News

23259 readers

3455 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

[email protected]

100

Supreme Court signals it is likely to reject a challenge to abortion pill access (www.nbcnews.com)

submitted 7 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

The Biden administration is defending FDA decisions that lifted restrictions on mifepristone, including one that made it available by mail.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appeared likely to reject a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, with a number of justices indicating the lawsuit should be dismissed.

The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, heard oral arguments on the Biden administration's appeal of lower court rulings that restricted women's access to the pill, including its availability by mail.

But during the arguments, there was little discussion of whether the Food and Drug Administration's decisions to lift restrictions on the drug were unlawful.

Instead, the justices focused on whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the lawsuit even had legal standing to bring the claim. The plaintiffs, represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group, argue that the FDA failed to adequately evaluate the drug’s safety risks.

But justices, both conservative and liberal, probed whether the doctors could show that they were directly injured merely because they object to abortion and could potentially be required to give emergency room treatment to a woman suffering from serious side effects.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 51 points 7 months ago (2 children)

But justices, both conservative and liberal, probed whether the doctors could show that they were directly injured merely because they object to abortion and could potentially be required to give emergency room treatment to a woman suffering from serious side effects.

Would that mean a doctor that objects to skydiving has standing to sue skydiving companies because they could potentially be required to give emergency room treatment to someone suffering from skydiving side effects?

[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Standing is a specific legal term that defines whether a party is allowed to sue, and injury is also a legal term in this case. Cornell Law School has a great intro on the legal requirements to establish standing using a 3-part test:

The plaintiff must have suffered an "injury in fact," meaning that the injury is of a legally protected interest which is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent
There must be a causal connection between the injury and the conduct brought before the court
It must be likely, rather than speculative, that a favorable decision by the court will redress the injury.

In this case, seems to be the Supreme Court is skeptical that these doctors have satisfied this 3-part standing test, especially the injury in fact one. If SCOTUS decides that these doctors don't have standing, then the lawsuit is dismissed.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 7 months ago

I dislike when scotus makes standing arguments. It's often used as a way to avoid ruling on merit and avoid setting precedent while getting their desired outcome.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 7 months ago

I am not saying this because I agree with it, but because I know this is the argument the court would make, and I ask that anyone who replies keeps that in mind. The argument would be that skydiving is not a belief or standing of a recognized religion. Thus, abortion violates freedom of religion under the first amendment, but skydiving does not.

Now, that's all stupid because a doctor should have to set aside certain rights, including the ability to discriminate in any way against providing medical care as per their oath, to take the job. There are a variety of other arguments against the stance, but skydiving is not on the same level as abortion when it comes to religious rights. Maybe a Muslim doctor refusing to treat a patient suffering from gastrointestinal distress from eating pork?