To the editor: The concept of “standing” is not as interesting as the fight for women’s reproductive rights, but the focus on the fact that the case challenging the drug mifepristone dealt with abortion slights the truly important part of the decision. (“What a relief. The Supreme Court did the right thing on mifepristone,” Opinion, June 13)
In unanimously rejecting the suit, the Supreme Court strongly affirmed that nobody can use the court system to challenge government action just because they have “sincere legal, moral, ideological and policy objections.” Real injury must be shown, not the outraged righteousness so frequently demonstrated by advocates from the fringes of the political spectrum and those who wish to impose their religious beliefs on others.
As emphasized in the court’s opinion, the forum to address those objections is political. Barred from using their favorite judges in Texas, this lesson will not be lost on the far right.
This case should serve as a huge wake-up call to anyone who thinks federal regulation of everything from pollution to food health and safety is not at stake in the November election.
Stephanie Scher, Pasadena
The writer is a former attorney.
..
To the editor: This preposterous lawsuit was initiated by a group of doctors whose standing to file is based on the far-fetched notion that one day in the distant future, the doctors might be called upon to treat a patient who suffers some unknown side effect after using mifepristone. Thankfully, the Supreme Court rejected their suit.
This case should have been dismissed immediately upon filing. It is taught on the first day of law school that the right to bring a civil action is based on the moving party’s showing of direct harm. Otherwise, anybody could sue anybody else at any time for any speculative damage.
What’s next? Emergency room doctors might file suit against General Motors for manufacturing cars that might one day be involved in a crash, requiring the doctors to treat an injured passenger?
The obviously biased judges who heard this case before the Supreme Court should have dismissed it for lack of the plaintiffs’ standing. Not doing so set a dangerous precedent that conflicts with hundreds of years of established legal procedure.
Charles Kent, Rancho Mission Viejo