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.

  • prole@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    18
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Why even have regulating bodies? Chevron deference cannot go away. This is how the right continues to “dismantle the administrative state,” to use their own words.

    This is real bad.

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      Chevron deference is problematic because it allows non elected officials to establish rules, in practice laws, with insufficient oversight.

      Don’t get me wrong I like when the FDA limits how much rat poop can be in ceral. But it shouldn’t enable organizations to say something that had previously been known as lawful is now a felony, and to imprison citizens for that.

      Chevron deference should be limited to fines on commercial businesses.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Stfu. Honestly do you have like a baby’s understanding of government regulation? Do you think keeping the rat poop out of cereal and the other ten million regulations that keep you safe daily are possible without specialized bodies of administrative agencies regulating thousands of different industries, administering tens of thousands of specialty statutes? You cannot draw a line between “making things illegal that used to be perfectly legal” and keeping the rat poop out of food. Rat poop food was “perfectly legal” and still would be without a Chevron deference, we’d be sitting around waiting for Congress to act and meanwhile we’d all die of plague. What are you, a Libertarian, wants to die from plague?

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Re read what I said. My point is that Chevron is inappropriate when applied in criminal matters, as opposed to civil matters.

          • I don’t see the distinction, in your post or in fact. Administrative action is neither criminal or civil, but regulatory. Through its enabling statute and it’s own regulations, an agency may avail itself to criminal or civil remedies. Only a prosecutor can prosecute criminal charges in federal court.

            Why can Congress delegate “civil” but not “criminal” matters? It can either delegate or not.

            Agency functions are rulemaking, adjudication, investigation, enforcement. I think pretty much every federal agency has some level of function for each, each with it’s own requirements for due process. Agencies aren’t neatly packaged. Got a couple examples of what you’re talking about criminal versus civil regulatory action?

      • prole@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        These corporations bake those fines into “the cost of doing business.” Fines aren’t effective on their own. Also, we need experts to be the ones who determine where the line is, before we can even talk about consequences for crossing it.

        This country would descend into chaos within days if we didn’t have people who are career experts in their respective fields working in regulatory agencies.

        No fucking shot should those people need to be elected, that’s absurd. We need people who have studied that shit and have an intimate knowledge of the subject matter informing our laws, not Joe Shmo that won a popularity contest because “he’s the kind of guy they’d like to have a beer with.” Even if they have the best intentions, it’s impossible to be an expert in everything.

        Also, the heads of those agencies are politically appointed positions, and at least on a state level, they often turnover with each new administration. So it’s not completely disconnected from people who are elected.

        Edit: dumb fuck libertarians ruining this country.

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          The issue is that these agencies can have their heads appointed as a way of politically weaponizing them.

          For example appointing a new FBI head who would lead to a new ruling that unborn fetuses are people who would be protected by homicide laws.

          This skirts the legislative process to establish new laws. And aside from waiting until the next election the only recourse is commenting on the mater during a comment period.

          • prole@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not how the FBI works. They enforce the laws passed by the legislative branch.

            • dumpsterlid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              I know this isn’t the main point of this conversation but the idea that the FBI follows or has at any point since it’s inception followed the law in any meaningful sense is frankly hilarious.

              The FBI does whatever the hell it wants.