The US Supreme Court struck down the motion by a group of doctors to prohibit the sale of baby-killing pills on Thursday.
These doctors filed charges after the FDA cleared the drugs for relaxed regulatory requirements.
Video by The Raging Patriot.
The high court greenlights the use of these pills, which ultimately terminate the life of the unborn child, arguing that the doctors do not have legal standing to sue.
“Under Article III of the Constitution, a plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue, nor do the plaintiffs’ other standing theories suffice,” Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote in his opinion.
“We recognize that many citizens, including the plaintiff doctors here, have sincere concerns about and objections to others using mifepristone and obtaining abortions.”
“But citizens and doctors do not have standing to sue simply because others are allowed to engage in certain activities—at least without the plaintiffs demonstrating how they would be injured by the government’s alleged under-regulation of others.”
Furthermore, Justice Kavanaugh ruled that the plaintiffs failed to present proof that they were injured by the pills and that “the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs’ concerns about the FDA’s actions.”
As a result, women were allowed easier access to mifepristone, an abortion pill, which they could purchase online and receive via mail.
However, the Supreme Court did not shut down the possibility of future lawsuits due to the FDA’s approval of the pill.
“Citizens and doctors who object to what the law allows others to do may always take their concerns to the Executive and Legislative Branches and seek greater regulatory or legislative restrictions on certain activities,” he wrote.
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred with Kavanaugh’s opinion in the case but raised concerns about the standing used by the court to justify the decision.
“Applying these precedents, the Court explains that the doctors cannot establish third-party standing to sue for violations of their patients’ rights without showing an injury of their own,” Thomas wrote.
In March, during the oral arguments on the issue, justices expressed concern about upending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone.
The plaintiffs argued that the FDA flouted standards set in federal law for making regulatory decisions and did not sufficiently examine mifepristone when giving the go-ahead for expanded access.
Mifepristone is typically used alongside misoprostol to induce abortions, and it was responsible for an estimated two-thirds of all abortions in the country last year.
