Agree. I can’t even stomach Hawley’s image of ‘the emergency room’ as a place where scrubbed-up docs race into operating rooms. And then equating every ‘visit’ with that scenario.
Gracias!
People who don’t believe in vaccines will have difficulty posing as medical experts, IMO.
Married people are (or should be) allowed not to have children. Or, perhaps they can’t conceive. Either way, it’s not really anyone’s business. That, too, is a virtue of being pro-choice.
The terminology used here is always “anti-abortion”. This is not really representative of their position, and frames things in their terms. “Forced-birth” should be used instead.
Ah yes. Restore the full and complete Comstock Act with no exceptions
Dems damn well better campaign on that this year
I think the commenter’s somewhat rhetorical question had to do with the hypocrisy of the pro-natalist position of the right wing. If the Thomas’s don’t want, or can’t have, any biological spawn, that would be their business – except that they demand that who don’t want a child, or have medical complications such that it is dangerous, or who were raped, into forced natalism because of the superstitions that inhabit Clarence and Ginni’s otherwise empty skulls.
Jackson: Don’t We Owe Deference To FDA Expertise?
No. The next time you seek medical attention make sure to contact SCOTUS for a second opinion.
“Meet the Hos.”
From the Guardian, I suspect just the right amount of thought went into choosing that heading.
Jackson: Don’t We Owe Deference To FDA Expertise?
Subtle dig at potential for Chevron deference falling this term?
A smart observation from Steve Vladeck:
So bounced on standing, then…?
With dissrnts from Thomas/Alito with instructions on how to try again?
It’s near impossible to predict what this court is or will be doing.
Maybe Alito will leak a sneak peak early again…
She focused a bit on the lack of an ultrasound requirement to determine gestational age, heartbeat or ectopic pregnancy before prescribing mifepristone. It was a red herring IMHO.
Not so much. A recommendation that Law folks and Medical folks stay in their lanes.
So bounced on standing, then…?
I don’t see why these docs don’t just assert they are harmed simply by knowing that women are out there having sex w/o being forced to endure God’s Full Judgement on women*
*For the 5 people commenting here who are eager to scold this comment as uninformed, /s
“Standing on what ifs” sounds like a riff from a rock song and not an argument in front of SCOTUS.
6-3, no standing.
With a big side order of “will y’all knock it off with this sweeping overreach stuff already, you’re making us look bad”, possibly?
Expansion may not be needed if Congress simply made the DC Court of Appeals or some other Court the final say. Congress has the ability to limit the court’s jurisdiction. (Conservatives often brought that up during the same sex marriage cases.)