What happened when SCOTUS heard the abortion pill arguments

The MoJo Daily newsletter, Monday through Friday. [View in browser]( [Support our nonprofit journalism]( [Mother Jones Daily Newsletter](     March 26, 2024 Today, the Supreme Court heard what has been [billed]( as "the biggest abortion case since Dobbs." The question before the justices was whether or not to significantly restrict access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used in medication abortions. The stakes of the case are huge, given that medication abortion accounts for more than [half of all abortions]( nationwide and that telehealth abortions, which involve providers virtually prescribing and mailing pills, [continue to rise](, including in banned states. But while the majority of the justices were willing to overturn decades of precedent in its ruling in Dobbs, it appears that, as my colleague Pema Levy [wrote](, the legal theories in this case are too far-fetched—even for this court: This case should never have reached the Supreme Court. In order to sue, a potential litigant needs to identify an injury that can be remedied by a court—a bedrock legal principle known as standing. And the plaintiffs in this case, doctors who oppose abortion and the organization they belong to, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, don’t have standing under current Supreme Court precedent. That was the most obvious default with the plaintiffs’ arguments on Tuesday: they didn’t have a right to be there at all. The doctors are suing under the theory that a small percentage of people who take the abortion drug mifepristone will suffer a serious adverse reaction, requiring a visit to the emergency room, where one of the suing doctors may have to assist in completing the abortion, violating their anti-abortion beliefs. However, under Supreme Court precedent, such a so-called “probabilistic” chain of events is not a sufficient basis for standing. Indeed, at oral arguments, most of the justices did not appear to accept it. But don't be mistaken: The conservative anti-abortion justices that make up the majority of the court don't necessarily have a newfound appreciation for facts. As I [wrote today](, Justice Samuel Alito falsely implied mifepristone may cause “very serious harm"—despite the fact that more than 100 scientific studies show that abortion pills are safe and effective. Be sure to check out the full stories for the recap of this morning's oral arguments. And trust that we'll continue to bring you the latest news—and the truth—on the battle for [abortion rights](. —Julianne McShane Advertisement [H Is for Hope]( [Top Story] [Top Story]( [Supreme Court Appears Unlikely to Roll Back Access to Medication Abortion]( The legal theories are too far fetched—even for this court. BY PEMA LEVY SPONSORED CONTENT BY PENGUIN RANDOM HOUSE (TEN SPEED PRESS)   Climate Change from A to Z In twenty-six essays—one for each letter of the alphabet—Elizabeth Kolbert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of The Sixth Extinction, takes us on a hauntingly illustrated journey through the history of climate change and the uncertainties of our future. [Get H Is for Hope here.]( [Trending] [Justice Samuel Alito falsely implies mifepristone could cause "very serious harm"]( BY JULIANNE MCSHANE   [Repro-rights advocates focused on abortion and not pregnancy. That was a mistake.]( BY NINA MARTIN   [A list of weird stuff the right connected to the Baltimore bridge collapse]( BY ARIANNA COGHILL   [Florida bill would purge state laws of climate change mentions]( BY KATE YODER Advertisement [H Is for Hope]( [Special Feature] [Special Feature]( [Meet the influencer who "reverses" lupus—with smoothies]( Psychiatrist Brooke Goldner makes extraordinary claims about incurable diseases. It's brought her a mansion, a Ferrari, and a huge social following. BY JULIA MÉTRAUX MOTHER JONES MEMBERSHIP UPDATE   An important update on our finances We’re falling behind our online fundraising goals—and we can’t sustain coming up short on [donations]( month after month. It is [impossibly hard]( in the news business right now, and the [crisis]( facing journalism and democracy isn’t going away anytime soon. Neither is Mother Jones. Which is exactly why, despite the challenges we face, we just took a big gulp and [joined forces]( with the Center for Investigative Reporting, which creates the amazing podcast and public radio show [Reveal]( and other investigative projects. It’s going to be hard making it all work, and we simply can’t afford to fall behind our fundraising targets month after month. If you can part with even just a few bucks, [please support Mother Jones and investigative journalism with an urgently needed donation today](. And thank you so much to everyone who recently has. We’re grateful. [Donate]( Did you enjoy this newsletter? Help us out by [forwarding]( it to a friend or sharing it on [Facebook]( and [Twitter](. [Mother Jones]( [Donate]( [Donate Monthly]( [Subscribe]( This message was sent to {EMAIL}. To change the messages you receive from us, you can [edit your email preferences]( or [unsubscribe from all mailings.]( For advertising opportunities see our online [media kit.]( Were you forwarded this email? [Sign up for Mother Jones' newsletters today.]( [www.MotherJones.com]( PO Box 8539, Big Sandy, TX 75755