I'm following the NYT's live coverage of the questioning and commentary.
The anti-abortion-rights side has been trying to use the Comstock Act, a statute from 1873 that prohibits the mailing of “obscene, lewd or lascivious” material, to find more creative legal ways to restrict abortion access.
Justice Barrett asks why women should not be required to have in-person visits or ultrasounds before being prescribed abortion pills, to detect whether the fetus has a “heartbeat.” But abortion pills are used only before 10 weeks of pregnancy under the current F.D.A. standard. The question of whether a fetus has a “heartbeat” at that stage is highly disputed. Anti-abortion groups say it does; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology and other medical organizations say the chambers of the heart are not formed until later in pregnancy, so to describe this as a “heartbeat” is medically incorrect.
Jessica Ellsworth, a lawyer representing Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of mifepristone tells Justice Alito that the anti-abortion plaintiffs are “individuals who do not use this product, do not prescribe this product, and have a conscience right not to treat anyone who has taken this product. Those individuals want to prevent anyone from using it in line with F.D.A.’s considered scientific judgment.”
One key moment from the arguments so far: Justice Jackson said there was “a mismatch” between what the anti-abortion doctors are claiming they have experienced and the remedy they are seeking. They assert that it offends their moral beliefs to care for patients who have taken abortion pills, but they are asking the court to impose restrictions on the pill that would drastically limit its availability for all patients. Justice Jackson and Solicitor General Prelogar both noted that the plaintiffs’ objections could be satisfied by a right they already have: federal conscience protections that allow them to opt out of providing care they morally object to.
0
2
well, it's a catholic majority so this is predetermined
0
3
I'm following the NYT's live coverage of the questioning and commentary.
The anti-abortion-rights side has been trying to use the Comstock Act, a statute from 1873 that prohibits the mailing of “obscene, lewd or lascivious” material, to find more creative legal ways to restrict abortion access.
Justice Barrett asks why women should not be required to have in-person visits or ultrasounds before being prescribed abortion pills, to detect whether the fetus has a “heartbeat.” But abortion pills are used only before 10 weeks of pregnancy under the current F.D.A. standard. The question of whether a fetus has a “heartbeat” at that stage is highly disputed. Anti-abortion groups say it does; the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology and other medical organizations say the chambers of the heart are not formed until later in pregnancy, so to describe this as a “heartbeat” is medically incorrect.
0
2
Jessica Ellsworth, a lawyer representing Danco Laboratories, a manufacturer of mifepristone tells Justice Alito that the anti-abortion plaintiffs are “individuals who do not use this product, do not prescribe this product, and have a conscience right not to treat anyone who has taken this product. Those individuals want to prevent anyone from using it in line with F.D.A.’s considered scientific judgment.”
One key moment from the arguments so far: Justice Jackson said there was “a mismatch” between what the anti-abortion doctors are claiming they have experienced and the remedy they are seeking. They assert that it offends their moral beliefs to care for patients who have taken abortion pills, but they are asking the court to impose restrictions on the pill that would drastically limit its availability for all patients. Justice Jackson and Solicitor General Prelogar both noted that the plaintiffs’ objections could be satisfied by a right they already have: federal conscience protections that allow them to opt out of providing care they morally object to.
0
3
Are we now citizens of the USA?
0
2
on the one hand repressive bullshittery is never good
on the other hand, more restriction of freedoms will absolutely decimate the republican party
0
2
hey Marshall, whatever they get away with over there today, the Tories will try here tomorrow.
Ya know, like claiming Khan "seized" power.
1
2
Sometimes that’s true Eddie.
But I don’t think there is any political party in the UK that is seeking to row back on abortion rights in any manner.
So isn’t this just another example of some folks getting a bit too exercised with USA news?
Join the discussion