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

The pivotal February jobs report is out Friday. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

People walk past digital billboards at the Moynihan Train Hall displaying a new initiative from New York Governor Kathy Hochul titled ‘New York Wants You’, a program designed to recruit and employ displaced federal workers across New York State, in New York, U.S., March 3, 2025. 

David Dee Delgado | Reuters

Mixed signals lately from the labor market are adding to angst for investors already on a knife’s edge over the potential threat that tariffs pose to inflation and economic growth.

Depending on the perspective, employers either are cutting workers at the highest rate in years or skating by with current staffing levels.

What has become clear is that workers are increasingly uncertain of their employment status and less prone to seek other opportunities, at the same time as job hunters are reporting it harder to find new positions, according to several recent surveys.

The sentiment indicators counter otherwise solid numbers showing up in more traditional data points like nonfarm payrolls growth and the jobless rate, which is still at a level historically associated with full employment and a bustling labor market.

Sound fundamentals

“Fundamentally speaking, things are still relatively sound in the United States. That doesn’t mean there are no cracks,” said Tom Porcelli, chief U.S. economist at PGIM Fixed Income. “You can just whistle past that and just hang your hat on the payrolls report, or recognize that the payrolls report is a lagging indicator and some of those other indicators that give you a better flavor of what’s happening under the surface are looking softer by comparison.”

Markets will get another snapshot of labor market health when the Labor Department’s Bureau of Labor Statistics releases its February nonfarm payrolls report Friday at 8:30 ET. Economists surveyed by Dow Jones expect growth of 170,000 jobs, up from 143,000 in January, with the unemployment rate holding steady at 4%.

While that represents a stable labor market, there are a number of caveats that point to more difficult times ahead.

Outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas reported Thursday that layoff announcements from companies soared in February to their highest monthly level since July 2020. A big reason for that move was the effort by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency to cull the federal workforce. Challenger reported more than 62,000 DOGE-related cuts.

DOGE actions as well as other labor survey indicators showing worker angst likely won’t be reflected in Friday’s jobs number, primarily due to the timing of the cuts and the methodology the BLS uses in its twin counts of household employment and jobs filled at the establishment level.

Consumer confidence drop

But a recent Conference Board report showed an unexpectedly large drop in consumer confidence that coincided with a spike in respondents expecting fewer jobs to be available as well as harder to get. Similarly, a University of Michigan’s survey saw a slide as respondents worried about inflation.

In the world of economics, such fears can quickly become self-fulfilling prophecy.

“If workers don’t feel confident that they’re going to be able to find a new job … then that’s going to be reflected in the economy, and the same in terms for how willing employers are to hire,” said Allison Shrivastava, economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab. “Don’t ever discount sentiment.”

In recent days, economists have been ramping up the potential impact for DOGE cuts, with some saying that multiplier effects involving government contractors could take the total labor force reduction to half a million or more.

“They’re going to have some trouble being reabsorbed into the economy,” Shrivastava said. “It also does shake people’s confidence and sentiment, which can certainly impact the actual economy.”

For now, Goldman Sachs said the DOGE cuts probably will lower the headline payrolls number by just 10,000 or so and exepcts weather-related impacts to be small. Overall, the bank said the current picture, according to alternative figures, is one of “a firm pace of job creation, and we expect continued, albeit moderating, contributions from catch-up hiring and the recent surge in immigration.”

In addition to the employment numbers, the BLS will release figures on pay growth. Average hourly earnings are expected to show a 0.3% monthly gain, up 4.2% from a year ago and about 0.1 percentage point above the January level.

Continue Reading

Economics

Treasury Secretary Bessent says the American dream is not about ‘access to cheap goods’

Published

on

Scott Bessent, US treasury secretary, during a Bloomberg Television interview in New York, US, on Thursday, Feb. 20, 2025. 

Victor J. Blue | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Thursday offered a full-throated defense of the White House’s position on tariffs, insisting that trade policy has to be about more than just getting low-priced items from other countries.

“Access to cheap goods is not the essence of the American dream,” Bessent said during a speech to the Economic Club of New York. “The American Dream is rooted in the concept that any citizen can achieve prosperity, upward mobility, and economic security. For too long, the designers of multilateral trade deals have lost sight of this.”

The remarks came with markets on edge over how far President Donald Trump will go in an effort to attain his goals on global commerce. Stocks fell sharply Thursday despite news about some movement from the administration on Mexican imports.

In a speech delivered to a crowd of leading economists, Bessent indicated that Trump is willing to take strong measures to achieve his trade goals.

“To the extent that another country’s practices harm our own economy and people, the United States will respond. This is the America First Trade Policy,” he said.

Earlier in the day, Commerce Department data underscored how far the U.S. has fallen behind its global trading partners. The imbalance swelled to a record $131.4 billion in January, a 34% increase from the prior month and nearly double from a year ago.

“This system is not sustainable,” Bessent said.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick: Tariff revenues will reduce the deficit & help balance budget

Economists and market participants worry that the Trump tariffs will raise prices and slow growth. However, White House officials point out that tariffs did little to stoke inflation during Trump’s first term, touting growth potential from reshoring as companies look to avoid paying the duties.

“Across a continuum, I’m not worried about inflation,” Bessent said. He added that Trump considers tariffs to have three benefits: as a revenue source with the U.S. running massive fiscal deficits, as a way to protect industries and workers from unfair practices around the world, and as “the third leg to the stool” as Trump “uses it for negotiating.”

Thursday’s talk was hosted by Larry Kudlow, the head of the National Economic Council during Trump’s first term.

In addition to discussing tariffs, the two chatted about deregulation as well as the onerous debt and deficit burden the government is facing. The budget is already $840 billion in the hole through just the first four months of fiscal 2025 as the deficit runs above 6% as a share of gross domestic product, a level virtually unheard of in a peacetime, expansionary economy.

“This is the last chance bar and grill to get this done,” Bessent said of imposing fiscal discipline. “Everyone knows what they should do. It’s, do they have the willpower to do it?”

Bessent also advocated a deep examination of bank regulations, particularly for smaller institutions, which he said are burdened with rules that don’t help safety.

As Bessent spoke, stocks added to losses in what has been a tough week for Wall Street.

“Wall Street’s done great, Wall Street can continue doing well. But this administration is about Main Street,” he said.

Continue Reading

Economics

Andrew Cuomo plots a comeback in New York

Published

on

Political disgrace isn’t as constraining as it used to be. Andrew Cuomo, whose public career was thought to be dead just three years ago, is back in the spotlight as a candidate for mayor of New York City—and he is topping polls. Mr Cuomo resigned as governor of New York state in August 2021 amid multiple sexual-harassment allegations (which he denied). On March 1st he announced his comeback.

Continue Reading

Trending