Based on nearly two hours of oral arguments on Tuesday, a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court justices appear skeptical of the plaintiffs’ arguments in the case seeking to ban the FDA-approved abortion drug, mifepristone, which would have implications for Black and marginalized communities.
The justices questioned whether the plaintiffs, Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine, had “standing” to bring the case – or, in other words, proof of injury – against the Federal Drug Administration and Danco Laboratories LLC, which is the pharmaceutical distributor of the abortion pill.
While questioning the plaintiffs, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said she was concerned there “is a significant mismatch … between the claimed injury and the remedy that’s being sought.”
Jackson argued that the injury the plaintiffs allege is a “conscience injury that they are being forced to” carry out abortion procedures when they oppose taking part in the medical practice.
The plaintiffs, anti-abortion doctors, contend that the court should either place a nationwide injunction or new restrictions on mifepristone to prevent them from being forced to treat abortion patients in emergency situations. However, federal law already grants doctors an exemption to opt out of providing abortion care.
U.S. Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, told theGrio the case should have never “made it past summary judgment on the trial level.” The Texas lawmaker said the plaintiffs “have not been aggrieved or actually harmed to be able to bring this suit.”
Crockett believes the court will rule against the anti-abortion doctors because of their “very sloppy” presentation and lack of evidence to support placing new limits on the abortion pill.
Julia Kaye, senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union Reproductive Freedom Project, agrees with Crockett, telling theGrio that if the high court were to rule in favor of the anti-abortion…
Read the full article here
