital punishment) are the only times normal, everyday, dare I say moral, non-sociopathic humans consciously and intentionally desire and act in a way to cause someone else’s death. This is true across every race, creed, and culture throughout history.
And you’ll notice that when they don’t – as an individual or a society – they do the exact same thing you’re doing right here and right now. Dehumanize the target. The Jews are sub-human. The blacks are property. The West are the Great Satan infidels. The illegals are parasites. The convicts are animals that need to be put down.
The babies aren’t human, nor are they babies.
It’s a helluva lot more Christian than the coat hanger!
Wrong. Actually, there’s no distinction whatsoever between the drug or the hanger. The distinction for the Christian is between convincing you of the existence of a better path and taking it, or failing to do so. If the latter is the result, it doesn’t really matter how you end up facilitating the act.
Trying to pretend that one method of killing a tiny human is “better” than another is a disingenuous attempt to play at emotions, or rationalize the act as somehow “tolerable” because it was “less dangerous” for the person who committed it.
A safe abortion drug administered early is the a solution that will please the most number of people.
That utilitarian, ends-justify-the-means mentality has been a part of every atrocity that has ever occurred in human history. The abortion atrocity is in no way an exception. Hitler, Stalin, the Inquisitors, the Khmer Rouge, the slaver traders? They’re putting up rookie numbers compared to the lol pRo-ChOiCe abortion supporters. Heck, they’re giving ‘ol Genghis and Mao a run for their money.
And you know the worst part? With every advance in medical science and technology, the so-called “line” between human and not-human folks want to draw when it comes to the in utero is, the former is flat out demonstrable and that “line” is pushed back further and further. We’re going to come to a point, in the very near future, where it’ll be undeniable.
And then every single person who ever committed abortion, or even supported it, is going to have a LOT to answer for.
Hence why “give the benefit of the doubt to life” is the best course of action. Not just because it’s our default setting, but because it carries the least risk of actual harm. And that’s far more important than “pleasing the most number of people.”
All the best.
I will say I'm thankful it was at least unanimous. At least the Supremes were willing to get together and know that they have to compromise and agree rather than split partisanly.
This is the worst Handmaid Tale’s court evah.
They thought Dobbs was going to be a cake walk. When the backlash hit, they were not prepared. Now Alito is considering if they continue down this path is there going to be mob of pixie-cuts with flamethrowers outside his house.
If they had the hindsight and a time machine, I wonder would they still pull the trigger ?
They shouldn’t be making judgements based on fear of the mobs actions. That’s some banana republic type shit. (Also that’s why I laugh my ass off when leftist go on about right-wing extremism.)
And Dobbs was the right call.
How's that? Because Alito said so? What Constitutional justification was used? That the slave-states had authority to violate the Bill of Rights because the 14th Amendment doesn't really exist?
Because Roe was a shitty decision on ridiculously shaky constitutional grounds? I mean, RBG even acknowledged that Roe was not a great decision.
As morally repugnant as slavery is, I think it’s safe to say that until passage of the 14th, the states absolutely had the power to allow/disallow slavery. I’m not sure how you figure gestating a fetus is slavery but somehow it stops being slavery after it’s out. Is that where your eviction/ejection idea comes from?
“Is that where your eviction/ejection idea comes from?”
Indeed it is. If Gov-Guns aren’t forcing her to procreate then why wouldn’t she have the option to stop procreating? (i.e. Fetal Ejection). If she’s not being ‘enslaved’ then set her free from mandatory reproduction.
And once again; calling it names doesn’t make it a bad ruling and compared to Alito’s “because I say so” it’s actually golden in comparison.
Or as I've said many times before.
FREE the Woman and the ?baby?.
NOT enslave the Woman and the ?baby?.
Since ‘freeing” the woman means putting the baby to death, do not pretend you are doing the baby any favors.
What you have said before is logically incoherent with atrocious grammar.
Real babies don't die; just imaginary one's people make-up in their heads.
Course everyone is entitled to have their own beliefs; they're just not entitled to push those beliefs on others with Gov-Guns.
They shouldn’t be making judgements based on fear of the mobs actions. That’s some banana republic type shit. (Also that’s why I laugh my ass off when leftist go on about right-wing extremism.)
Specifically the opposite. Like any man and his fists, a woman has a right to swing her uterus around right up to the point of a bloodying a fetus's nose, the general fact and underlying principles being true for uteruses or fists, pixie cuts be damned.
Pitchfork wielding mobs declaring broad impunity to use their fists bloody peoples' noses because some people getting punched in the face have some moral legitimacy? Fuck that noise.
This was a rejection on standing, which means the merits of the case were not even looked at. So there was no judgment on what the FDA did with mifepristone and the regulations surrounding it was within its statutory authority. Potentially, ENB is celebrating a rogue executive agency not being held to obeying the law because she likes the practical outcome in this specific case as the current administration are her fellow pro-abortion extremists.
"Some have argued that if the AHM and the specific doctors in this case lack standing to sue, no one will have standing to sue."
That is correct. Standing is just a way of courts to ignore doing their job. Article III says nothing about standing. This is a case and controversy, some just don't want to deal with it so they make up the ridiculous concept of standing (and its partner in crime mootness).
Someday we can get rid of it.
If the court was to do their job they'd rule the FDA UN-Constitutional.
Yup, but that would be too big of a shock, so they just continue to do their job.