WASHINGTON, D.C. — A national organization is reacting to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 9-0 decision to keep a popular abortion drug on the market.
Family Research Council Senior Fellow Chris Gacek spoke to The Flag’s Scott Hennen this morning about the 9-0 decision, which allowed Mifepristone to remain on the market. The challenge, presented by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, called for the drug to be pulled due to alleged safety concerns. A 2018 study into the one-in-25 statistic shows half of that number were hospitalized purely for observational care.
The court ruled the group who brought the suit forward did not have standing, but kept the door open for alternative suits to be seen.
An excerpt from the U.S. Supreme Court Ruling
In any event, and perhaps more to the point, the law has never permitted doctors to challenge the government’s loosening of general public safety requirements simply because more individuals might then show up at emergency rooms or in doctors’ offices with follow-on injuries. Stated otherwise, there is no Article III doctrine of “doctor standing” that allows doctors to challenge general government safety regulations. Nor will this Court now create such a novel standing doctrine out of whole cloth.
Consider some examples. EPA rolls back emissions standards for power plants—does a doctor have standing to sue because she may need to spend more time treating asthma patients? A local school district starts a middle school football league—does a pediatrician have standing to challenge its constitutionality because she might need to spend more time treating concussions? A federal agency increases a speed limit from 65 to 80 miles per hour—does an emergency room doctor have standing to sue because he may have to treat more car accident victims? The government repeals certain restrictions on guns—does a surgeon have standing to sue because he might have to operate on more gunshot victims?
The answer is no: The chain of causation is simply too attenuated. Allowing doctors or other healthcare providers to challenge general safety regulations as unlawfully lax would be an unprecedented and limitless approach and would allow doctors to sue in federal court to challenge almost any policy affecting public health.
The ruling can be found by clicking here.
