The justices will decide whether to impose new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, and whether a federal law requiring emergency room treatment conflicts with a state abortion ban.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule this month on two major abortion cases with significant nationwide implications as the justices revisit the issue for the first time since overturning Roe v. Wade.
In the other case, which has received less attention but could have far-reaching implications of its own, the justices are considering whether a near-total abortion ban in Idaho conflicts with a federal law requiring emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.
The new cases show that the court’s stated aim of getting out of the business of deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “difficult moral and policy questions” was easier said than done.
The mifepristone case attracted nationwide attention last year when a federal judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling completely invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill, putting its availability in question.
At oral arguments, justices questioned whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the challenge had legal standing simply because they object to abortion and in certain hypothetical situations could be required to give emergency room treatment to women suffering from complications as a result of taking the pill.
While abortion rights advocates are now hopeful they will win the mifepristone case on the standing issue, they fear a loss in the Idaho dispute and insist that such an outcome should not be viewed as the Supreme Court delivering some kind of compromise.
The original article contains 1,105 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court is set to rule this month on two major abortion cases with significant nationwide implications as the justices revisit the issue for the first time since overturning Roe v. Wade.
In the other case, which has received less attention but could have far-reaching implications of its own, the justices are considering whether a near-total abortion ban in Idaho conflicts with a federal law requiring emergency medical care for patients, including pregnant women.
The new cases show that the court’s stated aim of getting out of the business of deciding what conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh called “difficult moral and policy questions” was easier said than done.
The mifepristone case attracted nationwide attention last year when a federal judge in Texas issued a sweeping ruling completely invalidating the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the pill, putting its availability in question.
At oral arguments, justices questioned whether the group of anti-abortion doctors who brought the challenge had legal standing simply because they object to abortion and in certain hypothetical situations could be required to give emergency room treatment to women suffering from complications as a result of taking the pill.
While abortion rights advocates are now hopeful they will win the mifepristone case on the standing issue, they fear a loss in the Idaho dispute and insist that such an outcome should not be viewed as the Supreme Court delivering some kind of compromise.
The original article contains 1,105 words, the summary contains 237 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!