It would have been <i>wild</i> if they'd let this one continue with standing, since this is the case where the people suing were a bunch of anti-abortion doctors whose argument for how they were harmed was that they might hypothetically have to treat a patient whose abortion had caused complications. They didn't give any examples of this having happened. The remedy they wanted was that nobody should be allowed to use or prescribe this drug.
This was a long shot for the plaintiffs, even with this SC, because a ruling for them would have “fucked with the money” in a big way.<p>[edit] not to say this drug is safe from court interference, but they’ll need an angle of attack that doesn’t result in enormous amounts of risk for <i>all</i> drug makers of <i>all</i> drugs if they win—I’m not sure how they’ll manage that.
Link to decision: <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-235_n7ip.pdf</a>
Why did the Supreme Court accept the case in the first place, it's a bit confusing. I guess they are signaling that they are willing to ban abortion drugs if a proper case comes up?
John Oliver still has a million dollars and a brand new luxury RV for Judge Thomas should he so choose to do the honorable thing.<p>Also, Judge Alito should resign given his inability to remain impartial and desire for a Christian theocracy in violation the 1st. a. What a disgrace.
Why is a news article about a 44 year old drug on Hacker News?<p>As far as I can tell this isn't about tech, tech policy, a new medication, a new discovery about an old medication, science, etc. Seems like its just fodder for a political debate that is unrelated to this site.<p>Instead of politicizing HN, why don't you just toot this to your echo chamber on Mastodon?