Actually, this is exactly the opposite.
The Supreme Court’s expected decision represents the Supreme Court (and the judiciary as a whole) getting OUT of the medical business and leaving it to the FDA, where it belongs.
It was Judge Kaczmarek’s decision that involved the judiciary in a medical decision that it had no business butting into.
I agree with your reading on this.
Unfortunately, the presence of this case and several more upcoming ones demonstrate that Scalia’s assertion in Dobbs that the Supreme Court had retired the abortion issue to their people and their elected representatives was naive, wishful thinking or worse.
I think the L’Dor V’dor case coming from Florida is going to tie the Roberts Court in knots if and when it reaches them.
it is FDA approved.
nobody is forcing you to take it.
just an option for a woman.
you know choices.
Allan
A lot more people die from acetaminophen toxicity every year, yet Tylenol remains on the market.
And, as usual, Safiel gets it right. 
Invoking standing allowed the Supreme Court to extricate itself from this first class cluster ■■■■ that Judge ■■■■ for brains created, without having to explicitly side themselves with abortion access.
Allowing the people to sue the FDA anytime they don’t like a drug approval would result in utter chaos. This ends this possibility.
Ugh.
I guess @Guvnah is right, though. The people aren’t there.
It’s not just drug approval. It’s mail-order. Meaning this would allow it to be Constitutional for people to order abortion drugs by mail and the law is okay with it. I’m surprised as this is a Conservative majority bench.
Tylenol is an NSAID. The abortion pill is something more sinister. Because one person always dies or suffers.
People can mail order other drugs though. What’s wrong with that?
Hemorrhaging and other side effects.
Even if a person is for the abortion pill, there’s still a high risk that could put someone in the hospital or cause death of 2 people. Thus it might be wise to be monitored.
I see nonstop commercials for ordering up some boner pills, that’s for sure!
Just as long as they don’t feature some fat man or woman dancing.
About ready to shoot the TV the next time a Jardiance commercial comes on.
It should probably be monitored because sometimes it lasts for 4+ hours 
I don’t quite get the logic of saying abortions can be banned by a state but not if done by chemicals. Anybody else think this decision might be based on fear of a political backlash if they had voted the other way?
That wasn’t the question here.
The SC has no business being concerned about political backlash. They’re not supposed to be a political branch.
I agree that it’s not the SCOTUS’ purview to judge FDA decisions.
Tylenol isn’t an NSAID.
The fact of the matter is, if you sue for something like this, you have to be affected by it.
This suit was brought by pro-life Docs, but they never performed abortions or were asked to prescribe these medications. These drugs were not part of their practice, so where was the harm to them?
Their argument was, perhaps someone taking that pill got a rash and one of these Docs was a Dermatologist. Can they morally object to treating the rash? Or bleeding if they were an ER doc?
The problem is, not a single one of them could state a single episode where something like this happened. So where is the harm to them that could give this case standing? It just wasn’t there.
That taught me something that I didn’t know.
