Future Retirement Success
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks
  • Politics
  • Business
  • Investing
  • Stocks

Future Retirement Success

Politics

In abortion pill arguments, Supreme Court justices seem skeptical about FDA accountability experts say

by March 27, 2024
March 27, 2024
In abortion pill arguments, Supreme Court justices seem skeptical about FDA accountability experts say

The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard arguments challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) relaxed regulations on a widely prescribed abortion pill, and while legal experts say that the case could be tossed due to a lack of standing, the justices appeared skeptical of the idea that the FDA could face no liability. 

Erin Hawley, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, argued the case on behalf of a group of doctors challenging the FDA’s loose access restrictions on mifepristone. 

While the justices seemed skeptical that the doctors had standing to sue, they did seem to take issue with the lack of accountability for the FDA for any harms caused by the abortion pill.  

‘It’s quite troubling. It’s one thing to say no one has standing in a taxpayer case where it affects everyone. Here you have the FDA who’s not publicly accountable at all really, and has continually deregulated mifepristone. So I think that will be something the court really struggles with,’ Hawley said. 

Justice Samuel Alito at one point questioned Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar, arguing for the FDA. 

‘The statement was made that no court has ever previously second-guessed the FDA’s judgment about access to a drug,’ he said. ‘It’s never second-guessed that? Do you think the FDA is infallible?

‘So your argument is that it doesn’t matter if FDA flagrantly violated the law or didn’t do what it should have done, endanger the health of women,’ he said.

‘It’s just too bad, and nobody can sue in court?’ he pressed. 

Thomas Jipping, senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said that Alito’s questioning may have revealed his thinking on who has standing in such a matter. 

‘If you take a view of standing that results, not in these plaintiffs cannot sue, but no one can sue, maybe your view of standing is kind of misguided in the first place.,’ he said. ‘That was an interesting one.’

‘Sometimes justices ask questions, not only just for an answer on a specific legal question, but kind of they ask questions that are related to a train of thought, something that they’ve been considering,’ Jipping said. 

‘Maybe they’ve been talking about with their clerks sort of thinking out loud. And that was clearly one, that for Justice Alito and the Chief Justice. was the significant one,’ he added. 

This post appeared first on FOX NEWS
0
FacebookTwitterGoogle +Pinterest
previous post
Biden concedes to pro-Palestinian protesters after multiple interruptions: ‘They have a point’
next post
The power of a negative review

You may also like

House Republicans privately worry about political fallout of...

September 6, 2024

JUST IN: White House Extends Student Loan Repayment...

November 22, 2022

Dem senators rip GOP’s ‘Silence of the Lambs’...

April 29, 2025

BREAKING: Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro Refuses to Concede...

November 2, 2022

Pompeo slams White House after report about Iran’s...

July 31, 2024

House passes new rules for Congress as McCarthy...

January 10, 2023

Physician governor urges Capitol Hill to block RFK...

January 7, 2025

Chaos breaks out after anti-war protestors booted from...

March 1, 2023

Kansas man convicted of threatening to kill US...

January 20, 2023

Virginia Democrat Plans Bill To Charge Parents Who...

October 14, 2022

    Get free access to all of the retirement secrets and income strategies from our experts! or Join The Exclusive Subscription Today And Get the Premium Articles Acess for Free

    By opting in you agree to receive emails from us and our affiliates. Your information is secure and your privacy is protected.

    Recent Posts

    • Harmony Squad: Supreme Court Issues Six Unanimous Decisions

      June 5, 2025
    • Quick Login to AmourFactory: A Beginner’s Guide

      June 5, 2025
    • Disabling Trump’s “Tariff Button”

      June 5, 2025
    • ‘Sick puppy’ Tim Walz should never have been on Dems’ 2024 ticket, Trump says

      June 5, 2025
    • Federal judge orders Trump to restore funding to Clinton-era agency gutted by DOGE

      June 5, 2025
    • Musk says Trump would have lost 2024 election without him as ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ feud continues

      June 5, 2025

    Categories

    • Business (8,149)
    • Investing (2,011)
    • Politics (15,535)
    • Stocks (3,128)
    • About us
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms & Conditions

    Disclaimer: futureretirementsuccess.com, its managers, its employees, and assigns (collectively “The Company”) do not make any guarantee or warranty about what is advertised above. Information provided by this website is for research purposes only and should not be considered as personalized financial advice. The Company is not affiliated with, nor does it receive compensation from, any specific security. The Company is not registered or licensed by any governing body in any jurisdiction to give investing advice or provide investment recommendation. Any investments recommended here should be taken into consideration only after consulting with your investment advisor and after reviewing the prospectus or financial statements of the company.

    Copyright © 2025 futureretirementsuccess.com | All Rights Reserved