What Happens to the Abortion Pill After Dobbs?

A Dispatch explainer.

By
189

When the the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved the abortion medication mifepristone in 2000, prominent conservatives worried it might lead to an increase in abortions. 

“I think the FDA’s decision to approve the abortion pill RU-486 [mifepristone] is wrong,” then-candidate George W. Bush said at the time. “I fear that making this abortion pill widespread will make abortions more and more common, rather than more and more rare.”

Fortunately for pro-life advocates, Bush’s fears only came true in part. While mifepristone itself has become more and more common—accounting for a majority of U.S. abortions by 2020—abortions overall have become more and more rare (albeit with an uptick during the Trump administration).

Regardless of where those trends go in the future, the Supreme Court’s June 24 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturning Roe v. Wade will focus more attention on mifepristone in America’s ongoing conflict over abortion.

Start a Free Trial
Get every newsletter and all of The Dispatch. Support quality, fact-based journalism. Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
189
By
Comments (189)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Ron Croxton

    Oops, it appears you don't understand the Strawman Fallacy. In that fallacy, you take down an argument that the other side isn't making.
    Seth, your side IS making the argument that there should be no rape exceptions and women shouldn't be free to travel or make other decisions. That IS your side's argument. You are trying to counter with what I call The Policeman Fallacy. "A few bad apples don't represent... *grumble-grumble*"

    I'm sure it's very helpful to distance yourself cognitively from the dirty work of the Pro-life movement by saying it's a vanishingly small minority, but it also has to be a lot of work. To believe that a teeny-tiny sliver of the people on your side hold the State Houses in what? 14 states? And have for decades so that trigger laws stayed on the books? Did all those legislators steal their elections? Are we talking about Trump-delusion level voter fraud in America such that this many people could get elected without representing any sort of majority? Is that your assertion Seth? That a couple of letters from moderates is a better measure of the common pro-life stance than 150+ elections in multiple states?

    But, I know. YOU didn't do that. YOU aren't responsible. So maybe you can't answer all that. But you can answer this, and I'd love to read it: How do YOU plan to stop this fringe minority that has magically captured so many positions of power in America and is about to commit atrocities in your name? Plan to vote on this issue?

    Collapse
  2. Ron Croxton

    “chemical abortion is consistently and progressively associated with more postabortion ER visit morbidity than surgical abortion.”

    Okay, so a pro-life group published this as a finding, because they are unserious. But then the Dispatch quotes it as if it is a finding? Is The Dispatch also unserious?

    Medications taken at home result in more ER visits than procedures done at clinics by doctors. In other news, water is significantly wetter than dust.

    Pro-life (and pro abortion) researchers are going to spin data to make it seem to support their priors. I expect, and in fact PAY the Dispatch to not report that sort of spin as fact.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Pat Riot

    "Regardless of what President Joe Biden decides, the end of Roe’s national standard means the bulk of the abortion fight will take place in the states."

    This last sentence seems to contradict the rest of the article: the Federal government will take *center stage* in sussing out the big mess happening between the states.

    RvW's overturn was built on many different lies, and one of them could be titled, "leave it to the states". That was *never* going to happen, but Republicans had to lie that lie in order to make their voters feel confident that abortion abolition would never affect *them personally* since they lived in a blue state or could always travel to another state of they needed to.

    Now Republicans need to defend our country having *border controls* around states in order to keep women trapped inside. That's where their logic leads and has always lead.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      There are a few things that should NOT be "left to the states." Women's human right to body autonomy is one.

      Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Magpie

    Very good explainer. Thank you for this article.

    Collapse
  5. daniel

    maybe we bring back lysol induced abortions, not very safe but hard to regulate lysol. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/12/the-things-we-cant-face/600769/

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Kmregan7

      Those will happen. It's going to be different now, with advances in knowledge and medicine, but poor women especially will still be desperate and will try anything to not be pregnant.

      Collapse
  6. Bubba

    The FDA has legal authority to prevent the sale of misbranded or adulterated products in interstate commerce.

    It does NOT have the authority to mandate their availability.

    "Rather than being seen as an inherent right of an individual, the ability to practice of medicine in the United States is considered a privilege granted by the government of a state acting through their elected representatives. "

    https://www.fsmb.org/siteassets/education/pdf/best-module-text-intro-to-medical-regulation.pdf

    Collapse
  7. Avatar photo
    Rjosephpaquette

    The pills are cheap, easy to get, and easy to take. The directions are available all over the internet.
    There will still be abortions--just the government won't know about them.
    The pro-life movement lost sight of it's goal a long time ago.
    Instead of trying to reduce the number of abortions; they simply sought to create prohibition against them. Prohibition is a failed way to control human behavior.

    Added for clarity: In this case I'm referring to a prohibition by pro-lifers to a ban on all abortions after conception.

    Collapse
    1. Mathew A

      "Prohibition is a failed way to control human behavior."

      Agreed. Which is why we shouldn't outlaw crimes where there are no victims. Say drug use, prostitution, gambling etc

      However, it still makes perfect sense to outlaw actual crimes with a victim, even though the prohibition probably won't change human behavior. Say murder, theft etc.

      Abortion falls under the 2nd category because of the killing of the unborn baby (excepting in cases of life of the mother of course, then it's self defense)

      Collapse
      1. Kathy Kattenburg

        "Abortion falls under the 2nd category because of the killing of the unborn baby (excepting in cases of life of the mother of course, then it's self defense)"

        The first part of your statement is not at all morally clear, and the second part begs the question, since self-defense usually requires a free and unblocked decision by the person defending herself, and that does not exist when the government decides what constitutes self-defense.

        Collapse
      2. Pohl

        I think we’ve discussed this before. That “exception” is NOT properly called self-defense, which implies the baby is an attacker. The baby cannot be directly killed to save the mother as if she were just wielding a knife against a home invader. Important distinction here.
        I’ll add that I support saving the life of the mother when it’s in imminent jeopardy. It should just be characterized properly. And it’s still not a case where anything goes. It seldom is.

        Collapse
        1. Kathy Kattenburg

          "I’ll add that I support saving the life of the mother when it’s in imminent jeopardy." Then you don't support saving the life of the mother. That's not flippant. It's the truth.

          Collapse
          1. Pohl

            That doesn’t follow from my remark. Acts that result in the death of the fetus can’t be undertaken when the life of the mother is only threatened by some remote possibility is all I asserted. This is what’s usually implied anyway. I was merely clarifying to try to avoid any misunderstanding.

            Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        When does the unborn become a human life--that's the crux of the debate that everyone keeps dancing around. Very few Americans think that's at conception. Very few Americans think that's at birth. Most of us are perfectly happy with a ban after the first trimester (I am).

        Collapse
        1. Kathy Kattenburg

          That's why because it's a process, not a moment. And a ban at 12 weeks is no different from a ban at 24 weeks. The first simply assumes that 13-week-old fetus can live outside a human being's body, and the second recognizes that it cannot.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Rjosephpaquette

            Yes it’s a process. But law requires a moment. For me, and most Americans a reasonable ban on elective abortions is between 15 and 20 weeks.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          There are probably people who don't believe some people of any age are human beings worthy of life and respect.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Rjosephpaquette

            I don’t know if anyone who thinks legal personhood starts later than birth. There might be some extremists on the dark web.

            Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      Was the goal of the abolitionist movement merely to reduce the number of slaves? Should it have been?

      Prohibition is a poor way to control human behavior, such as social drinking, in which the vast majority of humans wish to participate. However, I've never met even a pro-choice advocate who claims to actually want an abortion, or who views it as a positive good. (Hence the name.) We will see what prohibition does in such circumstances, especially if other options can be provided.

      In the end, I think a national compromise legislation will be worked out, and pro-lifers and pro-choicers will each have to accept half a loaf. Yet even that will contain some form of prohibition, after a certain date and with some rare exceptions, and it would not be unreasonable to expect that prohibition to work as intended, just like all the other prohibitions found in our laws.

      Collapse
      1. Kathy Kattenburg

        "Was the goal of the abolitionist movement merely to reduce the number of slaves? Should it have been?" Fetuses in an unwanted pregnancy are not slaves. The girls or women with no money or friends who are forced to carry the pregnancy in their bodies are the slaves.

        Collapse
      2. Kathy Kattenburg

        "We will see what prohibition does in such circumstances, especially if other options can be provided." If you're talking about adoption, it's already provided, & highly unaccessible for most people who cannot afford to spend unlimited amounts of money. The only other option I know to having an unwanted baby is having an unwanted baby.

        Collapse
        1. Kathy Kattenburg

          And yes, that last sentence is as I wanted. There is no option to having an unwanted baby when abortion is illegal. Except an illegal abortion, of course

          Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        When I was referring to prohibition, I was referring to the total ban on all abortions after conception. That will never work.

        We still have age limits, amount limits and other checks on alcohol use.

        Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      Dusty

      The pro-life movement is responsible for launching thousands of pregnancy care centers. I really wish people would get away from the sweeping generalizations on this issue.

      Collapse
      1. Kathy Kattenburg

        Women who are pregnant or newly delivered from pregnancy need more than diapers, pregnancy tests (the most amusing of all "helps" offered), and references to social services that Republicans and most of the unpaid staffs of pregnancy centers are simultaneously working to eliminate.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        And some of those thousands, perhaps even the majority, didn't help much, shamed women, lied to women, etc. I'm not going to say all of them were bad. But many were and they didn't even address the actual problem: unwanted pregnancies.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          You're right.

          Collapse
      3. Avatar photo
        Rjosephpaquette

        I am referring to those who wish to ban all abortions after conception.
        I think that prohibition would fail.

        Collapse
      4. Avatar photo
        Olympus Mons

        Those centers are full of deception and lies. They misrepresent themselves, often hide their true intentions, and blatantly lie to women who go there.

        https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/why-crisis-pregnancy-centers-are-legal-unethical/2018-03

        Not exactly a benefit to the cause.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          AnnaA

          They most certainly are. Coincidentally, this was in today's Houston Chronicle
          https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Houston-crisis-pregnancy-centers-labeled-17293156.php?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=HC_AfternoonReport&utm_term=news&utm_content=headlines&sid=5b02311f2ddf9c12eae99bcb

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          Yeah, I find this (very common) talking point to not only be untrue but highly insulting to women. It suggests that in an era where no one even buys a cheeseburger without first checking the place out online that women will not be able to figure out that the place they're going to either does or does not offer abortions. Or, if they are duped, that they'll get there and be too weak to walk out. I'm quite familiar with CPCs, and all of the ones I've seen pretty clearly state what they do and do not offer on their website - you know, like pretty much every other business or institution with a website. Which is all of them.

          Now, sure, some are better than others and there's a wide range of quality and quantity of services. But again, that's true of anything else.

          Nope, rather I find the objection to them to be the very thing that I get into above - an attempt to discredit pro-lifers because otherwise one might have to admit that most of them actually have pretty consistent philosophies and values and live them out.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Aylene Wright

            I actually would really appreciate a Dispatch article delving into the pros and cons of CPCs.

            There's a giant gap between the way left leaning media depicts them, which is almost universally negative, and the way right leaning media does, which is almost universally positive.

            The most recent mainstream media description was the article in WaPo of Brooke the pregnant teenager, really naively going to a CPC just to get an ultrasound not knowing the people who ran it opposed abortion, and being given information that exaggerated the risks of abortion.

            But, in the conservative media, even prolifers such as David French and JVL who are quite critical of the more political side of the prolife movement, have nothing bad to say about CPCs.

            But it seems some CPCs do at least exaggerate the risks of abortion, but I really have no idea how common the practice is. Also unclear exactly what resources they provide. It seems only a few actually have doctors available onsite, although I understand some do provide referrals to OBs in the region.

            Pro-choice sources tend to depict them as focused on coercing women into giving birth and just throwing a few diapers and used baby clothes at them on the way out.

            But I have also heard anecdotes of some centers offering help and support for years after the baby is born, even as far as 8 years out.

            This is certainly a realm where reporting from TD would be helpful.

            PS: Another complaint I have heard is that some CPCs are run by Christians who not only pressure their clients into continuing their pregnancies, but heavily proselytize as well. But again, I have no idea how common that is.

            Collapse
      5. Avatar photo
        Mudskipper

        Reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies would have been even a better goal, yes? So why wasn't there full-throated advocacy for getting LARCs to every woman who wanted them?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          There is even a tiny implant a woman can get in her arm that prevents pregnancy for 3 years. It's expensive, butif women could get it free, then you would almost all abortions.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            AnnaA

            I agree it should be free! And accessible. And accompanied by proper, reliable information and education. Particularly at school. How many girls are too scared to ask their parents? I asked my obgyn once how early she sees girls, and she said she met many women for whom the first visit didn't happen until they were pregnant, or well into their 20s. That's an anecdote, not data, but it is a fact that TX GOP has the prohibition on all sex education in schools as part of their agenda. Who's going to explain the contraception to those kids? Social media?

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          DougCLE

          Um, because condoms and the Pill are cheap and readily available? Because lots of women have a problem with a semi-permanent chemical implant being inserted into their arm?

          If you're asking if I would have a problem with it, as one of those "anti-contraception Catholics", then the answer is no. I think it's a perfectly fine way of reducing unplanned pregnancies. But it's not my arm (or my utsa, in the case of an IUD) it's being shoved into, and I'm all about "personal bodily autonomy" when it's only one person we're talking about.

          On the plus side, teen pregnancies - which are as good a stand-in for "unplanned pregnancy" as you are likely to find - are down to 15 per 1000 births as of 2020, vs. a temporary peak at 62 in 1990, or the all-time high of 96 in 1957. Presumably whatever contraception it is that people are choosing to use is actually working.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            Condoms and the pill have one big drawback: they require diligence and reliability on the part of the user.

            That's why LARCs do a much better job than any other contraceptive in reducing unwanted pregnancies. But they cost more up front and not every woman who would want them can put out that kind of money.

            "Because lots of women have a problem with a semi-permanent chemical implant being inserted into their arm?" "But it's not my arm (or my utsa, in the case of an IUD) it's being shoved into, and I'm all about "personal bodily autonomy" when it's only one person we're talking about."

            Ahem. To quote myself:

            "So why wasn't there full-throated advocacy for getting LARCs 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆 𝘄𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗻 𝘄𝗵𝗼 𝘄𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺?"

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Dusty

          Here comes the motte and bailey.

          Assertion: “The pro-life movement is all about prohibition, not about being pro-life.”

          Answer: “The pro-life movement has done all of this to support mothers that doesn’t have anything to do with prohibition.”

          Response: “But that’s not how I would’ve done it!”

          This has been a routine tactic on these forums from the pro-choice side. 1) Make the assertion that the pro-life side isn’t about what they say they’re about (protecting life), but is instead about restricting women 2) When presented with evidence contradicting the thesis in 1, retreat to asserting that it’s not enough or not the best way or whatever.

          It’s also a slight of hand. Because the first argument is to attack the *intent* of the pro-life movement. Then, when presented with contradictory evidence, it then switches to attacking the *effectiveness* of the pro-life movement, which they then attempt to conflate as the same thing.

          This is usually seen when people, in ignorance, accuse Texas of wanting to restrict abortion but not wanting to expand Medicaid or fund support for mothers. And they’ll bring up those exact two topics. Then they’re told that, actually, Texas did expand Medicaid and approved hundreds of millions of dollars in funding to support mothers. That’s when they switch to the “well that’s not enough!” despite the fact that their original tactic - attacking the intent - turned out to be completely wrong. And not even wrong in an interpretive way, but just a blatantly wrong on the facts in that Texas did the *exact* thing that you said they’d do if they actually cared about life.

          I really feel that many pro-choicers here want to fight against the caricature of the pro-life movement that they have in their head and not the pro-life movement as it actually exists. And I get it. The oppressive caricature is a much easier opponent than the reality. It’s why I see many posters here who I otherwise respect continue to assign the worst motives to the pro-life side and fight strawmen as opposed to dealing with the actual arguments and facts. This is also seen in the political and economic wishcasting that is devoid of any actual analysis.

          And while what happens here is mild and tame to what happens elsewhere, it’s still disappointing and exhausting.

          Collapse
          1. Ron Croxton

            This is some excellent straw-man work.
            "When presented with evidence that Nazis made the trains run on time, anti Nazis retreat to talking about the concentration camps."
            Well, yes. Because it doesn't matter what else the pro-life side does if one of its primary goals is to send men with guns to the house of a 10 year old victim of molestation and force her to bear the resulting child.
            Let me stress that. It. Does. Not. Matter.

            You want a Motte and Bailey? David French has said himself there were fewer abortions in recent years than in the years leading up to Roe. Yet, David and the pro-life movement have fought to overturn Roe because even as that data comes out of one side of their mouth, the other side is saying that legal abortion is wrong. The best way to prevent abortions isn't prohibition and the experts on the pro-life side know it. They say it. So why do they want it?

            I can say that I think that at their core, they want to punish women they consider immoral. I believe that, but it doesn't make it so. Still, if a movement's states goal is to reduce abortions and you aren't pursuing the best way to do that and instead pushing the "men with guns" solution, I believe you need to explain why. No Bailey. Stand on the Motte and deliver.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            rlritt

            Well, see here is where we differ. I have a friend (really) who had a very successful business career, and was a staunch Republican. She was involved with a jerk, and didn't want children. During her on again off again relationship, she got pregnant twice. She had 2 abortions. She never regretted them. She would not have had the slightest interest in some do-gooder trying to help her. As a Republican, she would have hated any government interference in her personal business.

            Collapse
          3. Avatar photo
            Phil H

            My favorite fallacious "pro-choice" argument is that, "Abortion is needed for women's equality!" The problem is that in any pro-life event or protest I have ever attended, at least half the pro-lifers are women. The founder of March for Life, and its current leader, are women. Women are very active in pro-life work. Clearly, they don't believe their "rights" are taking away by being pro-life.

            Collapse
          4. Avatar photo
            Mudskipper

            Actually, Dusty, you changed the nature of the argument being made here. TexDoc's statement was "Instead of trying to reduce the number of abortions; they simply sought to create prohibition against them." You restated his argument as: "The pro-life movement is all about prohibition, not about being pro-life.” Notice you added the bit about "not about being pro-life."

            Then you proceeded to call me out based on the presumption that I was arguing that pro-life people were not really pro-life. But that's not what I said, was it?

            What I said was simple and, I believe, to be true: if you want to reduce the number of abortions that best way to do that is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Yet the pro-life folks have not chosen to make that their focus. Why? I don't think it has anything to do with the fact that they aren't really pro-life, but I do think it has a lot to do with sexual morality and other related issues.

            Edited to add: Perhaps you have forgotten a previous comment I made in which I said quite clearly "I don't doubt that there are very many wonderful, sincere pro-life people. I'm in awe of people who open their homes to foster and to adopt children. They are better people than I am. And I'm sure there are many people who provide much needed care and support to pregnant women."

            Collapse
          5. Avatar photo
            Aylene Wright

            I agree with most of this. Unfortunately it seems the go-to tactic by pro-choicers here, to attack pro-lifers as religious fanatics who hate women and at best, don't care if they suffer and die if denied abortion, and at worst, actually WANT them to die, etc.c

            Although some fringe pro-lifers may indeed have such base motivations, I also find it puzzling and frustrating that so many pro-choice people posting here automatically go into ad hominem attack mode against pro-lifers. I have no problem accepting that a lot of people sincerely *do* view this as an issue of the right to life of the unborn.

            But I think I should also point out that the pro-life side also often rushes to demonize pro-choicers. I don't want to pick on Andrew Egger too much here, because he usually is not a (rhetorical) bomb-throwing type, and I do give him credit for, in past tweets about this issue, consistently blaming the men in these situations as well, I certainly don't think he's a misogynist.

            But he recently quote-retweeted some pro-choice Tweeter who was stating that outlawing abortion wouldn't stop people from having sex, with a comment that paraphrased the position as "we have not the power not to make the baby, so we need the power to kill the baby".

            Pro-lifers, believe me, accusing the other side of wanting to kill babies is not going to result in anything but defensiveness and anger. Most pro-choicers sincerely don't believe that a fetus is equivalent to a born baby. There are a few who do openly state that they do think abortion kills babies, or at least kills fetuses, but they find that to be justifiable due to bodily autonomy reasons. But that's not the main argument.

            This is why I tend to stay out of these discussions. No one is really debating the main topic, of "is the fetus a person with a right to life", instead most of the debate goes "it's obvious the fetus is an X, the only people who sincerely think it is a Y are wild eyed fanatics".

            PS: Now, many pro-choicers will define "X" as "clump of cells" and "Y" as "baby". Pro-lifers, the opposite. Yet allowing all abortion and banning all abortion are both fringe.

            Collapse
          6. Avatar photo
            David Chen

            Dusty, I always appreciate your posts on abortion even though I'm on the extreme of the opposite side.

            Collapse
          7. Avatar photo
            David Chen

            Even as a pro-choice extremist, I must say that this is so well said. I can both prefer abortion to be available and concede that if it wasn't, I would rather a CPC be available than not. Its like the people who attack this couple willing to adopt a baby:

            https://reason.com/2022/07/07/the-troubling-meaning-of-the-we-will-adopt-your-baby-meme-wars/

            Even if one doesnt like the policies that led to the need for couples like this, it is barbaric to attack them for willing to adopt a child.

            Collapse
          8. Avatar photo
            Seth Higgins

            Dusty, I couldn't agree more. I see straw man arguments all the time that prolifers don't care what happen to the child and mother after birth. Meanwhile, largely invisible to the press conservative leaders have been thinking of new ways to give social support to families (Romneys plan to send direct financial assistance to mother's starting in the 3rd term), expand educational access and choice, and improve housing affordability through zoning deregulation. It fails to confront the prolife movement's actually arguments and priorities.

            Collapse
  8. Duane Truitt

    Constitutionally, interstate commerce is preempted by the Federal government, so a State cannot ban the importation of or use of a drug that is regulated Federally by the FDA, in accordance with Federal statutory law.

    Of course the red states will challenge this in Federal litigation. While the present makeup of SCOTUS is anti-abortion, it would be a very difficult bit of judicial ju jitsu for them effectively nullify both the Federal law regulating drugs and their distribution and use, as well as to effectively nullify the preemption clause. I don't know how they could pull that one off, but with the determined ideologues who now make up the majority of the panel and who completely ignored the 14th Amendment in their Dobbs decision, I would not be shocked if this panel did not attempt to do that.

    Of course, an un-Constitutional ruling by this court is appeals bait for a later court that is not so ideologically committed to ending abortions - though that may take decades to carry out.

    Collapse
    1. Ingenero.lux

      And California’s ban on the importation of USDA certified animal products (eggs, meat)? The restrictions of the same state on sale of automobiles that meet the regulatory requirements of multiple federal agencies? The restrictions of the same state on importation of a myriad of items into the state that lack state-mandated labeling despite meeting all federal regulations (food, hardware supplies, more)? California-specific import restrictions on gasoline blends that meet all relevant federal standards but not California’s? If we’re going to do this, California is going to suddenly have to accept massive changes to state laws that restrict interstate commerce - and I’m sure there are other examples, but I lived in CA and the restrictions were quite obvious and became more so as time went on. I’d also be curious as to how long state Marijuana laws would last in court under a regime that dictates the FDA’s rules are controlling - and before you discuss that as intrastate commerce, I’ll note the ruling in Wickard indicates that’s no defense.

      It will be fascinating to see how long it takes people to realize that the legal claims they make in one area can (and certainly will) quickly be turned against them in others. Or how long it takes them to realize they already have made precedent which they now are trying to counter.

      Collapse
      1. Duane Truitt

        What you are talking about are instances of Federal law that specifically delegates certain authorities to regulate at the state level. Impeding interstate commerce where the Federal government has not preempted state control can be Constitutional. Impeding interstate commerce where Congress has asserted preemption is a totally different matter.

        Congress preempted state regulation of distribution and use of medical drugs and medical devices via its creation of the FDA. So states cannot assert authority over drugs and medical devices.

        There are other examples of this effect. States cannot regulate air travel or airports - the Federal government preempted that authority with creation of the FAA and its predecessor, the CAA. Where states and local governments from time to time have tried to exert such authority over aviation, lawsuits resulted in overturning all such attempt to usurp Federal authority. Ditto with regulation of the production and distribution of food products, again, Congress preempted such regulation with creation of the USDA.

        Where Congress has not yet asserted preemption, or in cases where Congress specifically authorized states to regulate certain matters, then the states may do so. Most of the Federal authorities having to do with regulation of water and hazardous substances have been delegated by Congress to the states, provided the state has enacted suitable laws and created suitable enforcement agencies. Congress has also authorized states to impose more stringent air pollution laws, however they are not authorized to regulate pollution that crosses state lines. So CA can have tougher emissions controls on vehicles or products with internal combustion engines sold in CA but CA cannot refuse entry into CA of vehicles not meeting those standards from other states. Whether manufacturers decide to adopt only the tougher CA restrictions, or separate their product lines between CA compliant and non-CA compliant, that is the manufacturer's choice.

        Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      The Republican justices effectively repealed the 14th Amendment in Dobbs in service to the abortion abolitionists, so I wouldn't put anything past them.

      We are in a new era of the Supreme Court where it's now 100% political. RvW was decided by 7 justices who were all confirmed almost unanimously by the Senate. It was overturned by lying Republican justices who were placed there using scorched earth tactics and narrowly confirmed by a simple majority.

      Thus Dobbs will be overturned and RvW reaffirmed when the Democrats get a slightly stronger majority, and so forth (e.g. expanding the court).

      People need to get their heads around the *new* idea of the Supreme Court in the USA. Now they are just politicians. All of the old rules need to be thrown out.


      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        DougCLE

        "The Republican justices effectively repealed the 14th Amendment"

        This is somewhat fraught even for you, Pat. Finding that a right that is nowhere expressed or implied in the text of an Amendment is therefore not guaranteed by that Amendment is not the same as repealing said Amendment.

        Seems to me that the SC being just another set of malleable politicians is exactly what we're finally getting away from. And if that's not the case, if what you say is true, then why aren't you happier? A SCOTUS that gives the other two branches what they want, when they want it, and screw what the Constitution actually says, is just what progressives have always hoped for.

        Collapse
        1. Kathy Kattenburg

          "Finding that a right that is nowhere expressed or implied in the text of an Amendment is therefore not guaranteed by that Amendment is not the same as repealing said Amendment." But it IS implied. Implications can be ignored when they are inconvenient.

          The fact is that none of our rights, stated or unstated, are protected -- or, they are protected until the governing authorities decide to stop protecting them.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Disagree that it's implied, but your second paragraph is pretty universally true.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          rlritt

          I don't belive that's true.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            Don't believe what's true, rl? I said a lot of stuff.

            Collapse
        3. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          So ruling that an amendment does not protect the rights it says in plain english it protects isn't repealing it? Well I guess you are *technically* correct...

          Today's SC was put there by a twice impeached president by breaking every norm there was to break and then confirmed by a simple majority of Senators representing ~44% of Americans. This is not the same kind of Court we had before. Ever. Now it's just the "Republican Supreme Court", and Democrats will only change it to the "Democrat Supreme Court should they get a slightly stronger majority".

          You can't compare how the Court acts today to the way it used to act.



          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            DougCLE

            "ruling that an amendment does not protect the rights it says in plain English it protects"

            Yeah... you're gonna have to show your math on that one.

            As to the rest, I don't dispute that three of the six majority were put there by a much-hated President and confirmed by a simple majority of the Senate, but I don't recall anywhere in the Dobbs decision where they said, "Our decision rests on the popularity of the former President and the number of citizens represented by the GOP Senators," do you?

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Patrick

        Is your last paragraph what you *want* to happen further? Or what you *predict* to happen further? Or both?

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          I definitely don't *want* it to happen, but that's the state of things--and it's a *terrible* state.

          We have *never* had a Court so politicized and polarized (in terms of how they were nominated and confirmed) in the history of our country. Never.

          This necessarily must change the way we think about SC and the way it rules.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Patrick

            You say it’s not what you want, but you are hell-bent on pointing it out as an inevitability at every turn. That’s a weird way to try to turn the ship around.

            If it’s truly not what you want, you might consider whether your comments are helping improve things or deepen the divide.

            Collapse
    3. Avatar photo
      DougCLE

      I don't believe a state can ban importation of a federally legal product, but it can ban or put limits on the usage of that product. For example, states cannot ban the sale of cigarettes across state lines, but they can control whom they are sold to and where they may be used. Likewise for alcohol.

      So while a state could not prevent any such importation, I think they could probably A) require that abortifacient drugs may only be administered in the presence of a licensed MD and B) that, pursuant to this requirement, such substances may only be shipped to said licensees.

      Collapse
      1. Avatar photo
        Greenknight

        States would be unable to prevent out-of-state shipments of abortion medication to individuals *for personal use*, but could regulate any such medications from being re-sold to others within the state.

        This is a significant distinction in what a state can and cannot do.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Adam Bridge

        Good luck with that!

        Collapse
    4. Avatar photo
      Rjosephpaquette

      Constitutionally, interstate commerce is preempted by the Federal government, so a State cannot ban the importation of or use of a drug that is regulated Federally by the FDA, in accordance with Federal statutory law.
      ------------
      So can a Californian import an assault rifle, despite they are banned in California?

      Collapse
      1. Duane Truitt

        No, CA cannot ban the import of such weapons because that is interstate commerce, but they can, at least until SCOTUS rules on the matter, ban the possession and use of such weapons. Congress has not preempted State firearms laws except for a small number of exceptions where Congress regulated the possession of specific weapons, such as machine guns, or in decades past, Congress once banned “assault weapons”.

        States do get their firearms laws overturned from time to time, but that is based on the Second Amendment, not the commerce clause.

        Drugs are completely different than firearms because Congress has specifically invoked the preemption clause so as to avoid an impossibly patchworked system of drug production, distribution, and use.

        Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Kmregan7

        Yes and they do.

        Collapse
        1. Duane Truitt

          Actually no. CA cannot obstruct interstate commerce per the commerce clause of the Constitution. But CA can ban possession and use of such firearms unless and until SCOTUS rules otherwise, based upon the 2nd Amendment.

          Until last week New York could restrict carry licenses to “may issue”. Now they cannot. It takes years for legal challenges to work their way thru the Federal courts.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Kmregan7

            That's what I mean - that people can and do import assault weapons into California. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

            Collapse
          2. Avatar photo
            Rjosephpaquette

            I'd advise against importing a banned assault weapon into California.
            You will be arrested and fined, gun confiscated; then have your case wind through the courts for almost a decade. No thanks.

            Collapse
    5. Jason

      The same federal laws that preclude banning the drug, enable banning the drug. Sooner or later a state is going to use the ability for a state to set a DEA schedule I to these drugs. The DEA rules allow states to escalate controlled status, but not lessen it. Time to abolish the drug war before it becomes part of this debate.

      Collapse
      1. Duane Truitt

        Of course Congress can write a law directing FDA to ban or not ban a given drug, but there is no delegated authority to any state now to ban the importation of FDA-approved drugs. The likelihood that Congress will ever vote to ban any drug, including abortion drugs, is zero, unless the filibuster rule is ended, which also is unlikely. A huge super majority of Americans in all polls repeatedly shows support for the availability of abortion with reasonable restrictions. Congress has to run for election every two years, and are unlikely to promote a hugely unpopular policy provision, which is why Congress has never yet enacted any low prohibiting, restricting, or allowing abortion, one way or the other. Congress is too frightened of the voters to do that which is why the courts have been the abortion battleground for the last 50 some years.

        Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Patrick

    Thanks, this was a very helpful explainer.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    David Chen

    Somewhat related is this article on Reason I found so fascinating and dispiriting.

    https://reason.com/2022/07/07/the-troubling-meaning-of-the-we-will-adopt-your-baby-meme-wars/

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Pat Riot

      I thought those memes were funny, but I agree they cloud the issue further. Forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy she does not want to carry is one of the most brutal forms of torture a government could commit, and the idea that, "it's okay, we'll adopt the child you did not wish to create" just compounds that brutality.

      It's also completely out of touch with the way abortion is *really* used, e.g. to stop a *pregnancy* not just prevent a child from being born. Those are very different things.

      Collapse
      1. Pohl

        Why must there be so much euphemism and doublespeak in this debate? You can say there are different motivations for an action, but the act of abortion has 1 meaning, and it isn’t some benign ending of “pregnancy.“

        Collapse
        1. Kathy Kattenburg

          You are wrong. The definition of abortion is the deliberate ending of a pregnancy before viability. The reason is irrelevant. The method used is irrelevant.

          Collapse
          1. Pohl

            What is ended in a pregnancy? And the answer is not “pregnancy.” That’s a tautology.

            Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          But that's the entire debate. I don't consider a pregnancy at certain stages in certain contexts (ex. unwanted pregnancy at 15 weeks) to be a *person*. For me, the thing in question is just a part of a woman's body. And yes, others consider a fertilized egg to be a person, but I would tire my fingers out if I had to explain this every time so I just write down my own position.

          So back to the point above, most of what a woman wants to avoid when she aborts her pregnancy is the *pregnancy*, not the child after nine months. In other words, she's trying to avoid nine months of physical, emotional, social and economic torture. Hence saying, "I'll adopt your baby" is *meaningless* to somebody with this disposition.

          Collapse
          1. Pohl

            That’s fine since I know we disagree here. My point is “aborts her pregnancy” is still a euphemism. A life is aborted not a nebulous condition. This is apart from disagreements over personhood. I just prefer plain speaking.

            Collapse
      2. Mathew A

        Under Roe, abortion was only available till 24 weeks. Absent medical necessity a women couldn't turn around and demand to be induced into labor at 25 weeks. She would then be "forced" to carry the baby to term.

        Collapse
        1. Kathy Kattenburg

          And why would she, at 25 weeks, absent medical necessity, unless she had been legally or logistically prevented from doing so earlier?

          Collapse
        2. Avatar photo
          Pat Riot

          Like I said, abortion is almost always used to stop a *pregnancy*....

          Collapse
Load More