A pig's fate in California may shape the destiny of abortion access nationwide as a federal judge determines how a Supreme Court ruling on pork affects West Virginia's anti-abortion legislation.
The consequences from the six-justice majority opinion held in National Pork Producers Council v. Ross, which maintained California's law banning sales of pork meat that comes from pigs that are"confined in a cruel manner," are already playing out in a legal dispute over West Virginia's ban on a common abortion-inducing drug.Nevada-based GenBioPro, makers of the generic drug, sued West Virginia, saying the state's Unborn Child Protection Act infringes upon the U.S.
James Bopp Jr., counsel for National Right to Life, largely agrees with the state officials, telling the Washington Examiner that the Supreme Court ruling"provides additional legal support" for West Virginia's law. The drugmaker furthered that mifepristone is within a"small subset" of products subject to the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy that governs its distribution. The system “dictates in detail how such drugs move through interstate commerce, from packaging through distribution,” according to GenBioPro's May 19 filing.
The potential ties to abortion disputes were also raised by conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, a dissenting voice over the decision, suggesting the majority's test could expand the state's authority to pass laws that impact abortion as well as a wide range of practices. Regarding a surgical procedure, Ziegler said that California's open abortion laws would likely apply. However, a California doctor endorsing the mailing of abortion pills to another state may face legal consequences since that state could argue for enforcement of its laws that have impacts elsewhere.
Australia Latest News, Australia Headlines
Similar News:You can also read news stories similar to this one that we have collected from other news sources.
Wetlands lose some environmental protections in new Supreme Court rulingAfter a long battle over the Clean Water Act and Waters of the US rule, the Supreme Court decided to limit EPA protections for wetlands.
Read more »
U.S. Supreme Court decision will end federal protections for most Indiana wetlandsThe U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a decision that will effectively remove federal protections for most of Indiana wetlands. This is a move which rolls back federal safeguards for wetlands under the Clear Water Act.
Read more »
Maryland Supreme Court halts Adnan Syed’s murder conviction reinstatementMaryland’s highest court on Thursday temporarily halted Adnan Syed’s murder conviction from being reinstated as it weighs whether to take up the “Serial” podcast subject’s case.
Read more »
Judge halts South Carolina’s new stricter abortion law until state Supreme Court reviewA judge has put a temporary halt to South Carolina’s new law banning most abortions around six weeks of pregnancy until the state Supreme Court can review the measure. The ruling Friday by Judge Clifton Newman came just about 24 hours after Gov. Henry McMaster signed the bill. The decision means South Carolina reverts back to a ban around 20 weeks. The new law is similar to a ban on abortion once cardiac activity can be detected that lawmakers passed in 2021. Legislative leaders say the new law makes technical tweaks that should sway at least one justice to change his mind. Planned Parenthood says the differences shouldn't change the original ruling.
Read more »
Supreme Court delivers blow to wetlands protections in win for Idaho landownersThe Supreme Court weakens a landmark water pollution law by ruling that an Idaho couple's property does not fall under jurisdiction of the 1972 Clean Water Act, so the couple does not require a federal permit to build on the property.
Read more »
Judge halts South Carolina’s new stricter abortion law until state Supreme Court reviewThe ruling by Judge Clifton Newman came just about 24 hours after Gov. Henry McMaster signed the bill.
Read more »