SCOTUS Rejects Abortion Pill Case, Abortionists Celebrate
June 18, 2024Key Takeaways
- A SCOTUS decision not to hear an abortion pill case brings relief for pro-choice voters who still have caution around reproductive freedoms at the federal level.
- Many are continuing to call for further advancement of abortion protections in all forms.
- Pro-life advocates critique the decision on moral grounds, saying medication abortions are still abortion.
Our Methodology
Demographics
All Voters
Sample Size
2,000
Geographical Breakdown
National
Time Period
1 Day
MIG Reports leverages EyesOver technology, employing Advanced AI for precise analysis. This ensures unparalleled precision, setting a new standard. Find out more about the unique data pull for this article.
News of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear a case challenging the abortion pill, or Mifepristone, has elicited significant reactions from Americans. A prominent theme is relief, mixed with caution.
Mifepristone is a prescription pill also known as the “abortion pill.” It works by inducing a miscarriage by blocking certain hormones, softening the cervix. It also requires a follow-up medication which sheds the baby from the uterus. The pill is considered effective within the first ten weeks of pregnancy.
Many pro-choice voters are celebrating the ruling, viewing it as a temporary safeguard for abortion rights. They view pro-life advocacy and initiatives as a threat to women’s abortion options. They emphasize the importance of codifying these rights into federal law to ensure lasting protection from future extremist attacks.
What Americans Are Saying
Relief and Caution
- Pro-choice voters celebrate the ruling as a temporary safeguard for reproductive rights.
- They place emphasis on the need to codify these rights into federal law for lasting protection.
Focus on Abortion Rights
- Many on both sides are taking the opportunity to reflect on SCOTUS overturning Roe v. Wade two years ago.
- There are concerns about the future preservation of reproductive freedoms.
- Some who lean left view the ruling as a procedural win, not a definitive safeguard.
FDA and Legal Standing
- The decision was based on the plaintiffs’ lack of legal standing, not a stance on abortion.
- It also highlights the fragility of the victory pro-lifers are hopeful for the potential of future legal challenges.
Political Discourse
- There are ongoing concerns about Republican efforts to restrict abortion access.
- Some call for political mobilization and electing representatives who defend reproductive rights.
Safety and Efficacy of Mifepristone
- Pro-choice voters view trust in Mifepristone as a reinforcement of the FDA's expertise and decisions.
- They advocate for medical decisions to be guided by science, not politics.
Broader Reproductive Health
- Discussions include debates about the potential need to use Mifepristone in cases of miscarriage.
- Some people highlight the multifaceted nature of reproductive care beyond just abortion.
Sentiment Trends
Most voters are polarized along ideological lines. On one side, many Americans are celebrating what they see as a crucial win for reproductive rights. They emphasize continued vigilance and activism. However, some express skepticism about the longevity of this victory and caution about taking comfort in what they see as a precarious ruling.
Pro-Lifers on Abortion Rights
There is a substantial counter-narrative challenging the legitimacy and morality of abortion rights. Pro-life voters who are critical of SCOTUS declining to hear the case argue abortion, including medication abortion, equates to the termination of unborn lives.
They highlight the moral and ethical considerations, saying the decision reflects broader political attempts to diminish the sanctity of life. This perspective frequently associates the protection of reproductive rights with broader societal and moral decline.