Mifepristone

 

My Back Pages

Yes, my guard stood hard when abstract threats too noble to neglect
Deceived me into thinking I had something to protect
Good and bad, I define these terms quite clear, no doubt, somehow
Ah, but I was so much older then, I'm younger than that now

The SCOTUS unanimous ruling on mifepristone was only that it did not have standing.

The unanimous ruling on mifepristone was only that the doctors bringing the case had an “abstract threat” and not a real threat.  There was no ruling on the merits of the doctors’ suit.  The issue of whether the FDA can determine whether mifepristone can be prescribed was not part of this ruling, only that these doctors had no case, that they could not show that then had been harmed.  Offended? Yes. Harmed? No.

It is an opinion that life begins at conception.  I happen to agree with that opinion which is  “too noble to neglect” but legally life does not begin until birth. It is the belief of fetal personhood that “deceived me into thinking I had something to protect”. The state issues birth certificates, not conception certificates. Government licenses have the date of birth, not the date of conception. Your age from a birth date determines your ability to vote, etc.  The state also can not take an individual’s property without compensation.  If the fetus has no standing, and the doctors have no standing, then isn’t the prohibition on abortions not a taking of the women’s womb by the state without compensation merely because the state is offended?  What public purpose is being served? Protecting a life which has no legal standing? Protecting the opinion of those who have no standing? What compensation is being offered by the government? Be younger than that now.