Supreme Court Revives Abortion-Pill Restriction
Source: New York Times
WASHINGTON In the Supreme Courts first ruling on abortion since the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the court on Tuesday reinstated a federal requirement that women seeking to end their pregnancies using medications pick up a pill in person from a hospital or medical office.The courts brief order was unsigned, and the three more liberal justices dissented. The only member of the majority to offer an explanation was Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who said the ruling was a limited one that deferred to the views of experts.
The question, he wrote, was not whether the requirement imposed an undue burden on a womans right to an abortion as a general matter. Instead, he wrote, it was whether a federal judge should have second-guessed the Food and Drug Administrations determination because of the courts own evaluation of the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic. Here as in related contexts concerning government responses to the pandemic, the chief justice wrote, quoting an earlier opinion, my view is that courts owe significant deference to the politically accountable entities with the background, competence and expertise to assess public health.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, said the majority was grievously wrong. This countrys laws have long singled out abortions for more onerous treatment than other medical procedures that carry similar or greater risks, Justice Sotomayor wrote. Like many of those laws, maintaining the F.D.A.s in-person requirements for picking up the drug during the pandemic not only treats abortion exceptionally, it imposes an unnecessary, irrational and unjustifiable undue burden on women seeking to exercise their right to choose.
She suggested that the next administration should revisit the issue.One can only hope that the government will reconsider and exhibit greater care and empathy for women seeking some measure of control over their health and reproductive lives in these unsettling times, Justice Sotomayor wrote.
Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/us/supreme-court-abortion-pill.html
Tom Yossarian Joad
(19,275 posts)pecosbob
(8,492 posts)and a boatload more to boot!
BigmanPigman
(55,522 posts)Polybius
(22,117 posts)They have a 6-3 majority, if they revisit too soon itll become permanent.
pecosbob
(8,492 posts)We have control of both houses so we can change the law anytime we can get a consensus together.
Mike Nelson
(10,943 posts)... how this would seem, at first glance, like a reasonable restriction. But it is not. Many women may be physically or emotionally unable to pick up medications in person. This could increase suffering...
Lonestarblue
(13,560 posts)And allow women to do telemedicine to get the abortions pills with no restrictions. These cases are ridiculous!
riversedge
(81,529 posts)damn damn.
Robbin Schettini Nolan, CEO
@strongpoweron
·
1h
Replying to
@ECMcLaughlin
Also this shit This is a direct attack on POOR WOMEN. They will have to go back to a medical office for absolutely NO MEDICAL reason. Some states have only 1 location to get this medication.
Link to tweet
?s=20
IsItJustMe
(7,012 posts)SunSeeker
(58,374 posts)
Kick in to the DU tip jar?
This week we're running a special pop-up mini fund drive. From Monday through Friday we're going ad-free for all registered members, and we're asking you to kick in to the DU tip jar to support the site and keep us financially healthy.
As a bonus, making a contribution will allow you to leave kudos for another DU member, and at the end of the week we'll recognize the DUers who you think make this community great.