Supreme Court protects access to abortion pill

The Supreme Court protected access to a widely used abortion drug by freezing lower-court rulings that placed restrictions on its usage. CNN’s panel of reporters and legal analysts break down the significance of the ruling. #CNN #News


    1. They are still the same individual’s who overturned Roe creating barbaric treatment of women in different states.

    1. @Eduardo Oliveira so you agree the court ruling was stupid and the supreme court was right to suspend it.

  1. At least they stayed consistent with the states rights premise, since allowing one single state’s judge to deny access for the rest violates that.
    Wish they were consistent with bodily autonomy, after all they let deadly disease spread so as to not inconvenience anti vacxers.

  2. They need to Legislate that Judges retire at age 70 and are appointed on ten year terms. By appointing on terms instead of life, Judges will stop making Decisions based on religion and moral views as they will fear not getting another Term by a Democrat President

    1. @paladro What makes you think that electing SCOTUS judges will produce results any better than electing the president and Senate who nominate and confirm them?

    2. @Secher Nbiw Yeah, and even if you just changed it so that they could only serve a single 10y term, they would then spend their entire term serving the interests of whatever corporation they hoped to score a cushy job or speaking engagement at after their term was over, like Congress and the president do already. There’s a reason why SCOTUS judges still get a fat salary after their retirement, but that wouldn’t be enough if justices were leaving office with 30+ years of their life to live rather than 5.

    3. ​@Boxing Sense No. It isn’t. Not everything is ideological. Having an idea is easy. You can change an idea. Whereas a belief is far trickier to alter. People also have their own beliefs, points of view, either guided by parental upbringing or some religious doctrine and that’s okay. Judges who force said beliefs on others by using their interpretation of the law rather than what the law really is, that’s not ok. They need to separate their beliefs from written law. Those on the Right do this for more often claiming on one hand they want smaller government so long as it stays out of their business, while on the other hand using government to ban books, deprive women of choice and prevent a certain group of people from voting all because they believe that it’s the right thing to do even though it’s not. It’s never right to deprive someone a right to choose what happens to their own body simply because you don’t agree with their desired decision. It’s never right to ban knowledge just because you don’t agree with the literature. Finally, it’s never right to stop a specific group of people from voting because they don’t vote your way and you believe they’re wrong. It’s one thing when every day people do this but when it’s judges, that’s a completely different matter.

  3. YESSSSS!!! Well done, Supreme Court. There may yet be hope for America’s judicial system.

    No surprise at all that Bribery Coast Thomas and Shame Alito dissented.

    CONGRATULATIONS to the reproductive rights and the women of America 🎉🎊🍾🥂🍷❤

    BUT . . . the fight is far from over. Stay vigilant and vote these scoundrels out.

    1. It’s literally a stay for less than a month..

      I’m sure on an appeal they will reject the appeal… they already almost killed not wanting to stay

  4. So it took about two weeks for the Supreme Court to logically conclude they cant condone a federal decision after they said about abortion: leave it to the state, still 2 justices can go against that and its not definitely settled yet. Glad its all so simple and clear on the other side of the pond

    1. They haven’t agreed to that at all..

      They just agreed to stay to allow appeal.. when it comes to them on appeal they will probably reject appeal.

  5. It’s rather convoluted to say the states can decide, but we’re also going to let a federal judge decide for the whole country.

    1. What they’re saying is the FDA approves drugs not state judges. Who knows, perhaps a state judge will want to ban birth control pills or Viagra next?

    1. If we give Democrats a supermajority they will codify the right to choose. Too many Republicans in the house and senate. Democrats need to vote in lockstep since Republicans vote in goosestep.

  6. This is actually surprising. Supreme court should still, however, get expaned into 2 – 4 additional SCOTUS courts, each with the same number of justices, all of them limited by term limits. This would add a randomness to what SCOTUS hears a case where some SCOTUS courts could be conservative and other liberal, while allowing the court to hear more cases faster, plus limiting each justice to a set termthat can be revoked if they start acting like C. Thomas.

    1. If they did, I guarantee Republicans would do the same once/if they ever get back into powers, and use the previous expansion as a precedent.

    2. @Nyghtegale let them.
      pretty soon we’ll have 50 justices and maybe then republicans would learn the lesson.

  7. Politicians and Judges shouldn’t practice medicine without a License. And No to big brother and big government control over people’s rights to bodily autonomy.

  8. I can hear the rivers of tears flowing down the cheeks of the Religious Right, and I love it.

    1. 100% agree, are they protesting children as young as 12 being married off with parental consent? That, I would like to see.

  9. It all boils down to big pharma. The drug makers did not like it when a random mad judge playing chemist unilaterally decides to take one of their money-making products off of the market. And since conservative justices are pro-business first, they had to give in to their corporate overlords, regardless of their religious/ fanatical convictions. What a dilemma it must’ve been for the likes of Alito, et al! The sweat that must’ve trickled down their foreheads! Like that meme with the two red buttons.

  10. The only reason it took a little while is that Harlan couldn’t give his instructions to Clarence by normal channels. Those might be under a bit of scrutiny. It just took a few cutouts and some planning …..I’m sure Harlan and Clarence apologize for the delay and wish that if folks would just stop looking into such things they would be more than happy to streamline the process again.

  11. With this new ruling, I highly encourage a bar complaint being filed against Texas judge Matthew Kacsmaryk who imposed his own personal and religious convictions over the people of Texas and the reckless precedent he attempted to set for the rest of the country following said rulings. Religion and state conduct are kept separate for this very reason. His personal beliefs do not dictate everyone else’s simply because he holds judicial power. Kacsmaryk threw himself with his own weight as his ruling will forever be yet another blemish on the pro-life prospective argument, and his career. As long as they are allowed to continue bending the rules to get their way, it’ll never matter to them unfortunately.

    1. “Religion and state conduct are kept separate ” I must have been living under a rock. This has never been true.

    2. @Jerry Olson Separation of state and religion is exclaimed heavily in the bill of rights, you should take a gander some time. This is why the judge’s particular ruling is a major issue and why I pointed it out as such. Unless you get off on your rights being stomped all over of course. It must not be true to you because nowadays half the country prefers to use our founding Bill of Rights as toilet paper instead of the outline of moral Do’s/Don’ts that every American is entitled to, (hence “BILL OF RIGHTS”), that it is. You should hold your judicial leaders to higher standards than this, Jerry.

  12. SCOTUS has said abortion decisions need to be from those voted in by the people, not the courts. Continuing that belief, a court cannot rule to take away abortion medication. Not to mention, a court doesn’t have the medical knowledge to second guess the FDA or physicians prescribing this medication.

  13. They only reason they did this was order to not attract more heat and scrutiny. Although the outcome is very positive it nevertheless shows how little these privileged people can be trusted

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.