Hi, it's Dahlia Lythwick, and the Supreme Court's opinion Palusa is heating up.

So here on Amicus, we are doing our very, very best to stay on top of everything and to bring you

along for the ride still to come in this season of unelected politicians in robes. The court has yet to issue decisions on whether adjudicated domestic abusers have the right to bear arms,

if coup-prone presidents are truly above the law,

and whether pre-viability fetuses have more rights

than their reproductive hosts, who we call women.

On Thursday morning, we received a unanimous decision on abortion pills that means that

the status quo on abortion medication holds. Yay! But wait! Good news from the Supreme Court can rarely be taken without the proverbial pinch of

salt and that's what Slate's very own Mark Joseph Stern and I hope to provide, not simply the salt,

but the context for decisions in a Supreme Court

term that is as much about ideological warfare as it is about the merit of any one individual

case.

In a unanimous decision on Thursday morning, the High Court found an insurmountable lack of

standing from doctors and dentists claiming moral injury from the possibility of treating patients

who had taken abortion medication. Mifapristo, the abortion drug documented to be safer than Tylenol or Viagra with decades of

clinical study both here and around the world to back that up will continue to

be licensed by the FDA for use in a two-step regimen to terminate pregnancy.

But this is what a win looks like at the court, and that's pretty chilling.

Here is a taste of my conversation with Slade's very own,

Mark Joseph Stern, senior writer on the courts, on the law and democracy,

and the Amicus Podcast's very favorite opinion-pollusa mixed doubles partner.

I hate that amicus could be called skunk in the elevator show, but I think this is a good skunk in the elevator show but I think this is a good skunk in the elevator

...