But, “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion, correct?” asked Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Elizabeth B. Prelogar, the solicitor general arguing on the government’s behalf, said Hawley and co. did not “come within 100 miles of the kinds of circumstances this court has previously identified” as grounds for standing and disputed plaintiffs’ arguments about the safety of the abortion pill. The remedy the plaintiffs seek—nationwide restrictions on mifepristone access—also seems unlikely to fly.

“This case seems like a prime example of turning what could be a small lawsuit into a nationwide legislative assembly on an F.D.A. rule or any other federal government action,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch yesterday.

Alabama referendum on IVF decision: In February, Alabama’s state supreme court ruled, quite controversially, that frozen embryos deserve the same types of legal protections granted to children.

Yesterday, a woman named Marilyn Lands flipped a state House seat from red to blue after campaigning in opposition to the in vitro fertilization (IVF) decision and to restrictions on abortion (including sharing her own story of getting an abortion several decades ago, after doctors determined her baby would not live long outside the womb).

Republicans will, of course, still hold a majority in the statehouse, but it’s an interesting outcome that provides more fodder for the hypothesis that abortion restrictions—and, in Alabama’s case, IVF restrictions as well—are unpopular among most voters.

For pro-lifers like myself who favor restrictions on the procedure (contra most libertarians), this is disheartening, but a political reality with which we must contend.