Evelyn Reynolds

Congress passed a US defense policy bill on Thursday that authorizes the biggest pay rise for troops in more than two decades, while leaving behind many of the policy priorities that social conservatives were clamoring for.Lawmakers have been negotiating a final bill for months. Some of the priorities championed by social conservatives were a no-go for Democrats, so negotiators dropped them from the final product to get it over the finish line.The bill passed the House on Thursday by 310 to 118, with 73 Republicans and 45 Democrats opposing it. It passed the Senate a day earlier, by a vote of 87-13. House opponents were more vocal about their concerns than in the Senate. It now goes to the president, Joe Biden, to be signed into law.Most notably, the bill does not include language blocking the Pentagon’s abortion travel policy and restricting gender-affirming healthcare for transgender service members and dependents.Republicans prevailed, however, in winning some concessions on diversity and inclusion training in the military. For example, the bill freezes hiring for such training until a full accounting of the programming and costs is completed and reported to Congress.The bill sets key Pentagon policy that lawmakers will attempt to fund through a follow-up appropriations bill. Lawmakers were keen to emphasize how the bill calls for a 5.2% boost in service member pay, the biggest increase in more than 20 years.The bill authorizes $886bn for national defense programs for the current fiscal year that began 1 October, about 3% more than the prior year.The Senate majority leader, Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, said the bill would ensure “America’s military remains state of the art at all times all around the world”.The bill also includes a short-term extension of a surveillance program aimed at preventing terrorism and catching spies. But the program has detractors on both sides of the political aisle who view it as a threat to the privacy of ordinary Americans.The extension continues a program that permits the US government to collect without a warrant the communications of non-Americans located outside the country to gather foreign intelligence.US officials have said the tool, first authorized in 2008 and renewed several times since then, is crucial in disrupting terror attacks, cyber intrusions and other national security threats. It has produced vital intelligence that the US has relied on for specific operations, such as the killing last year of the al-Qaida leader Ayman al-Zawahiri.But the administration’s efforts to secure reauthorization of the program have encountered strong bipartisan pushback. Democrats such as the senator Ron Wyden, who has long championed civil liberties, have aligned with Republican supporters of the former president Donald Trump to demand better privacy protections for Americans and have proposed a slew of competing bills.The White House called for swift passage of the defense bill, saying it “provides the critical authorities we need to build the military required to deter future conflicts while supporting the servicemembers and their spouses and families who carry out that mission every day”.On Ukraine, the bill includes the creation of a special inspector general for Ukraine to address concerns about whether taxpayer dollars are being spent in Ukraine as intended. That is on top of oversight work already being conducted by other agency watchdogs.On China, the bill establishes a new training program with Taiwan, requires a plan to accelerate deliveries of Harpoon anti-ship missiles to Taiwan, and approves an agreement that enables Australia to access nuclear-powered submarines, which are stealthier and more capable than conventionally powered vessels.Dozens of House Republicans balked because the bill would keep in place a Pentagon rule that allows for travel reimbursement when a service member has to go out of state to get an abortion or other reproductive care. The Biden administration instituted the new rules after the supreme court overturned the nationwide right to an abortion, and some states have limited or banned the procedure.Tommy Tuberville, a Republican senator, had for months blocked the promotion of more than 400 senior military leaders over his objections to the policy. More

Donald Trump is “not a conservative”, the former Republican House speaker Paul Ryan said, but “a populist, authoritarian narcissist”.The former vice-presidential pick, who led the House majority for two years when Trump was president, also praised the Republicans Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger for opposing Trump to the cost of their congressional careers.Ryan, from Wisconsin, left Congress in 2019 and now sits on the board of Fox Corp, parent company of Fox News. He was speaking to Kevin Kajiwara, co-president of Teneo Political Risk Advisory, in a podcast interview recorded in November but widely noticed this week.Voices on both sides of the main political aisle have criticised Ryan for not strongly opposing Trump when he ran for the Republican nomination in 2016, or through four chaotic years in the White House that ended in the deadly January 6 attack on Congress.When stepping down Ryan praised Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, widely blamed for increasing inequality and the national deficit, as one of his biggest achievements along with increasing defense spending.Trump was impeached twice, including for January 6, but escaped conviction and now dominates polling for the next Republican presidential nomination.He does so despite facing 91 criminal charges, including 17 related to attempted election subversion, and civil threats including a business fraud trial and a defamation suit arising from a rape claim a judge called “substantially true”.Kajiwara asked Ryan how he thought history would judge Kinzinger and Cheney, conservative Republicans from Illinois and Wyoming who stood against Trump and sat on the January 6 committee before being forced out of Congress.“Look,” Ryan said, “Trump’s not a conservative. He’s an authoritarian narcissist. So I think they basically called him out for that. He’s a populist, authoritarian narcissist.“… All of his tendencies are basically where narcissism takes him, which is whatever makes him popular, makes him feel good at any given moment.“He doesn’t think in classical liberal-conservative terms. He thinks in an authoritarian way. And he’s been able to get a big chunk of the Republican base to follow him because he’s the culture warrior.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHistorians searching for the roots of Trumpism have generally looked to the 1990s, when another Republican speaker, Newt Gingrich, turned Congress into a scorched-earth battleground; to the rise of Fox News; or to opposition to Barack Obama, the first Black president, particularly through the Tea Party movement.Ryan, an economic conservative who was Mitt Romney’s running mate in 2012, continued: “There has to be some line, some principle that is so important to you that you’re just not going to cross, so that when you’re brushing your teeth in the morning, look yourself in the mirror, you like what you see. I think Adam and Liz are brushing their teeth, liking what they see.“And I think a lot of people in Congress … on the second impeachment, they thought Trump was dead. They thought after January 6, he wasn’t going to have a comeback. He was dead, so they figured, ‘I’m not going to take this heat, vote against this impeachment, because he’s gone anyway.’“But … he’s been resurrected. There’s lots of reasons for that. But he has been. So I think there’s a lot of people who already regret not getting him out of the way when they could have. So I think history will be kind to those people who saw what was happening and called it out, even though it was at the expense of their wellbeing.” More

When Dusty Deevers won his race to become an Oklahoma state senator on Tuesday night, he wasted no time in making sure his new constituents knew what he stood for.“Here in Oklahoma, it’s time to abolish abortion, abolish pornography, abolish the state income tax and give power and equal representation back to the people!” the Republican posted on X, the platform formerly known as Twitter.Deevers’ use of the term “abolish abortion” is no mere rhetorical flourish. On his campaign website, Deevers has identified himself as an “abortion abolitionist” – an adherent of a hardline, fringe segment of the anti-abortion movement that, in Oklahoma and elsewhere, is growing in the wake of the fall of Roe v Wade.Opposition to abortion is rooted in the belief that fetuses are people, worthy of rights and protections. But the mainstream “pro-life” movement posits that abortion patients should not be punished, since they are seen as the bamboozled victims of nefarious doctors and the “abortion industry”. Typically, abortion bans target abortion providers, not patients.Abortion “abolitionists,” on the other hand, hold what they believe to be a more ideologically consistent stance: if a fetus is a person, then abortion is tantamount to murder. And patients should be punished accordingly.Roe’s overturning has made a broader range of anti-abortion ideas look acceptable, as well as cast a spotlight on the contradictions and limits in current anti-abortion law, said Mary Ziegler, a University of California, Davis School of Law professor who studies the legal history of reproduction. In turn, that’s emboldened the abolitionists.“It’s not an easy question about how you can be consistent and exempt women from punishment,” Ziegler said. The abolitionists, she says, are essentially saying: “‘We’re the pragmatists, because if a lot of abortions are self-managed, or involve medical practitioners from out of state or even out of the US altogether, how do you propose meaningfully enforcing [bans] if you’re not going to punish women or other pregnant folks?“They’ve also been hated because people who are not opposed to abortion didn’t know that they existed,” Ziegler added. “And people who are opposed to abortion are not happy that people discovered that they existed.”Over the last several years, “abortion abolitionists” and their ideology have quietly amassed popularity in churches, state legislatures and online. Several abolitionist organizations filed an amicus brief in the decision that overturned Roe. Abolitionists Rising – which features a video of Deevers on its website – has almost 200,000 subscribers on YouTube, with at least one video with more than half a million views. (Deevers did not immediately reply to an interview request.) The YouTube account of Apologia Studios, which is run by prominent abortion “abolitionist” and pastor Jeff Durbin, has more than 500,000 subscribers.In 2023, legislators in at least nine states introduced bills that would advance the abortion abolition cause, such as by erasing provisions in laws that explicitly protect pregnant people from being prosecuted for having abortions. At least two of those bills explicitly cite the 14th amendment, which was originally passed to ensure that formerly enslaved people had equal rights, to extend rights and protections to fetuses.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe anti-abortion movement has a long history of drawing comparisons between their cause and that of pre-civil war abolitionists trying to end US slavery, as well as civil rights crusaders. For decades, they have tried to use the 14th amendment to establish fetuses’ right to personhood, a push that is seeing renewed interest post-Roe.However, anti-abortion “abolitionists” often draw a line between their work and that of the mainstream pro-life movement. Not only do they frequently disdain the pro-life label, but while the pro-life movement has increasingly sought to portray its mission as secular, anti-abortion “abolitionists” are staunchly and openly Christian.“I think that the abolitionist movement is a litmus test for how much the anti-abortion movement needs to win or wants to win in democratic politics versus other means,” Ziegler said. “If you need to win with voters, abolitionists are not going to get anywhere, ever.”There is little support for severe punishments for people who get illegal abortions. Although 47% of US adults believe that women who have illegal abortions should face some form of penalty, just 14% think they should serve jail time, according to a 2022 poll by the Pew Research Center. “Abolitionists” don’t necessarily believe that people should face the death penalty for abortions. “I do believe that the unjustified taking of human life, if provable, ultimately, justly, ought to be capital punishment,” Durbin told the New York Times last year. “However, I don’t trust our system today to deal that out.”None of the “abolitionist”-style bills ultimately advanced very far in state legislatures this year. Still, they can be something of a PR nightmare for Republicans and the mainstream pro-life movement. After a host of news articles about South Carolina’s Prenatal Equal Protection Act, which would allow people who have abortions to face the death penalty, 10 Republican state legislators asked to remove their names as sponsors of the bill.That bill died in committee.While these bills technically focus on abortion seekers, in reality they would probably also be used to penalize people of color or poor people who have unintended pregnancy losses, according to Farah Diaz-Tello, senior counsel and legal director of If/When/How, a legal advocacy group for reproductive justice.“We know who the targets of these laws would be, because they’re the people who are already criminalized for pregnancy outcomes. So we would see an escalation of that status quo,” Diaz-Tello said. “Things that for people of wealth and privilege would be considered a tragedy end up being charged as a crime against people of color, in particular Black women, and people who are in poverty.”Deevers won his seat in the Oklahoma state legislature after its former occupant resigned for another job. On his campaign website, Deevers says that he supports Oklahoma’s version of the Prenatal Equal Protection Act, which was introduced in 2023. That bill eliminates language that would block Oklahoma prosecutors from targeting pregnant people for “causing the death of the unborn child”. Its sponsor, whose 2020 election was supported by the abolitionist group Free the States, did not immediately reply to a request for comment.“This bill would abolish abortion by making preborn children equal under law and closing the loopholes which allow for self-managed abortion,” Deevers’ campaign website reads, adding, “I am 100% against abortion and for its abolition.” More

The House on Wednesday authorized the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, with every Republican rallying behind the politically charged process despite lingering concerns among some in the party that the investigation has yet to produce evidence of misconduct by the US president.The 221-212 party-line vote put the entire House Republican conference on record in support of an impeachment process that can lead to the ultimate penalty for a president: punishment for what the constitution describes as “high crimes and misdemeanors”, which can lead to removal from office if convicted in a Senate trial.Biden, in a rare statement about the impeachment effort, questioned the priorities of House Republicans in pursuing an inquiry against him and his family.“Instead of doing anything to help make Americans’ lives better, they are focused on attacking me with lies,” Biden said following the vote. “Instead of doing their job on the urgent work that needs to be done, they are choosing to waste time on this baseless political stunt that even Republicans in Congress admit is not supported by facts.”Authorizing the months-long inquiry ensures that the impeachment investigation extends well into 2024, when Biden will be running for re-election and seems likely to be squaring off against Donald Trump – who was twice impeached during his time in the White House. The former president has pushed his GOP allies in Congress to move swiftly on impeaching Biden, part of his broader calls for vengeance and retribution against his political enemies.The decision to hold a vote came as speaker Mike Johnson and his team faced growing pressure to show progress in what has become a nearly year-long probe centered around the business dealings of Biden’s family members. While their investigation has raised ethical questions, no evidence has emerged that Biden acted corruptly or accepted bribes in his current role or previous office as vice-president.“We do not take this responsibility lightly and will not prejudge the investigation’s outcome,” Johnson and his leadership team said in a joint statement after the vote. “But the evidentiary record is impossible to ignore.”House Democrats stood in united opposition to the inquiry resolution Wednesday, calling it a farce perpetrated by those across the aisle to avenge the two impeachments against Trump.“This whole thing is an extreme political stunt. It has no credibility, no legitimacy, and no integrity. It is a sideshow,” Massachusetts representative Jim McGovern said during a floor debate.Some House Republicans, particularly those hailing from politically divided districts, had been hesitant in recent weeks to take any vote on Biden’s impeachment, fearing a significant political cost. But GOP leaders have made the case in recent weeks that the resolution is only a step in the process, not a decision to impeach Biden. That message seems to have won over skeptics.“As we have said numerous times before, voting in favor of an impeachment inquiry does not equal impeachment,” Minnesota representative Tom Emmer, a member of the GOP leadership team, said at a news conference Tuesday.Emmer said Republicans “will continue to follow the facts wherever they lead, and if they uncover evidence of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors, then and only then will the next steps towards impeachment proceedings be considered”.Most of the Republicans reluctant to back the impeachment push have also been swayed by leadership’s recent argument that authorizing the inquiry will give them better legal standing as the White House has questioned the legal and constitutional basis for their requests for information.A letter last month from a top White House attorney to Republican committee leaders portrayed the GOP investigation as overzealous and illegitimate because the chamber had not yet authorized a formal impeachment inquiry by a vote of the full House. Richard Sauber, special counsel to the president, also wrote that when Trump faced the prospect of impeachment by a Democratic-led House in 2019, Johnson had said at the time that any inquiry without a House vote would be a “sham”.Dusty Johnson, the South Dakota Republican congressman, said this week that while there was no evidence to impeach the president, “that’s also not what the vote this week would be about”.“We have had enough political impeachments in this country,” he said. “I don’t like the stonewalling the administration has done, but listen, if we don’t have the receipts, that should constrain what the House does long-term.”Don Bacon, the Nebraska Republican representative, who has long been opposed to moving forward with impeachment, said that the White House questioning the legitimacy of the inquiry without a formal vote helped gain his support. “I can defend an inquiry right now,” he told reporters this week. “Let’s see what they find out.”House Democrats remained unified in their opposition to the impeachment process, saying it is a farce used by the GOP to take attention away from Trump and his legal woes.“You don’t initiate an impeachment process unless there’s real evidence of impeachable offenses,” said representative Jerry Nadler, the ranking Democrat on the House judiciary committee, who oversaw the two impeachments into Trump. “There is none here. None.”Democrats and the White House have repeatedly defended Biden and his administration’s cooperation with the investigation thus far, saying it has already made a massive trove of documents available.Congressional investigators have obtained nearly 40,000 pages of subpoenaed bank records and dozens of hours of testimony from key witnesses, including several high-ranking justice department officials currently tasked with investigating the president’s son, Hunter Biden.While Republicans say their inquiry is ultimately focused on the president himself, they have taken particular interest in Hunter Biden and his overseas business dealings, from which they accuse the president of personally benefiting. Republicans have also focused a large part of their investigation on whistleblower allegations of interference in the long-running justice department investigation into the younger Biden’s taxes and his gun use.Hunter Biden is currently facing criminal charges in two states from the special counsel investigation. He’s charged with firearm counts in Delaware, alleging he broke laws against drug users having guns in 2018, a period when he has acknowledged struggling with addiction. Special counsel David Weiss filed additional charges last week, alleging he failed to pay about $1.4m in taxes over a three-year period.Democrats have conceded that while the president’s son is not perfect, he is a private citizen who is already being held accountable by the justice system.“I mean, there’s a lot of evidence that Hunter Biden did a lot of improper things. He’s been indicted, he’ll stand trial,” Nadler said. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that the president did anything improper.” More

The House voted Wednesday to formally authorize the impeachment inquiry into Joe Biden, even as Republicans have failed to produce evidence showing that the president financially benefitted from his family’s business dealings.The House voted on partisan lines, 221-212 to launch the inquiry. The vote came hours after the president’s son, Hunter Biden, defied a subpoena to appear for a closed-door deposition with House members. Instead choosing to hold a press conference on Capitol Hill, Hunter Biden reiterated his willingness to testify publicly, an offer that House Republicans have rejected.“I am here to testify at a public hearing, today, to answer any of the committees’ legitimate questions,” Hunter Biden said. “Republicans do not want an open process where Americans can see their tactics, expose their baseless inquiry, or hear what I have to say.”Hunter Biden now faces two federal indictments on gun and tax charges. As he addressed reporters on Wednesday, Hunter Biden expressed regret over his past actions while denouncing Republicans’ “lies” about his family.In a statement, Joe Biden denounced the Republican action as a “baseless impeachment stunt”. He insinuated that Republicans are avoiding “the issues facing the American people”. “Instead of doing anything to help make Americans’ lives better, they are focused on attacking me with lies. Instead of doing their job on the urgent work that needs to be done, they are choosing to waste time on this baseless political stunt that even Republicans in Congress admit is not supported by facts,” Biden said. “The American people deserve better.”The impeachment inquiry will give Republicans more power to enforce subpoenas and defend their investigation in court. The White House has argued that House Republicans’ subpoenas are illegitimate because the full chamber never voted to authorize the inquiry, but that argument could be invalidated with a successful vote on Wednesday.Earlier on Wednesday, the Republican chairs of the House oversight committee and judiciary committee, James Comer of Kentucky and Jim Jordan of Ohio, said in a joint statement: “Today, the House will vote on an impeachment inquiry resolution to strengthen our legal case in the courts as we face obstruction from the White House and witnesses. Today’s obstruction by Hunter Biden reinforces the need for a formal vote.”The previous House speaker, Republican Kevin McCarthy, unilaterally launched the inquiry in September without a formal vote on the matter. At the time, a number of more moderate Republicans expressed concerns about launching a formal inquiry, given the lack of clear evidence about Biden’s involvement in his son’s business dealings.Meanwhile, Comer and Jordan have already indicated they will move to hold Hunter Biden in contempt of Congress if the resolution passes. House Democrats defended Hunter Biden’s decision to defy his subpoena, accusing Republicans of attempting to “cherry-pick” testimony to advance baseless allegations against the president.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“They wanted to conduct the deposition in a closed-door interview, so the public couldn’t see it and so they could continue to cherry-pick little pieces of evidence and distort and misrepresent what had taken place there,” Jamie Raskin, the top Democrat on the House oversight committee, told reporters. “They have not laid a glove on President Biden, and they have no evidence of him committing any offense, much less an impeachable offense.”
This story was amended on 13 December 2023 to accurately reflect the House votes for the inquiry to 221-212. More

“Let them drink milk!”A bipartisan bill to allow US schools to serve whole milk, in addition to low-fat options, is garnering support, as some call the attempts to bring back the dairy staple a waste of time.The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is a bill that would allow schools to serve whole milk and 2% milk during lunchtime.Both dairy options were phased out in 2010 after the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act, which mandated that schools serve 1% or fat-free milk to meet health guidelines aimed at combating childhood obesity, according to Where the Food Comes From.The Whole Milk Act comes as alternative dairy options like soy and oat milk have maintained their popularity. Plant-based dairy or protein is popular among 38% of US adults, according to Mintel, a market research group.While the bill has gained bipartisan support, some legislators criticized the legislation as a waste of time.Pennsylvania representative Mary Gay Scanlon, a Democrat, condemned legislators for spending time to advance the milk bill versus addressing the gun violence epidemic.“The American people are crying out for Congress to act, and yet the House of Representatives is using its precious time to debate chocolate milk,” Scanlon said.Democratic congressman Mike Thompson of California echoed the need for Congress to address gun violence instead of attempting to bring back whole milk.“I spent the entire weekend in my district and not one person came to me to change the law on chocolate milk,” Thompson said, adding that gun violence remains a leading cause of death among children and teens.Opponents of the bill have also said that low-fat options currently offered in schools already are already nutritionally sufficient, minus the saturated fat.Meanwhile, Republican representatives from all swaths of the country spoke in support of the act and the urgent need to bring whole milk back into schools.Wisconsin representative Derrick Van Orden decried plant-based dairy such as soy and almond milk as “not real milk”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Milk comes from a mammal,” Van Orden said.Illinois representative Mary Miller called the previous removal of whole milk from schools a facet of “radical Obama administration policies led by Michelle Obama”, referencing the former first lady’s campaign to end childhood obesity.North Carolina representative Virginia Foxx evoked Santa Claus’s affinity for cookies and milk to advocate for a return of whole milk in schools.“The nutrients in whole milk … provide the fuel Santa needs to travel the whole globe in one night. Whole milk is the unsung hero of his Christmas journey,” Foxx said.Some Democrats also spoke in support of the pro-whole milk legislation.Kim Schrier, a Democrat representative from Washington and the bill’s co-sponsor, said that more milk options would encourage children to avoid more sugary drink options at lunchtime.“I would much rather have children drinking milk, even whole milk, than juice,” said Schrier, the Wall Street Journal reported. More

Senate Democrats are pressuring the supreme court justice Clarence Thomas to recuse himself from deciding whether Donald Trump has immunity from prosecution for alleged crimes he committed while president.Democrats have argued that Thomas poses a potential conflict of interest because his wife, Ginni Thomas, has previously supported Trump’s false claims that the election was stolen, the Hill reported.During her testimony to the committee investigating the January 6 insurrection in 2022, Ginni Thomas said she still believed the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.Following the 2020 election, Ginni Thomas also texted Trump’s former chief of staff Mark Meadows and told him to contest the election results, accusing Biden and Democrats of “attempting the greatest Heist of our History”.The Illinois senator Dick Durbin, who is chair of the Senate judicial committee, has called for Thomas’s recusal, arguing the relationship between Trump and the Thomas family is unclear.“There are so many unanswered questions about the relationship of the justice and his family with the Trump administration that I think in the interests of justice, he should recuse himself,” Durbin said to the Hill.Durbin later told CNN that Thomas should “think twice” and recuse himself from the case.“There’s been enough information raised about Mr Thomas and his spouse that he ought to think twice about recusal in this case,” Durbin said.The Connecticut senator Richard Blumenthal echoed the calls. Blumenthal told the Hill that the supreme court would be deciding on if Trump can be tried for attempting to overturn the results of 2020 election, which involves “Jan 6, which involved [Thomas’s] wife”.Special counsel Jack Smith asked the supreme court on Monday to decide if Trump can be criminally prosecuted. The supreme court quickly responded to say it would, and gave Trump until 20 December to reply. The earliest the court would consider the motion is 5 January, when the justices have their next scheduled private conference.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionSmith’s move came amid fears that Trump’s trial could be indefinitely delayed, if as expected Trump appeals a decision from a federal judge on Friday that rejected his immunity claims. The judge in that case, Tanya Chutkan, denied Trump’s motion for dismissal, opening up the possibility for him to appeal to the DC circuit court and if necessary the US supreme court.“It is of imperative public importance that respondent’s claims of immunity be resolved by this court and that respondent’s trial proceed as promptly as possible if his claim of immunity is rejected,” Smith’s filing said.“Only this court can definitively resolve them.” More

The US supreme court on Wednesday agreed to hear oral arguments in a case that could determine the future of a pill used in most abortions in the US, in the first major abortion rights case to land at the country’s highest court since the justices overturned Roe v Wade and abolished the national right to the procedure in 2022.A decision in the case will probably arrive in summer 2024, just months before the presidential election. The outcome of the case could affect not just access to the pill, which has been repeatedly deemed safe and effective, but the Federal Drug Administration’s authority to regulate all manner of medications.The drug at the heart of the case is mifepristone, one of the two drugs typically used in medication abortions, which make up the majority of US abortions. Last year, an association of anti-abortion organizations and doctors, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, filed a federal lawsuit arguing that the FDA had overstepped its authority when it approved mifepristone in 2000.In April, a Texas federal judge appointed by former president Donald Trump issued a preliminary ruling to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone and pull the medication off the market. The US court of appeals for the fifth circuit – one of the most conservative federal appeals courts in the US – ruled in August that, while it was too late to suspend the FDA’s approval, the agency should significantly restrict access to mifepristone. The Biden administration and Danco Laboratories, which manufactures mifepristone, then asked the supreme court to weigh in on the case.The supreme court paused lower-court rulings while the case plays out, so mifepristone remains widely available in states that permit abortion. If the court allows the fifth circuit ruling to stand, it would roll back recent FDA efforts that refined the drug’s dosage and expanded access by allowing it to be prescribed later on in pregnancy and through telehealth.On Wednesday, the supreme court agreed to hear the consolidated petitions from the Biden administration and Danco Laboratories, which asked the justices to focus on the legal attempts to roll back those later FDA efforts. Those petitions also asked the justices to consider whether the challengers have the legal right, or standing, to bring the case in the first place.“You can’t just bring random lawsuits in court. You actually have to have been harmed by something,” said Greer Donley, an associate law professor at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. “That’s really what standing analysis is all about, to try to figure out if if the people who bring the lawsuit actually have a stake in the case.” Numerous legal experts have questioned whether the challengers in this case have properly demonstrated that they have been harmed by mifepristone’s continued legality.The supreme court also denied a petition from the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that asked the justices to explicitly consider the FDA’s 2000 approval of mifepristone. That move suggests that the supreme court is unlikely to pull mifepristone off the market entirely.In Donley’s view, the outcome of this case will probably signal whether the supreme court, which is controlled 6-3 by conservatives, wants to be involved in the post-Roe war over abortion rights. If the justices decide to focus on the standing issues in the case, they could sidestep having to rule on the substance of the case entirely.“I could see the more moderates on the supreme court thinking: ‘we don’t want to touch this,’” Donley said. “It might make the supreme court look like less of an activist court if it were to dismiss this case on the basis of really legitimate standing problems.”Any ruling by the court would affect all 50 states, including those that have protected abortion rights. (In recent months, officials in states such as Washington and California have announced that they have begun to stockpile mifepristone.)A ruling could also imperil the FDA’s regulatory power writ large and pose an existential threat to pharmaceutical companies. If courts can rewrite the FDA’s approval of abortion pills, any kind of drug – including, for example, drugs used to protect against HIV or to provide gender-affirming care – could end up in conservative jurists’ crosshairs.The ruling from the federal appeals court, Danco Laboratories warned in its briefs to the supreme court, “destabilizes the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries by questioning when scientific studies – accepted by FDA – are sufficient”. More than 100 studies, conducted across 26 countries, have concluded that mifepristone is safe, a New York Times review found.If deprived of access to mifepristone, several abortion clinics have said that they would keep providing medication abortions using only misoprostol, the other drug typically used in medication abortions. Although misoprostol-only abortions are still overwhelmingly safe, they can have more side-effects and are slightly less effective than the two-drug protocol.Ultimately, regardless of how the supreme court rules, its decision will not curtail the thriving underground networks that routinely supply mifepristone to women looking to end their pregnancies, including in the 16 states with near-total abortion bans. In fact, a move to ban mifepristone is likely to cause a sharp rise in demand for the drug through those networks.In the wake of Roe’s fall, a vast web of abortion rights supporters and opportunistic merchants have sprung up to ship abortion pills to Americans. Inducing your own abortion is not illegal in most US states, even in states that have banned in-clinic abortions, and medical experts widely agree that it can be safe to use pills to “self-manage” an abortion early in pregnancy. More