Connect with us

Economics

Abortion-pill foes get a chilly reception at the Supreme Court

Published

on

ANTI-ABORTION ACTIVISTS were thrilled when Donald Trump won the presidency in 2016. Mr Trump had promised to appoint justices who would “automatically” overturn Roe v Wade, the 1973 case that protected reproductive rights. Three appointments later, the Supreme Court did just that in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organisation. But two years on, an oral argument on March 26th concerning mifepristone—a medication used in 63% of abortions in America—bodes ill for those hoping the court will help them keep limiting access to abortion care. At least for now.

Food and Drug Administration v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine concerns a challenge to mifepristone by a group of doctors who oppose abortion. They persuaded a lower-court judge to de-authorise the FDA’s approval of the drug in 2000 despite a safety record comparable to Tylenol (paracetamol) and penicillin. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals somewhat softened that slap in the agency’s face last August. But it blocked the FDA’s moves in 2016 and 2021 allowing mifepristone to be used later in pregnancy (through ten weeks) and to be sent through the mail with a remote prescription.

Erin Hawley, representing the plaintiffs, defended the pill restrictions in her first argument at the Supreme Court. With her husband, Senator Josh Hawley, watching from the public gallery, she told the justices that the FDA’s policy on mifepristone left her clients facing a “Hobson’s choice”. Forcing doctors either to stand by their beliefs or care for a woman who took abortion pills and wound up in the emergency room, Ms Hawley said, is “intolerable”. Yet she faced deeply sceptical questioning from justices across the ideological spectrum as to whether her clients had suffered a concrete injury—a prerequisite for bringing a lawsuit in the first place.

Colloquy about “standing”, or a lack thereof, consumed perhaps three-quarters of the 90-minute hearing. Justices Elena Kagan and Amy Coney Barrett teamed up to demonstrate that even Ms Hawley’s two exemplars—Dr Christina Francis and Dr Ingrid Skop—had not suffered a concrete injury. Dr Francis may have had a patient who needed surgical attention after a complication from taking mifepristone, but she never raised an objection to treating her, Justice Kagan pointed out. And as Justice Barrett noted, it was actually her partner who performed the procedure, not Dr Francis herself: “I don’t read either Skop or Francis” as having “ever participated” in ending the life of a fetus or embryo.

The Alliance offered an alternative account of why the Alliance may have the right to sue—a theory known as “associational standing”. This is when an organisation brings a lawsuit based on harm to the organisation itself or to its members. Justice Clarence Thomas noted that it may be too “easy to manufacture” an injury rooted in an organisation’s bare opposition to a policy if all it has to show is “diverted time and resources” associated with bringing the lawsuit. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito suggested that the court has been flexible with standing in past cases and seemed exasperated by the possibility that no one could come up with a plausible plaintiff. “Is there anybody who can sue and get a judicial ruling on whether what FDA did was lawful?” he asked. “Shouldn’t somebody be able to challenge that in court?” That’s quite unlikely, replied Elizabeth Prelogar, the solicitor-general who ably defended the FDA’s moves. But in any case, the plaintiffs in court don’t “come within a hundred miles” of the Supreme Court’s long-standing standards.

Several justices explored Ms Prelogar’s claim that federal law provides “conscience protections” that “would guard against the injury the doctors face”. Justices Barrett and Brett Kavanaugh seemed satisfied with her assurance that the government would not force a doctor with an objection to ending fetal life to participate in an abortion. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson added that the “obvious common-sense remedy” is to give individual doctors “an exemption” (which they already have) rather than, as she said to Ms Hawley, to “entertain your argument that no one else…in America should have this drug in order to protect your clients”.

Justice Neil Gorsuch jumped on this suggestion. Single-judge district courts, he lamented, too often refashion themselves as “a nationwide legislative assembly” when blocking actions of the federal government. The judiciary’s proper role, he said, is to “provide a remedy sufficient to address the plaintiff’s asserted injuries and go no further”.

Two justices seem ready to go significantly further. Justices Alito and Thomas invoked the Comstock Act, a law from 1873 that bans sending, among other “lewd” things, abortion medications and materials through the post. In 2022 the White House’s Office of Legal Counsel said that this 150-year-old law only prohibits posting such materials to people who will use them unlawfully. But Justice Alito was incredulous that the FDA did not at least mention the law when regulating mifepristone. And Justice Thomas told Jessica Ellsworth, the lawyer for Danco Laboratories (which markets the drug as Mifeprex) that it “specifically covers drugs such as yours”.

If three more justices who were mum on this 19th-century law have a similar view, a future administration could succeed in banning the posting of abortion medication. But for now, it seems, the nearly 650,000 American women who end their pregnancies each year with abortion pills will not see their access curtailed.

Visitors outside the Supreme Court on March 26th saw just how convenient mifepristone can be. Foot-high “Roe-bots” whizzed around the plaza ready to distribute abortion pills by prescription. Controlled by doctors in Massachusetts, New York and Washington, the bots can do a virtual consultation with a remote provider and dispense the medication on demand. A volunteer with Aid Access, the charity which organised the demonstration, noted the Roe-bots were perfectly legal. “It’s all very by the book,” she said. 

Economics

Pete Hegseth is purging both weapons and generals

Published

on

THE PENTAGON has been mired in chaos in recent months. Pete Hegseth, the secretary of defence, stands accused of mishandling classified information. Many of his aides have been let go over alleged leaks (accusations they deny). Top generals have been fired for no discernible reason beyond their colour or sex. The department is in “a full-blown meltdown”, says John Ullyot, a Hegseth loyalist who served as chief spokesman until April. Yet Mr Hegseth is pressing ahead with sweeping reforms that will change the size, shape and purpose of America’s armed forces.

Continue Reading

Economics

Where the Trump administration has science on its side  

Published

on

BACK IN JANUARY Donald Trump signed executive order 14187, entitled “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”. He instructed federally run insurance programmes to exclude coverage of treatment related to gender transition for minors. The order aimed to stop institutions that receive federal grants from providing such treatments as well. Mr Trump also commissioned the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to publish, within 90 days, a review of literature on best practices regarding “identity-based confusion” among children. The ban on federal funding was later blocked by a judge, but the review was published on May 1st.

Continue Reading

Economics

China risks deeper deflation by diverting exports to domestic market

Published

on

SHENZHEN, CHINA – APRIL 12: A woman checks her smartphone while walking past a busy intersection in front of a Sam’s Club membership store and a McDonald’s restaurant on April 12, 2025 in Shenzhen, China.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images News

As sky-high tariffs kill U.S. orders for Chinese goods, the country has been striving to help exporters divert sales to the domestic market — a move that threatens to drive the world’s second-largest economy into deeper deflation.

Local Chinese governments and major businesses have voiced support to help tariff-hit exporters redirect their products to the domestic market for sale. JD.com, Tencent and Douyin, TikTok’s sister app in China, are among the e-commerce giants promoting sales of these goods to Chinese consumers.

Sheng Qiuping, vice commerce minister, in a statement last month described China’s vast domestic market as a crucial buffer for exporters in weathering external shocks, urging local authorities to coordinate efforts in stabilizing exports and boosting consumption.

“The side effect is a ferocious price war among Chinese firms,” said Yingke Zhou, senior China economist at Barclays Bank.

JD.com, for instance, has pledged 200 billion yuan ($28 billion) to help exporters and has set up a dedicated section on its platform for goods originally intended for U.S. buyers, with discounts of up to 55%.

An influx of discounted goods intended for the U.S. market would also erode companies’ profitability, which in turn would weigh on employment, Zhou said. Uncertain job prospects and worries over income stability have already been contributing to weak consumer demand.

After hovering just above zero in 2023 and 2024, the consumer price index slipped into negative territory, declining for two straight months in February and March. The producer price index fell for a 29th consecutive month in March, down 2.5% from a year earlier, to clock its steepest decline in four months.

As the trade war knocks down export orders, deflation in China’s wholesale prices will likely deepen to 2.8% in April, from 2.5% in March, according to a team of economists at Morgan Stanley. “We believe the tariff impact will be the most acute this quarter, as many exporters have halted their production and shipments to the U.S.”

For the full year, Shan Hui, chief China economist at Goldman Sachs, expects China’s CPI to fall to 0%, from a 0.2% year-on-year growth in 2024, and PPI to decline by 1.6% from a 2.2% drop last year.

China's threshold for pain is a lot higher than ours, says former Acting Deputy U.S. Trade Rep.

“Prices will need to fall for domestic and other foreign buyers to help absorb the excess supply left behind by U.S. importers,” Shan said, adding that manufacturing capacity may not adjust quickly to “sudden tariff increases,” likely worsening the overcapacity issues in some industries. 

Goldman projects China’s real gross domestic product to grow just 4.0% this year, even as Chinese authorities have set the growth target for 2025 at “around 5%.”

Survival game

U.S. President Donald Trump ratcheted up tariffs on imported Chinese goods to 145% this year, the highest level in a century, prompting Beijing to retaliate with additional levies of 125%. Tariffs at such prohibitive levels have severely hit trade between the two countries.

The concerted efforts from Beijing to help exporters offload goods impacted by U.S. tariffs may not be anything more than a stopgap measure, said Shen Meng, director at Beijing-based boutique investment bank Chanson & Co.

The loss of access to the U.S. market has deepened strains on Chinese exporters, piling onto weak domestic demand, intensifying price wars, razor-thin margins, payment delays and high return rates.

“For exporters that were able to charge higher prices from American consumers, selling in China’s domestic market is merely a way to clear unsold inventory and ease short-term cash-flow pressure,” Shen said: “There is little room for profits.”

The squeezed margins may force some exporting companies to close shop, while others might opt to operate at a loss, just to keep factories from sitting idle, Shen said.

Weekly analysis and insights from Asia’s largest economy in your inbox
Subscribe now

As more firms shut down or scale back operations, the fallout will spill into the labor market. Goldman Sachs’ Shan estimates that 16 million jobs, over 2% of China’s labor force, are involved in the production of U.S.-bound goods.

The Trump administration last week ended the “de minimis” exemptions that had allowed Chinese e-commerce firms like Shein and Temu to ship low-value parcels into the U.S. without paying tariffs.

“The removal of the de minimis rule and declining cashflow are pushing many small and medium-sized enterprises toward insolvency,” said Wang Dan, China director at political risk consultancy firm Eurasia Group, warning that job losses are mounting in export-reliant regions.

She estimates the urban unemployment rate to reach an average 5.7% this year, above the official 5.5% target, Wang said.

Beijing holds stimulus firepower

Surging exports in the past few years have helped China offset the drag from a property slump that has hit investment and consumer spending, strained government finances and the banking sector.

The property-sector ills, coupled with the prohibitive U.S. tariffs, mean “the economy is set to face two major drags simultaneously,” Ting Lu, chief China economist at Nomura, said in a recent note, warning that the risk is a “worse-than-expected demand shock.”

It is in both the U.S. and China's interest to come to a compromise, says JPMorgan

Despite the mounting calls for more robust stimulus, many economists believe Beijing will likely wait to see concrete signs of economic deterioration before it exercises fiscal firepower.

“Authorities do not view deflation as a crisis, instead, [they are] framing low prices as a buffer to support household savings during a period of economic transition,” Eurasia Group’s Wang said.

When asked about the potential impact of increased competition within China’s market, Peking University professor Justin Yifu Lin said Beijing can use fiscal, monetary and other targeted policies to boost purchasing power.

“The challenge the U.S. faces is larger than China’s,” he told reporters on April 21 in Mandarin, translated by CNBC. Lin is dean of the Institute of New Structural Economics.

He expects the current tariff situation would be resolved soon, but did not share a specific timeframe. While China retains production capabilities, Lin said it would take at least a year or two for the U.S. to reshore manufacturing, meaning American consumers would be hit by higher prices in the interim.

— CNBC’s Evelyn Cheng contributed to this story.

Continue Reading

Trending