the GOP's unrelenting attacks on women's rights.

This is just the beginning.

There's way too much celebrating going on

around the unanimous Supreme Court decision yesterday that the New York Times

characterized with the headline, Supreme Court maintains broad access to abortion

pill in the Washington Post headline, Supreme Court upholds broad access to key abortion pill Miffa Pristone.

In fact, the Supreme Court took no such stand with regard to Miffa Pristone, abortion,

B, or even contraception.

They merely said that the doctors who brought the case

had not yet suffered any actual harm themselves and therefore had no basis to

sue in the first place. Turning the case down was also a quick and easy way for the Republican justices on the court to get out from under the spot like glaring on them and their other decisions, causing people to think that maybe they can be reasonable, Sam Alito arguing otherwise notwithstanding.

As Justice Kavanaugh wrote in the unanimous opinion, quote, Article 3 of the Constitution

confines the jurisdiction of federal courts to cases and controversies.

As Justice Scalia memorably said, Article 3 requires a plaintiff to first answer the basic

question, what's it to you?

In sum, to sue in federal court a plaintiff must show that he or she has suffered

or likely will suffer an injury in fact.

The case syllabus identifies the wacky anti-abortion doctors group that had sued, noting,

quote,

Plaintiffs are pro-life opposed of elective abortion

and have sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections

to Miffa Pristone being prescribed and used by others.

...