US abortion pill access could hinge on whether doctors had right to sue
www.reuters.com
A prominent U.S. lawsuit to ban the abortion pill mifepristone has focused on the drug's safety and approval process. But the outcome may ultimately rest on a different issue: whether Ingrid Skop, an anti-abortion doctor in Texas, and other physicians behind the lawsuit can justify suing in the first place.

A prominent U.S. lawsuit to ban the abortion pill mifepristone has focused on the drug’s safety and approval process. But the outcome may ultimately rest on a different issue: whether Ingrid Skop, an anti-abortion doctor in Texas, and other physicians behind the lawsuit can justify suing in the first place.

  • Jon-H558@kbin.social
    1·
    1 year ago

    Even Ginsburg admitted Roe was shaky ground

    (I mean she knew how easy it would be to strike down)

    • girlfreddy@lemmy.ca
      1·
      1 year ago

      … Ginsburg’s criticisms of Roe generally had to do with pragmatic and political concerns, rather than saying it was outright wrong. And far from wanting to leave this decision to the states, as Friday’s decision does, she repeatedly sided with the idea that abortion was a constitutional right. She had preferred that right to be phased in more gradually and that it rely more on a different part of the Constitution — the right to equal protection rather than the right to privacy, the basis of Roe. from here

    • QHC@kbin.social
      0·
      1 year ago

      There really hasn’t been enough (any, from what I’ve seen) blowback on the Democrats for not pro-actively defending a woman’s right to body autonomy. There was a chance to frame this in a way that would be appeal to the personal liberties crowd on the right, and there were plenty of opportunities to push for a legal backup.

      Considering the GOP spent my entire lifetime with abortion as its primary PR weapon (until racism made a surprise comeback to take the top position in 2016), it’s crazy that Dems didn’t see the weakness of Roe as a real threat that they needed to get in front of.

      Abortion is and has been incredibly popular in general, but like always the Dems were scared of pissing off the right even though they will be portrayed as evil commies no matter what they do.

      • DevCat@lemmy.world
        2·
        1 year ago

        In the last 50 years, the Democrats had two instances when they had a filibuster-proof majority. One of those was under Carter, who was very religious. The other was a couple of years under Obama. So, there was one missed chance.

        • QHC@kbin.social
          1·
          1 year ago

          So the Dems could only pass laws they support one time in the last 50 years? That’s an absurd argument.

          When is the last time a Democratic candidate or elected representative promoted legislation to legalize abortion? Not just talk, not just campaigning as pro-choice. Actual action of any kind. Compare that to the number of times a Republican did the opposite. Whether these actions were plausible to succeed is irrelevant.

          Democrats coasted on the free PR without actually doing anything to ensure this very important right was protected.

          • DevCat@lemmy.world
            0·
            1 year ago

            I said, “filibuster-proof majority”. There was only one time that they could pass something without at least the cooperation of the republicans.

            • QHC@kbin.social
              1·
              1 year ago

              Again, so what?

              You seem to be suggesting that the only thing a political party should talk about are things it can accomplish immediately and unilaterally. That’s not how politics works and never has been.