U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court appears skeptical of arguments to restrict abortion pill access
Decision expected by June
Hearing oral arguments on Tuesday in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, the U.S. Supreme Court appeared skeptical of arguments to curtail access to the abortion pill mifepristone.
A decision in the case is expected to come in June. The court’s most conservative justices, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, signaled their support for the anti-abortion plaintiffs, who seek to prohibit telemedicine prescriptions and distribution of the pill by mail.
A ruling in their favor could also undermine the ability of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to exercise its expert judgment on the safety and efficacy of medications without interference by courts — which, by and large, are not qualified to adjudicate these questions.
Such concerns were relayed even by justices like Neil Gorsuch, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump, and who warned on Tuesday that the case might stand as “a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action.”
Mifepristone was first approved in the year 2000. The drug, taken together with misoprostol, is the most commonly used method of terminating pregnancies in the U.S.
The justices’ questions also showed their skepticism toward plaintiffs’ arguments that concrete harms will result if the medication remains widely available. For instance, Gorsuch and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted healthcare providers are already permitted to opt out of providing care to which they have moral objections.
Even if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the government, preserving access to mifepristone including through telemedicine and mail-order prescriptions, more than a dozen conservative states have banned the drug and implemented near-total abortion bans pursuant to the court’s 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to hear conversion therapy case in October
Harmful and discredited practice is banned in 23 states and D.C.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday agreed to hear a case about whether state and local governments can enforce bans on anti-LGBTQ conversion therapy for children, a discredited and harmful practice that has been banned by 23 states and D.C.
The case, which will be argued in the new term that begins in October, began in Colorado Springs, Colorado where a licensed professional counselor filed a challenge to a ban in 2022, arguing the law interferes with her ability to treat patients with “same-sex attractions or gender identity confusion” who “prioritize their faith above their feelings.”
The Supreme Court in 2023 declined to hear a challenge to conversion therapy bans out of Washington state, but conservative justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Brett Kavanaugh voted in favor of taking up the case.
The Colorado therapist, Kaley Chiles, is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as “a legal advocacy and training group that has supported the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ adults in the U.S. and criminalization abroad; has defended state-sanctioned sterilization of trans people abroad; has contended that LGBTQ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia; and claims that a “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity and society.”
The U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado struck down Chiles’s lawsuit in 2022. Her case was appealed to the Supreme Court from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which upheld the ban in 2023 on the grounds that it regulates professional conduct, not speech.
Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson released the following statement on Monday:
“The Supreme Court’s decision to take up this case isn’t just about so-called ‘conversion therapy’ – it’s about whether extremists can use our courts to push their dangerous agenda, in an effort to erase LGBTQ+ people and gut protections that keep our kids safe. There’s no debate: so-called ‘conversion therapy’ is a dangerous practice, not therapy, and it has no place in our communities. These bans exist to protect LGBTQ+ children from harm—period.
Attacks on LGBTQ+ rights are the entry point to attacks on all of our rights. The same people trying to legalize abuse under the guise of ‘therapy’ are the ones banning books, ripping away reproductive rights, and undermining our democracy. The Supreme Court must uphold the 10th Circuit decision finding that these laws are constitutional.”
HRC added, “So-called ‘conversion therapy,’ sometimes known as ‘reparative therapy,’ is a range of dangerous and discredited practices that falsely claim to change a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity or expression.”
The group continued, “Such practices have been rejected by every mainstream medical and mental health organization for decades, but due to continuing discrimination and societal bias against LGBTQ+ people, some practitioners continue to conduct conversion therapy. Minors are especially vulnerable, and conversion therapy can lead to depression, anxiety, drug use, homelessness, and suicide.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court will not hear challenge to Tenn. drag restrictions
Republican lawmakers limited access to “adult entertainment” in 2023
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear a case challenging Tennessee’s law restricting drag performances, which was enacted by Republican state lawmakers in 2023.
The Tennessee Adult Entertainment Act forbids “adult-oriented performances” that take place in public or where they may be seen by minors. Legislators specified the legislation was meant to target drag shows.
A judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee ruled that the law was “unconstitutionally vague and substantially overbroad,” allowing drag performances to continue in parts of the state. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision in July, however, ruling that the theater company that filed the complaint lacked standing to sue.
President Donald Trump said that his decision to name himself chair of the Kennedy Center shortly into his second term came at least partially in response to the iconic performing arts center’s history of hosting drag shows, which he called “anti-American propaganda.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court to consider case against Montgomery County Public Schools
Plaintiffs challenging LGBTQ-specific curriculum policy
The U.S. Supreme Court on Jan. 17 announced it will consider the case of a group of Montgomery County parents who are challenging a policy that does not allow them to “opt out” their children from classes in which lessons or books on LGBTQ-related topics are taught.
The parents in a federal lawsuit they filed in May 2023 allege the Montgomery County Public Schools policy violates their religious beliefs.
A federal judge in Maryland on Aug. 24, 2023, ruled against the parents. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling.
“Under the 4th Circuit’s reasoning, parents cannot be heard until after the damage has been done to their children,” reads the Supreme Court filing that CBS News obtained. “But there is no unringing that bell — by then, innocence will be lost and beliefs undermined.”
US-funded South African LGBTQ groups curtail operations
PHOTOS: La Loca
Kylie brings ‘Tension’ tour to D.C.
New trends for old kitchens
Spring cleaning your rental relationship
Sexy small town secrets surface in twisty French ‘Misericordia’
USCIS announces it now only recognizes ‘two biological sexes’
LGBTQ seniors in Argentina face uncertain future
Cory Booker’s missed moral moment
