The Supreme Court said Wednesday it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug — even in states where the procedure is still allowed.

The case concerns the drug mifepristone that — when coupled with another drug — is one of the most common abortion methods in the United States.

The decision means the conservative-leaning court will again wade into the abortion debate after overturning Roe v. Wade last year, altering the landscape of abortion rights nationwide and triggering more than half the states to outlaw or severely restrict the procedure.

  • tygerprints@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    75
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m so sick of this goddamn stupid supreme court shit. Abortion is a woman’s god-given right. And these drugs are the safest and easiest way. Taking them away will ONLY MEAN MORE ABORTIONS THAT ARE BOTCHED BY COAT HANGERS. It WILL NOT stop women from having abortions!! These stupid god damn filthy father fucking pieces of walking god damn dog excrement. I’m so fucking sick of this nonsense!!! There are just no words in the English language that can convey the level of hatred and loathing I feel for these black robed assholes.

    • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      1 year ago

      Abortion is a woman’s god-given right.

      Why has no one argued that rules against abortion infringe on religious liberty? The Bible contains directions for a priest to perform an abortion. In any case, someone could simply claim the law stops them from practicing their chosen faith.

        • tygerprints@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Also ironically (given the current state of christianity) the Satanic church is the only church that is actually accepting of all people and whose love for all people is unconditional. (Yes I do belong myself). I guess I’m a bit prejudiced. But - not against my fellow man at all.

            • tygerprints@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              I know, it sounds weird to say, “hey there fellow Satanist!” I just call myself a BAP (born again Pagan) because “pagan” I think is more palatable to people than “satanist,” they think we run around with knives trying to stab nuns and orphans.

      • The appeals in the two major abortion cases Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade were thought by some to have been taken up prematurely. There were a number of cases that came before those that were honing in on the issue from a gender discrimination standpoint. RBG is one who thought the cases were premature. For example, she had successfully argued that a disability benefit law granting survivorship benefits only to widows was illegally discriminatory against men. She had planned to do the same thing in a challenge to an abortion statute, and thought the Court would strike it down on grounds that it forced only women to carry a child to term after which only the woman had a legal duty to raise and care for the child. Before the Court could consider the argument, abortion statutes were struck down on based on penumbral reasoning, privacy grounds.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        11 months ago

        I think some groups have, I know there are religions where abortion is very much a human right and they are trying to sue their state goverments, but it won’t do any good. We are in the grip of fascism, people - and that can’t be overcome by law suits.

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Because it’s a dumb line of argument. No one in the process should give a fuck what any religious texts say one way or another and it’s not a can of worms that should be opened just because it might be convenient in this case.

    • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. This is the government tyranny that we’re theoretically allowed to have guns to prevent.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do agree that one’s bodily autonomy is nobody else’s business. I don’t think guns will help with government tyranny, they’re more likely to get you locked up and not able to accomplish what you hoped. And clearly in Utah voting doesn’t work either, because only republicans are allowed on the ticket here - you can register as democrat here, but you won’t receive a ballot and there won’t be any candidates to vote for.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Wtf are you talking about? Have you heard of prison? Have you heard of health mandates? Bodily autonomy is not a good argument. Family autonomy is a good argument; legislatures have no legitimate reason to make such highly intimate, family-planning decisions for the public at large or for women only, especially.

      • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        11 months ago

        Also to protect our marijuana\opium fields and colored LGBTQZN (n stands for non-carbon) genetically augmented catgirl\catboy\catbeing\catthing spouses from government overreach with assault rifles, machine guns, howitzers and MRLS`s.

        Ah, well, not everybody is a libertarian.

        • tygerprints@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          I used to be anti-drug use in every way. Now I’m looking for a field of marijuana opoid poppies to go run into and frolic in, like Laurel Ingalls, and then fall face down in and hopefully live in the rest of my life…

          • rottingleaf@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Well, we only have one life, so why not. I personally think of women more than of intoxication in that regard.

            • tygerprints@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              Well as you say we only have one life, so why not? Whatever intoxicates you, who can blame you for needing it and smothering yourself with it in today’s world.

    • EatYouWell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Your mistake is thinking that this position is one of ignorance. They hate women, plain and simple. It was never about a tumor that happens to turn into a human if you leave it alone long enough.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh I totally get that. I even wrote an editorial about the “women hating” so called “justices” of the Supreme court, and it didn’t go over very well here in women-hating Utah. I agree with you on that completely.

      • tygerprints@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Thank you for acknowledging it! And understanding it. If we don’t feel this kind of outrage over this, then I’m afraid we’re doomed to keep having it heaped on us forever. “What the Fuck” should be what we’re asking all these people, and protesting with signs saying it in front of their homes.

    • Buelldozer@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Mifepristone and other abortion drugs aren’t going anywhere. The FDA is being challenged that it didn’t go through its own normal process as it relaxed the rules on prescribing and dispensing them, that’s it. If SCOTUS says that the FDA didn’t then the drugs will remain legal but go back to being somewhat harder to get…until the FDA does follow it’s own rules.

      It’s a stupid waste of time but its not the world ending problem that its being made out to be.