To the editor: The concept of “legitimation” is not as interesting as the fight for women's reproductive rights, but focusing on the fact that the case challenging the drug mifepristone had to do with abortion misses the truly important part of the decision. (“What a relief. The Supreme Court did the right thing with mifepristone”, Opinion, June 13)
In unanimously rejecting the suit, the Supreme Court firmly stated that no one can use the judicial system to challenge government action just because he or she has “sincere legal, moral, ideological and political objections.” Real harm must be shown, not the indignant righteousness so often demonstrated by advocates on the fringes of the political spectrum and those who wish to impose their religious beliefs on others.
As the court's opinion emphasizes, the forum for addressing those objections is political. By preventing them from using their favorite judges in Texas, this lesson will not go unnoticed by the far right.
This case should serve as a huge wake-up call to anyone who thinks federal regulation on everything from pollution to food health and safety is not at stake in the November election.
Stephanie Scher, Pasadena
The writer is a former lawyer.
..
To the editor: This absurd lawsuit was brought by a group of doctors whose ability to file the lawsuit is based on the wild idea that one day in the distant future, doctors might be called upon to treat a patient who suffers some unknown side effect after using mifepristone. Fortunately, the Supreme Court rejected his claim.
This case should have been dismissed immediately upon its filing. The first day of law school is taught that the right to bring a civil action is based on a showing of direct harm by the plaintiff. Otherwise, anyone could sue anyone else at any time for any speculative damages.
Whats Next? Could emergency room doctors file a lawsuit against General Motors for making cars that could one day be involved in an accident, requiring 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 standing on the part of the plaintiffs. Failure to do so sets a dangerous precedent that conflicts with hundreds of years of established legal procedure.
Charles Kent, Mission Viejo Ranch
