. Safe and effective, cheap and convenient, and small enough to fit into an envelope, they enable many women to have an abortion without leaving home. The pills account for nearly two-thirds of abortions in America, up from almost a quarter in 2011, partly because the Food and Drug Administration has loosened rules around their use and distribution. No wonder pro-lifers want the Supreme Court to clamp down on them. Medically and legally, that would be an error.
That would be a bad outcome for women’s health. Mifepristone is safer than Tylenol and has fewer complications than later-stage surgical abortion. It is also cheaper, less invasive and more convenient than surgery, especially for women who cannot easily get to a clinic or when prescribed through telemedicine. Pill-based abortion has risen globally. In England and Wales, and much of Scandinavia, around 90% of terminations now use pills.
Siding with the plaintiffs would also be a bad legal outcome. Courts should require strong grounds to conclude that a regulator has got a technical assessment wrong. If judges can substitute their own supposed expertise for the’s, it will weaken America’s system of technically informed regulation—especially if the test case is a charged issue in which the empirical evidence is strong and the plaintiff has suffered no concrete injury.
Source: Law Daily Report (lawdailyreport.net)
United Kingdom Latest News, United Kingdom Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Source: TIME - 🏆 93. / 53 Read more »
Source: TIME - 🏆 93. / 53 Read more »
Source: TIME - 🏆 93. / 53 Read more »
Source: FT - 🏆 113. / 51 Read more »
Source: NECN - 🏆 20. / 71 Read more »
Source: LBCNews - 🏆 75. / 59 Read more »