SCOTUS Protects Abortion Pill (For Now)

This episode covers the recent unanimous Supreme Court decision to uphold the availability of the abortion pill, mifepristone, despite challenges from anti-abortion groups.

1. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled to protect the availability of the abortion pill, mifepristone.
2. The legal challenge was dismissed due to the lack of standing by the anti-abortion doctors who brought the case.
3. The decision allows for the continued distribution of mifepristone through telemedicine and mail, where legal.
4. This case highlights the judicial restraint in second-guessing FDA decisions based on scientific judgment.
5. The outcome has broader implications for the political landscape concerning reproductive rights and potential changes under different administrations.

1: Introduction to the Case

Overview of the Supreme Court's decision to uphold the availability of mifepristone. Key details include the legal basis for the ruling and its implications.

• Brad Milke: "The Supreme Court is finally releasing its opinions on all these cases they've been hearing for the last several months."
• Kate Shaw: "The case is about the future of medication abortion, specifically mifepristone."

2: Legal Arguments and Standing

Discussion on why the plaintiffs lacked the legal standing necessary to challenge FDA's approval of mifepristone.

• Ryan Reynolds: "The court decided that the individuals who brought this lawsuit didn't have the legal right to do that."
• Unknown: "Did she have an opportunity to object? Did she object? No, your honor."

3: Implications and Future Prospects

Analysis of what the ruling means for future legal challenges and the potential for changes in FDA policy under different presidential administrations.

• Ryan Reynolds: "If part of your question is, is the issue resolved for all time? The answer is definitely no."
• Unknown: "Is it just is plausible that a new administration, a new president, could come in and change the FDA and thus change these rules?"

1. Stay informed about changes in healthcare legislation, especially concerning reproductive rights.
2. Understand the importance of voting in elections as it impacts judicial and administrative decisions.
3. Advocate for reproductive rights by engaging with local and national organizations.
4. Educate others about the importance of scientific and judicial integrity in healthcare decisions.
5. Monitor developments in state laws regarding telemedicine to stay informed about your rights and available services.

The Supreme Court unanimously rejects a case seeking to ban the abortion drug mifepristone. The Justice Department unveils a scathing report on Phoenix police. And a string of threatening actions aimed at New York Jews prompts officials to reconsider a ban on masks in public.

People

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Donald Trump

Content Warnings:

None

Ryan Reynolds
Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up during inflation, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing.

Unknown
Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium wireless everybody get 30, 30, baby get 30, baby get 20. 2020, baby get 2020. A better get 15. 1515, just $15 a month.

Ryan Reynolds
So give it a try at Mint mobile.com switch $45 upfront for three months, plus taxes and fees. Promoting for new customers for limited time unlimited, more than 40gb per month slows full terms at mint mobile.com dot.

Unknown
It's Friday, June 14, and the justices that overturned Roe just protected the abortion pill. We start here.

In a unanimous verdict, the Supreme Court says this isn't the way to ban mifepristone.

Ryan Reynolds
The court decided that the individuals who brought this lawsuit didn't have the legal.

Unknown
Right to do that, but did they also just lay out a roadmap to ban it successfully? Meanwhile, the Justice Department takes on the Phoenix PD.

Unknown
This is one instance where we can't count on the police to police themselves.

Unknown
The disturbing allegations in a city with one of the highest police shooting rates in the nation. And there's a difference between protesting and threatening strangers.

Ryan Reynolds
Raise your hands if you're a zionist.

Unknown
Raise your hands if you're a zionist.

Unknown
While concerns about antisemitism could result in a New York mask ban, from ABC News, this is start here. I'm Brad milked.

Its June, which means the Supreme Court is finally releasing its opinions on all these cases theyve been hearing for the last several months. And often as the days go on in this period, the cases get bigger, often more divisive. After all, it was a late June day a couple years ago when Roe v. Wade was overturned. So it might have been surprising yesterday morning when we learned a different ruling about abortion. This time specifically about the abortion pill was about to be made public just moments ago. The court ruling unanimously to maintain availability. But as contentious as this issue is, this decision was not close. It was a unanimous ruling, and it protects the pill from being banned in states where abortion is still legal. Let's go straight to ABC Supreme Court contributor Kate Shaw, who is watching all this. Kate, first off, can you just remind us what this case was about?

Ryan Reynolds
Sure thing, Brad. So the case is about the future of medication abortion, specifically one of the drugs that is used in ending early pregnancies. It's called mifepristone. And a group of anti abortion doctors sued the FDA, initially trying to get mifepristone totally yanked off the shelves, but also arguing that several recent regulatory changes by the FDA to make mifepristone more readily available were unlawful and should be undone, making mifepristone, at the very least, more difficult to access.

Unknown
And so then yesterday, what is the ruling? Because the idea of who brought this case ended up being important to it.

Ryan Reynolds
Oh, that was critical, Brad. And that's really all the court decided, was that the individuals who brought this lawsuit didn't have the legal right to do that.

Unknown
I mean, can you point me to any place in the declarations where a declarant states that they attempted to object but were unable to? No, your honor, for two reasons. One, these are emergency situations.

Ryan Reynolds
So this was a group of anti abortion doctors that were never able to make a convincing case for why they should be in court in the first place. They had some theories that they offered that basically said, well, maybe some woman somewhere will take mifepristone and have complications as a result of taking mifepristone. And one of the doctors in the lawsuit might encounter such a woman in an emergency room and be forced to participate in her care. And that gave them what's known as standing like a legal stake in the matter. That gave them the right to go to court and ask the courts essentially to examine the FDA's approval protocols. With respect to Mefa Pristone.

Unknown
Did she have an opportunity to object? Did she object? No, your honor. Again, these are life threatening situations in which the choice for a doctor is either to scrub out and try to find someone else or to treat the woman who's hemorrhaging, usually conscience objections. The way people with conscience objections do this is they make those objections known.

Ryan Reynolds
It's a pretty attenuated story of harm and causation.

Unknown
They might do this, this could happen. This would impact me kind of.

Ryan Reynolds
Right. And that's exactly what the court said in a unanimous opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh. These doctors just didn't make out a case that they had the legal right to be in court, that there was any likelihood, any real likelihood that they were going to be harmed by what the FDA has done in approving mephopristone. The court said, look, these doctors may well have genuine objections to mifepristone, but the place to direct those objections are the executive branch, the White House, the FDA, the ballot, right. There are things you can do if you object to abortion or object to mifepristone to make those views known. But going to federal court and asking federal judges to second guess the scientific judgment of an agency like the FDA is not a viable option if all you really have is an objection to abortion. And at the end of the day, that's what these doctors have.

Unknown
Well, so then the idea that you can get mifepristone, not just prescribed by a doctor in your community, but you could, in some states, get it through telemedicine, you can get it through the mail. That all stays in effect then, right? Like, what was the reaction from abortion rights advocates?

Ryan Reynolds
So this is a status quo preserving opinion. Right? So mifepristone actually has remained available during the pendency of this litigation on the same terms that the FDA decided it should be available. And the Supreme Court just didn't upend.

Unknown
That only an exceptionally small number of women suffer the kind of serious complications that could trigger any need for emergency treatment. It's speculative that any of those women would seek care from the two specific doctors who asserted conscience injuries. And even if that happened, federal conscience protections would guard against the injury the doctors face.

Ryan Reynolds
And so I think there was an enormous relief on the part of, you know, both the FDA individuals who might need access to mifepristone, and also the pharmaceutical industry writ large. So something interesting about this case, Brad, is that you had on one side these anti abortion organization and anti abortion doctors, and on the other side, the FDA, but also the drug manufacturer Danko. That actually makes mefopristone. And an amicus brief filed by basically all the big pharmaceutical companies that urged the court to reject this case.

Unknown
I think this court should think hard about the mischief it would invite if it allowed agencies to start taking action based on statutory responsibilities that Congress has assigned to other agencies.

Ryan Reynolds
They basically were saying, if you allow these plaintiffs to get into court, you're essentially opening up the door to federal courts second guessing every drug approval decision that this expert agency makes. And that could be very destabilizing both for, you know, american consumers and patients, but also for the manufacturers of drugs who rely on and work closely with this expert agency and don't want to see all of that upended by federal courts.

Unknown
And this case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an FDA rule or any other federal government action.

Ryan Reynolds
If part of your question is, is the issue resolved for all time? The answer is definitely no. Right? So it could very much come back in front of the federal courts. And actually, in this very case, three red states, right, states with very restrictive abortion laws tried to intervene. They actually wanted to be parties to this case in the Supreme Court. So they were unsuccessful in doing that, but they're still in the case in the lower court. So I think very quickly they're gonna move forward and try to basically make the case that even if these doctors weren't able to show that they were harmed by the availability of mifepristone, red states that have banned abortion and are making the argument that the availability of medication abortion makes it hard for them to enforce their total abortion bans, they might meet a more receptive audience in the federal court. So that is entirely a possibility that this opinion doesn't foreclose.

Unknown
I see. And that's why, because we are hearing relief from these abortion rights groups, but also nervousness about where this could go from here is part of the nervousness also, Kate, like if a lot of this, the early parts of this case revolved around whether the FDA had erred in its original approval of mifepristone, in these updates to the. And these updates to the regulations, FDA falls under the executive branch. I mean, is it just is plausible that a new administration, a new president, could come in and change the FDA and thus change these rules? Forget about the courts.

Ryan Reynolds
So the FDA approved mifepristone in 2000 and has changed the regulations surrounding it several times since. But a different FDA under a different president could absolutely change that determination, could reopen the original approval of mifepristone, could decide that it should not be approved to end early pregnancy. So it would need to go through a scientific process. It's not the sort of thing that can just happen.

But certainly a new president could signal a set of policy priorities that included revisiting the approval of mifepristone. And I am sure that a new FDA could manufacture a set of explanations that resulted in the ending of the availability of mephopristone through the FDA approved process. So people should absolutely understand that the lawsuits are one part of the story about the future of access to Mephipristone. But the election is also a very big part of the story, because, you know, who is in the White House will determine, you know, many, many things, but among them, the future of medication abortion.

Unknown
Really interesting, especially as Donald Trump was behind closed doors with republican members of Congress yesterday and apparently told them, you guys should be leaning more into the reversal of Roe v. Wade, we should be celebrating this. In fact, he said, you guys would have a bigger lead in Congress if you would get behind me on this rather than running from it. All right, Kate Shaw, thank you so much.

Ryan Reynolds
Thank you, Brad.

Unknown
Next up on start here. There's not one smoking gun here. There are lots of them. Police in Phoenix, Arizona have been the ones under surveillance. When we come back, you ever feel pulled in a million different directions? Like im barely keeping it together on a regular day, let alone on a busy news day? You certainly dont have time for tedious businessy tasks like getting your shipping in order or setting up a mailing. Well on that front, at least, stamps.com quote s got you covered. The Stamps.com mobile app is like a post office that works 24/7 you can get everything organized no matter where you are, from the office to the beach or anywhere in between. To get shipping done, all you need is a computer and a printer. They will even send you a free to deal with all the postage. And when you set up those shipments, you can automatically see the cheapest rates from four different carriers. Put more life into your work life balance with Stamps.com dot sign up with promo code start for a special offer that includes a four week trial plus free postage and a free digital scale. No long term commitments or contracts. Just go to stamps.com comma click the microphone at the top of the page and enter the code start hi, I'm Alexis Ohanian.

Unknown
You may know me as one of the co founders of Reddit, but more recently, a large part of my identity is being a father to my wonderful daughters in my podcast business dad, I hope to open the conversation about working parents a bit. You'll get to hear from a wide range of business dads, from Rainn Wilson and Guy Raz to Todd Carmichael and Shane Battier, to find out how they balance being a dad with a successful career.

Business stat is available now, so be sure to listen and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.

Unknown
In recent years, the Department of Justice has looked into several local police departments in the wake of controversial and tragic displays of force. One was the Louisville Police Department after Breonna Taylor was shot and killed. The next was the Minneapolis Police Department after an officer killed George Floyd. After that, the Department of Justice started looking into the Phoenix Police Department in Arizona to see if they were using excessive force or discriminatory practices. Yesterday in a press conference, DOJ officials came forward to allege yes, yes, they have. ABC's chief justice correspondent Pierre Thomas has been covering this for us. Pierre, this announcement came from the assistant attorney general for civil rights. What exactly did they find in Phoenix?

Pierre Thomas
Well, the Justice Department is accusing the Phoenix Police Department of engaging in a pattern and practice of unconstitutional discrimination in a damning report. DOJ claims to have found a potpourri of civil rights violations, including unjustified deadly force, bias in traffic and other enforcement, and the unlawful detention, citation and arrests of homeless people.

Unknown
This is one instance where we can't count on the police to police themselves.

Pierre Thomas
We obviously don't have the level or notoriety of cases like Breonna Taylor or George Floyd here.

But they said when they went and studied, the department, looked at arrest records, talked to city officials, looked at claims by the community.

Unknown
The police department not only instructs officers to be proactive in using projectiles, but has adopted a use it or lose it policy, taking the weapons away from officers who did not fire them enough.

Pierre Thomas
In addition to being reckless, accused of being reckless, officers are accused of failing to quickly render emergency aid. After shooting Phoenix.

Unknown
Officers shot a man and after he fell, fired multiple projectiles at him and then sent a police k nine to drag him back to them.

Pierre Thomas
And Brett, one of the more damning aspects of the report is that in their daily interactions with minorities, the Justice Department has concluded that the Phoenix police are often discriminatory. For example, it states that in Phoenix, Hispanics were twelve times more likely to get a minor traffic violation than their white counterparts, and that black people were cited or arrested at three times the rate of white people in traffic equipment related offenses.

Unknown
Well, and like, these allegations were so alarming, allegedly they made coins for each other that, like, commemorated shooting a protester. Like, there were allegations that officers were basically instructed to use force. When you show up to a place like take control of the situation, use force. Is this an issue of training, or is it something deeper or what?

Pierre Thomas
Well, DOJ suggests that training and management has been part of the problem for years.

Unknown
The Phoenix Police Department trains officers that escalation is de escalation.

Pierre Thomas
The city of Phoenix has responded, saying that they're reviewing DOJ's findings, noting that the city has cooperated fully. They say, quote, the police department has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to continuous improvements by enhancing policy, accountability and training.

Brad, clearly the city of Phoenix and DOJ have a different point of view.

Unknown
What happens next in a case like this? Pierre?

Pierre Thomas
Well, DOJ and the city of Phoenix will continue to have dialogue. If they can't come to an agreement, you may end up with some kind of consent decree enforced by a court. But we have a statement from city officials basically saying that they are going to review this report and take it seriously, have an open mind.

Unknown
Yeah, we know that. Like you said, a consent decree. The New Orleans PD has been under something like that since 2013, where you're working with the Justice Department to implement these reforms. All right, Pierre Thomas, our chief justice correspondent, thanks so much.

Pierre Thomas
Pleasure.

Unknown
Despite a proposal on the table, there has been almost no movement on a potential ceasefire in Gaza in recent days. Likewise, there's been no end to the protests swirling around events even tangentially related to the war.

Ryan Reynolds
Free, free Palestine.

Unknown
A couple nights ago, a handful of pro palestinian protesters appeared at the congressional baseball game, interrupting the national anthem with chanting. But some acts of protests recently have been far more aggressive and to some come across less as protests and more like threats. Recently in New York, some of these confrontations have been condemned as straight up antisemitic. Let's bring in ABC senior investigative correspondent Aaron Katersky, who's been following this. Aaron, can you just walk us through what's been happening the last few days in New York?

Unknown
It's been a series of escalating provocations that the mayor here, Brad, has said have moved away from protest and toward what he's called overt, unacceptable anti semitism.

Pierre Thomas
I thought it was despicable. It was disgusting what we saw.

Unknown
There was a big rally right outside, an exhibit commemorating the victims of October 7 down on Wall street in lower Manhattan. And these protesters massed outside the exhibit. They set off smoke bombs.

They carried banners that said, long live October 7. They carried the flags of Hamas and Hezbollah. And there was also several different incidents that police believe are related, in which buildings were defaced. And not just any buildings, but the Palestinian Authority.

Pierre Thomas
Red paint splattered on their doors and leaflets left behind calling for violence against Israel.

Unknown
The director of the Brooklyn Museum, who is jewish, her home and homes of the museum's board members. They were defaced with red paint and threatening signs and a banner accusing the.

Unknown
Director of being a white supremacist Zionist.

Unknown
And then, Brad, there was something rather frightening that was captured on video on a New York city subway car.

Ryan Reynolds
Raise your hands if you're a Zionist.

Unknown
Raise your hands if you're a Zionist.

Unknown
A group of protesters filed into the car, and then in a call and response fashion, you hear a leader ask for Zionists to identify themselves.

Ryan Reynolds
This is your chance to get out. This is your chance to get out.

Unknown
Okay.

Ryan Reynolds
No Zionist, we're good.

Unknown
And the idea of separating a group and then saying, now is your chance to leave. You know, the implication being or else that police took as an implicit threat. And now they're looking for the leader of that call and response chant. They would like to charge that person with attempted coercion?

Unknown
I was going to say, because walking into a room and saying, Zionist, raise your hands. I'm sure the protesters would say there's a difference between the word Zionist and jew, but it sounds an awful lot like Jews. Identify yourself. So is that. So that is illegal then, right? In the eyes of police?

Unknown
Aaron, the police are treating this as less a matter of free speech, and they say it's tipped over into threatening speech. Whether that threat is explicit or implicit, police believe it does cross a line. And they've already had at least one passenger who was on that subway car at the time come forward to say he or she felt threatened. The police are asking other riders who may have similarly felt threatened to come forward because they believe they can build a case based on what was chanted and the way it was chanted in sort of this group mentality.

Unknown
I mean, zooming out, though, Aaron, I mean, are there solutions to this in the eyes of public officials? Like what can be done? Because clearly there can't be a cop in every subway car or at every event where people are talking about the war in Gaza, there are a couple.

Unknown
Of solutions that lawmakers are talking about. One of them is about regulating mask wearing in public.

And that was obviously more complex during the pandemic. But it used to be that you were not allowed to cover your face during protests, and police wanted to be able to identify people who might be causing trouble. And so there's a move afoot now to try and reinstate that prohibition on mask wearing during protests. When I see individuals on a subway being terrorized by individuals in masks, it's a cause for great concern. In fact, Governor Kathy Hochul said she's going to be talking to the legislature about this idea around masks. If there is to be a legislative solution, you certainly have to say there are major exemptions. You know, people who are wearing a surgical mask, you know, n 95 masks for health reasons more broadly. The mayor here, Eric Adams, has talked about protecting speech, but calling out something that to him clearly crosses the line.

Pierre Thomas
You cannot call for peace while you're celebrating what happened on October 7 because.

Unknown
He says it undermines whatever the goals are of certain movements. And he says it does make people feel scared in their own city.

Unknown
Really sort of bizarre scenes here. Thanks for helping us walk through them all. Thank you so much, Aaron.

Unknown
Thank you, Red.

Unknown
Okay, one more quick break. When we come back, whatever you do, don't stop typing. One last thing is next.

This episode is brought to you by progressive insurance. Whether you love true crime or comedy, celebrity interviews, or news hello. You call the shots on what's in your podcast queue. And guess what? You can call the shots on your auto insurance too, with the name your price tool from Progressive. It works just the way it sounds. You tell progressive how much you want to pay for car insurance, and they'll show you coverage options that fit your budget. Get your quote today@progressive.com. to join the over 28 million drivers who trust progressive progressive casualty insurance company and affiliates. Price and coverage match limited by state law and one last thing, working hard or hardly working? Sometimes it's tough to tell. Yesterday, Bloomberg News reported that Wells Fargo has fired more than a dozen employees over the last month for allegedly tending to work. The disclosure documents apparently say the employees were fired on the basis of, quote, simulation of keyboard activity, creating impression of active work, end quote, basically accusing them of using computer programs to make it seem like theyre typing stuff at their desks.

Since the start of the digital era, offices have been trying to monitor exactly how often their workers are sitting at computers. These efforts went out on hyperdrive at the beginning of the pandemic as more employees began working from home and digital products started springing up to help you evade the watchful eye of your boss.

This is a mouse jiggler, a mouse mover.

Ryan Reynolds
Do you work from home?

Unknown
And your laptop has tracking software on it, and you want to make your boss think you're still working? This is a simple python script that moves your mouse for you. There were programs that could keep your computer from going to sleep, which can trigger an alert for management. There were programs to keep your mouse moving, although the cheap way is just to tie your mouse to a roomba. And in this arms race, some bosses began installing programs that would not only watch you on camera to track your eye movements, to make sure you weren't just watching something on your screen. It's not clear whether these Wells Fargo employees were working in the office or at home. The bank wouldn't even confirm the terminations, telling us in a statement, Wells Fargo holds employees to the highest standards and does not tolerate unethical behavior. But the banking industry has been among the most aggressive in getting employees back to the office. Perhaps they're the first to know how much commercial real estate values have been shrinking lately. And as more workers follow a permanent hybrid model, their bosses are finding out new habits die hard.

Is this why our producer Anthony is always just like, nodding in meetings, like, even when no one's saying anything? It's like a video time loop, isn't it? But where are you really? During our meetings, Anthony starred here is produced by Kelly Torres, Jen Newman, Brenda Salinas Baker, Vika Aronson, Cameron Chertavian Anthony, Ali, Maura, Milwaukee, and Amira Williams. Ariel Chester is our social media producer. Josh Cohan is director of podcast programming. I'm our managing editor, Laura Mayers, our executive producer. Thanks to Lakia Brown, John Newman, Tara Gimble, and Liz Alessi. Special thanks this week to Chris Berry, Erin Ferrer, Alexandra Fall, and Nathaniel Raikich. I'm Brad Milke. See you next week.

Ryan Reynolds
In the 1980s, everyone wanted to be in the Brat pack except them. Now director Andrew McCarthy reunites with fellow brats Demi Moore. Why did we take it as an offense as opposed to, like, brat? Because we were young. We're afraid we wore brats.

Amelia Westavez, Ali sheedy, Rob Lowe.

Unknown
I'm not gonna say we were the Beatles or any of this. Well, we didn't feel Shea Stadium, 1985. I think we could have the original.

Ryan Reynolds
Documentary grabs now streaming only on Hulu.