Legal expert Leah Litman discusses the Supreme Court case challenging abortion medication access. Justices question standing of anti-abortion doctors. Other headlines include a tragic bridge collapse and a gag order against Trump.
Justices questioned anti-abortion doctors' standing in Supreme Court case, raising doubts on their relevance.
Expanded Mifepristone access and FDA regulations challenged by doctors reflect potential impact on abortion rights.
Deep dives
Supreme Court's Abortion Case & FDA's Regulations on Mifepristone
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a significant abortion rights case concerning the availability of Mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. FDA regulations were discussed which expanded access to Mifepristone by allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to prescribe it, extended its usage period, and removed the in-person pick-up requirement. These changes facilitated telemedicine prescriptions and increased medication abortion accessibility across the US.
Challenges to FDA's Regulations on Mifepristone & Standing Issues
Anti-abortion doctors challenged the FDA's expanded regulations on Mifepristone, arguing for a rollback to pre-2016 rules. The concept of standing, the legal right to bring a case, was pivotal in the Supreme Court argument, with justices questioning the doctors' relevance in the case. Skepticism arose from both liberal and conservative justices regarding the doctors' standing and the validity of their claims.
Implications & Responses to Abortion Regulation Challenges
The legal challenge to abortion regulations focused on future injury likelihood and doctors' standing. The contrast between past cases granting standing with hypothetical injuries and the current challenge was highlighted, emphasizing the doctors' attenuated connection to the law. Proposed remedies and lack of scientific data supporting the doctors' claims led to judicial skepticism, indicating potential implications for future abortion rights cases.
The Supreme Court justices on Tuesday seemed skeptical of a case that challenged expanded access to the abortion medication mifepristone. It was brought by anti-abortion doctors looking to roll back access, but during oral arguments both liberal and conservative justices questioned whether the group had the right to bring the case, a concept known as standing. Leah Litman, co-host of Crooked’s legal podcast Strict Scrutiny, explained why the justices kept coming back to the issue, and what it could mean for the court’s final decision.
And in headlines: Six construction workers are presumed dead after a bridge collapsed in Baltimore, former Republican National Committee Chair Ronna McDaniel got the ax from NBC News, and a New York judge issued a gag order against former President Donald Trump in his criminal hush-money trial.
Show Notes:
What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcast
Follow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/
For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday
Get the Snipd podcast app
Unlock the knowledge in podcasts with the podcast player of the future.
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode
Save any moment
Hear something you like? Tap your headphones to save it with AI-generated key takeaways
Share & Export
Send highlights to Twitter, WhatsApp or export them to Notion, Readwise & more
AI-powered podcast player
Listen to all your favourite podcasts with AI-powered features
Discover highlights
Listen to the best highlights from the podcasts you love and dive into the full episode