The Judicial Sleight of Hand the Supreme Court Pulled On This Week's Abortion Ruling

By Dustin Rowles | Politics | June 20, 2024 |

By Dustin Rowles | Politics | June 20, 2024 |

I would like to briefly clarify something for our readers who may have seen breaking news alerts earlier this week that said something along the lines of “The Supreme Court Upheld Broad Abortion Pill Access,” with a lead paragraph that read something like this: “In a unanimous decision today, the Supreme Court rejected an effort to sharply curtail access to mifepristone, a medication used in a majority of abortions in the U.S.”

That was indeed the headline and lead for the New York Times piece on this week’s Supreme Court ruling. It is egregiously misleading. Here’s the next paragraph:

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who wrote the opinion for the court, found that the plaintiffs — a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations — did not have standing to sue in the first place because they could not show they had been harmed by the availability of abortion pills.

For those who may not know enough about standing to parse that paragraph, it means that the Supreme Court did nothing substantial, except say that this particular group of people was not allowed to sue to block access to the abortion pills because they had no standing. In other words, to sue the FDA, the plaintiffs must establish that the existing laws affect them personally. “I don’t like the law” does not provide standing.

What’s worse is that the Supreme Court — during an election year in which anti-abortion rulings could easily tilt the election toward the Democrats — cynically maintained the status quo and gave the illusion that it is a moderate court. It is anything but. First, this is the court that overturned Roe and has been otherwise chipping away at what’s left of abortion rights. The status quo is bad.

Moreover, the Court left the door wide open for a group that does have standing to sue the FDA and force the Supreme Court to rule on the merits. This could happen next summer, after the election and after a potential President Trump has solidified the conservative supermajority for decades to come.

This is essentially why — whether you like him or not — you vote for the Democrat. Trump is not just a potential threat to democracy. If he wins, he will likely replace Justices Alito and Thomas—and potentially more Supreme Court justices—with young justices who will outlive Trump by thirty or forty years, meaning our grandchildren will still be dealing with the rulings of the Trump-era Supreme Court. This could mean the further erosion of democracy, a shift towards theocracy, a federal abortion ban, restrictions on IVF, and the stripping of climate change regulations until there is no climate left to save.

The news cycle moves at breakneck speed, and it’s easy to see a headline like “Supreme Court Upholds Abortion Pill Access” and breathe a sigh of relief. But we can’t afford to let our guard down or be lulled into a false sense of security. This ruling isn’t the victory it’s being painted as — it’s a ticking time bomb wrapped in judicial sleight of hand. As we barrel towards the 2024 election, remember that the future of reproductive rights, climate action, and the very fabric of our democracy hangs in the balance. The Supreme Court just showed us their hand; it’s up to us to call their bluff at the ballot box.

Be mad. Stay mad.