338

The Supreme Court abortion pill case is based on imaginary patients and shoddy science (www.motherjones.com)

submitted 7 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] Gormadt@lemmy.blahaj.zone 68 points 7 months ago

So just like the website for a queer couple that didn't exist that they ruled on recently?

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 30 points 7 months ago

You'd think standing wouldn't be such a big issue in cases that SCOTUS agrees to hear, it's weird

[-] Schadrach@lemmy.sdf.org 8 points 7 months ago

You'd think, but it comes up surprisingly often, and not always because some right winger is inventing a hypothetical. Remember Texas SB8, the abortion bill with the weird civil enforcement mechanism that explicitly banned any state employee from using it?

The case against it that went to SCOTUS was literally decided on standing - the lawsuit was directed at someone who absolutely could not invoke SB8 and at someone else who had not done so but hypothetically could and was shut down because there was no case and the court allegedly does not rule on hypotheticals but they were free to try again when someone actually tried to use SB8, before going on to rule on hypotheticals in the following years.

TBH, the anti-abortion folks would probably have a much better time going against shield laws, since those are laws literally created to protect companies assisting people in other states to violate that state's laws.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Isn’t that a little different, since the question before the court was about standing?

[-] dirthawker0@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

Yeah, it's entirely theoretical. A medication might have a side effect that is known to be extremely rare, and this might cause a doctor to have to perform an abortion against their principles, so let's just take that medication away from everyone.

[-] evatronic@lemm.ee 12 points 7 months ago

Yes, that's the goal. They'll twist themselves to get there.

[-] SkyNTP@lemmy.ml 36 points 7 months ago

Are we still pretending like the SCOTUS has any legitimacy?

[-] henfredemars@infosec.pub 14 points 7 months ago

I think they're fine with that.

this post was submitted on 25 Mar 2024

338 points (99.4% liked)

politics

19097 readers

5501 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News