The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

The case concerns the drug mifepristone that — when coupled with another drug — is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.

The decision means the conservative-leaning court will again wade into the abortion debate after overturning Roe v. Wade last year, altering the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and triggering more than half the states to outlaw or severely restrict the procedure.

  • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    48
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Ask the FDA. What authority does it have to regulate most things.

    Edit: so, they don’t have authority to regulate women’s abortion choices, but do have the authority to regulate every other part of your medical decision?

    Fuck that. You want an abortion? Get one. A joint? Go nuts. Experimental cancer meds? I wish you well.

    Your medical choices should be between you and your doctor, not you, your doctor and a legislature.

    • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The FDA is not in the constitution.

      It explicitly has authority from the government to regulate things.

      A panel of judges assigned in duty by the constitution is not given its authority from the same body as the FDA.

      If you do not understand why youre comparing apples and lemons, you should leave the conversations to the adults.

    • NoSpiritAnimal@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The Executive Branch is empowered to carry out the law as interpreted by the Judicial Branch and mandated by the Legislative Branch.

      The FDA is assigned by the executive, empowered by congress, and subject to legal oversight of the courts.

      There are many laws that give the FDA authority, for instance the Food Safety Act of 1906.

      There is nothing that gives the supreme court the power to review medication approved by medical professionals.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        1 year ago

        I understand that. I was criticizing their view knowing they’d apply it to abortion, but nothing else.

        Lemmings want the fed all up in their shit, except when they don’t.

    • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Guys. This commenter sounds Libertarian-esque to me. In this case, individual bodily autonomy, Libertarians are on our side.

      Some the other ideas however . . .

        • loopedcandle@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yeah. And when it comes to this one issue, Libertarians and Liberals are pretty much on the same page. Maybe different reasons, but the same page.

          The government can fuck off and has no say in my medical . . . well anything.

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Fuck yes we are. Christians showed up at our last libertarian convention to tell others to support freedom. Libertarian kids took up armed security for the protests. We won in Kansas.

          • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Well, the medical rights you imagine support abortion should also support a lot of other medical rights. I chose the FDA because they do things like tell cancer patients they can’t try experimental medications.

              • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                These were terminal cancer patients and oncologist recommended, but it looks like we’ve made some effort to fix it. They have a “Right to Try” act program now, so that’s neat.

                I think quacks should be able to be sued into oblivion by their patients victims.

    • Cethin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I agree with most of your comment, but regulation to ensure safety also has its place. That said, I mostly agree it should still be available, with a warning about safety.

      • PsychedSy@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’m not really commenting on that, to be honest. I’m not a huge fan of many regulations, but I only get worked up about the ones that fuck us.

        Roe v Wade had a standard that was applied nowhere else and it’s frustrating nobody thought to back it up with law.