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.

  • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    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.

    • 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
      5
      ·
      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
      6
      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.