In short, the judge concludes that the plaintiffs have standing to bring this case either on their own behalf as doctors who do not prescribe the drug but are harmed by complications that can “overwhelm the medical system” or lead them to be complicit in “elective chemical abortion” or on behalf of patients who are harmed by medication abortion but unable to vindicate their own interests in litigation. [read post]

A single decision from the state’s supreme court has brought this century-and-a-half-old law back to life.Time Does Not Stand Still: The Absurdity of Resurrecting a Law from the Century Before LastIn this case, the Arizona Supreme Court ignored standard canons of statutory interpretation to reach a conclusion in line with the politics of the judges: that the more extreme abortion ban can be enforced despite the p [read post]