SCOTUS Dismisses Abortion Pill Mandate Case, Upholds Religious Liberty

[mystery-ak]

SCOTUS Dismisses Abortion Pill Mandate Case, Upholds Religious Liberty

Ken Klukowski 13 Jun 2024 Washington, DC

WASHINGTON, DC – Pro-life doctors lack standing to challenge Biden’s abortion pill mandate, the Supreme Court unanimously held Thursday — but paved the way for Republican-led states to challenge the mandate — and the decision is a win for religious liberty, affirming that pro-life doctors cannot be forced to participate in abortion.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2016 and 2021 — under Democrat Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden — relaxed regulatory access to mifepristone, an abortion drug that can be taken to cause an early abortion.

In a 9-0 opinion, the Supreme Court held that the pro-life doctors lacked standing to sue and thus did not decide whether or not the regulation is illegal.

“Several pro-life doctors and associations sued FDA, arguing that FDA’s actions violated the Administrative Procedure Act. But the plaintiffs do not prescribe or use mifepristone. And FDA is not requiring them to do or refrain from doing anything,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh began for the court. “Rather, the plaintiffs want FDA to make mifepristone more difficult for other doctors to prescribe and for pregnant women to obtain. Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.”

“The threshold question is whether the plaintiffs have standing to sue under Article III of the Constitution,” the unanimous opinion noted. “Article III standing is a bedrock constitutional requirement that this Court has applied to all manner of important disputes. Standing is built on a single basic idea — the idea of separation of powers” in the Constitution.

more
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2024/06/13/scotus-dismisses-abortion-pill-mandate-case-upholds-religious-liberty/

[PeteS in CA]

Here's the part of the article relevant to the latter part of the article/thread title:

Then the opinion shifted gears, delivering a significant win for religious liberty regarding EMTALA, which is the federal law requiring emergency rooms to provide medical care with regard to the patient’s ability to pay. The pro-life doctors here expressed concern that the abortion pill mandate could force them to give these pills in the ER.

“EMTALA does not require doctors to perform abortions or provide abortion-related medical treatment over their conscience objections because EMTALA does not impose obligations on individual doctors,” the court decided. “We agree with the Solicitor General’s representation that federal conscience protections provide broad coverage and will shield a doctor who doesn’t want to provide care in violation of those protections.”

The ruling wrt standing is disappointing, but the EMTALA part of the decision will make very unhappy states trying to force on doctors a choice between performing abortions or ceasing to practice medicine.

[Bigun]

I'm thinking that this opinion is an overall win for the pro-life side.