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

UK inflation, November 2024

Published

on

The columns of Royal Exchange are dressed for Christmas, at Bank in the City of London, the capital’s financial district, on 20th November 2024, in London, England.

Richard Baker | In Pictures | Getty Images

LONDON — U.K. inflation rose to 2.6% in November, the Office for National Statistics said Wednesday, marking the second straight monthly increase in the headline figure.

The reading was in line with the forecast of economists polled by Reuters, and climbed from 2.3% in October.

Core inflation, excluding energy, food, alcohol and tobacco, came in at 3.5%, just under a Reuters forecast of 3.6%.

Headline price rises hit a three-and-a-half year low of 1.7% in September, but was expected to tick higher in the following months, partly due to an increase in the regulator-set energy price cap this winter.

“This upwards trajectory looks set to continue over the next few months,” Joe Nellis, economic adviser at accountancy MHA, said in emailed comments on Wednesday, citing the energy market and “the long-term pressure of a tight domestic labor market.”

Persistent inflation in the services sector, the dominant part of the U.K. economy, has led money markets to price in almost no chance of an interest rate cut during the Bank of England’s final meeting of the year on Thursday. Those bets were solidified earlier this week when the ONS reported that regular wage growth strengthened to 5.2% over the August-October period, up from 4.9% over July-September.

The November data showed services inflation was unchanged at 5%.

If the BOE leaves monetary policy unchanged in December, it will finish out the year with just two cuts of its key rate, bringing it from 5.25% to 4.75%. The European Central Bank has meanwhile enacted four quarter-percentage-point cuts and this month signaled a firm intention to move lower next year.

The U.S. Federal Reserve is widely expected to trim rates by a quarter point at its own meeting on Wednesday, taking total cuts of the year to a full percentage point. Some skepticism lingers over whether it should take this step, given inflationary pressures.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated shortly.

Continue Reading

Economics

The Fed has a big interest rate decision coming Wednesday. Here’s what to expect

Published

on

Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference following the November 6-7, 2024, Federal Open Market Committee meeting at William McChesney Martin Jr. Federal Reserve Board Building, in Washington, DC, November 7, 2024. 

Andrew Caballero-Reynolds | AFP | Getty Images

Inflation is stubbornly above target, the economy is growing at about a 3% pace and the labor market is holding strong. Put it all together and it sounds like a perfect recipe for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates or at least to stay put.

That’s not what is likely to happen, however, when the Federal Open Market Committee, the central bank’s rate-setting entity, announces its policy decision Wednesday.

Instead, futures market traders are pricing in a near-certainty that the FOMC actually will lower its benchmark overnight borrowing rate by a quarter percentage point, or 25 basis points. That would take it down to a target range of 4.25%-4.5%.

Even with the high level of market anticipation, it could be a decision that comes under an unusual level of scrutiny. A CNBC survey found that while 93% of respondents said they expect a cut, only 63% said it is the right thing to do.

“I’d be inclined to say ‘no cut,'” former Kansas City Fed President Esther George said Tuesday during a CNBC “Squawk Box” interview. “Let’s wait and see how the data comes in. Twenty-five basis points usually doesn’t make or break where we are, but I do think it is a time to signal to markets and to the public that they have not taken their eye off the ball of inflation.”

Former Kansas City Fed Pres. Esther George: I would not cut rates this week

Inflation indeed remains a nettlesome problem for policymakers.

While the annual rate has come down substantially from its 40-year peak in mid-2022, it has been mired around the 2.5%-3% range for much of 2024. The Fed targets inflation at 2%.

The Commerce Department is expected to report Friday that the personal consumption expenditures price index, the Fed’s preferred inflation gauge, ticked higher in November to 2.5%, or 2.9% on the core reading that excludes food and energy.

Justifying a rate cut in that environment will require some deft communication from Chair Jerome Powell and the committee. Former Boston Fed President Eric Rosengren also recently told CNBC that he would not cut at this meeting.

“They’re very clear about what their target is, and as we’re watching inflation data come in, we’re seeing that it’s not continuing to decelerate in the same manner that it had earlier,” George said. “So that, I think, is a reason to be cautious and to really think about how much of this easing of policy is required to keep the economy on track.”

Fed officials who have spoken in favor of cutting say that policy doesn’t need to be as restrictive in the current environment and they don’t want to risk damaging the labor market.

Chance of a ‘hawkish cut’

If the Fed follows through on the cut, it will mark a full percentage point lopped off the federal funds rate since September.

While that’s a considerable amount of easing in a short period of time, Fed officials have tools at their disposal to let the markets know that future cuts won’t come so easily.

One of those tools is the dot-plot matrix of individual members’ expectations for rates over the next few years. That will be updated Wednesday along with the rest of the Summary of Economic Projections that will include informal outlooks for inflation, unemployment and gross domestic product.

Another is the use of guidance in the post-meeting statement to indicate where the committee sees policy headed. Finally, Powell can use his news conference to provide further clues.

It’s the Powell parley with the media that markets will be watching most closely, followed by the dot plot. Powell recently said the Fed “can afford to be a little more cautious” about how quickly it eases amid what he characterized as a “strong” economy.

“We’ll see them leaning into the direction of travel, to begin the process of moving up their inflation forecast,” said Vincent Reinhardt, BNY Mellon chief economist and former director of the Division of Monetary Affairs at the Fed, where he served 24 years. “The dots [will] drift up a little bit, and [there will be] a big preoccupation at the press conference with the idea of skipping meetings. So it’ll turn out to be a hawkish cut in that regard.”

What about Trump?

Powell is almost certain to be asked about how policy might position in regard to fiscal policy under President-elect Donald Trump.

Thus far, the chair and his colleagues have brushed aside questions about the impact Trump’s initiatives could have on monetary policy, citing uncertainty over what is just talk now and what will become reality later. Some economists think the incoming president’s plans for aggressive tariffs, tax cuts and mass deportations could aggravate inflation even more.

“Obviously the Fed’s in a bind,” Reinhart said. “We used to call it the trapeze artist problem. If you’re a trapeze artist, you don’t leave your platform to swing out until you’re sure your partner is swung out. For the central bank, they can’t really change their forecast in response to what they believe will happen in the political economy until they’re pretty sure there’ll be those changes in the political economy.”

“A big preoccupation at the press conference is going to the idea of skipping meetings,” he added. “So it’ll turn out to be, I think, a hawkish easing in that regard. As [Trump’s] policies are actually put in place, then they may move the forecast by more.”

Other actions on tap

Most Wall Street forecasters see Fed officials raising their expectations for inflation and reducing the expectations for rate cuts in 2025.

When the dot plot was last updated in September, officials indicated the equivalent of four quarter-point cuts next year. Markets already have lowered their own expectations for easing, with an expected path of two cuts in 2025 following the move this week, according to the CME Group’s FedWatch measure.

The outlook also is for the Fed to skip the January meeting. Wall Street is expecting little to no change in the post-meeting statement.

Officials also are likely to raise their estimate for the “neutral” rate of interest that neither boosts nor restricts growth. That level had been around 2.5% for years — a 2% inflation rate plus 0.5% at the “natural” level of interest — but has crept up in recent months and could cross 3% at this week’s update.

Finally, the committee may adjust the interest it pays on its overnight repo operations by 0.05 percentage point in response to the fed funds rate drifting to near the bottom of its target range. The “ON RPP” rate acts as a floor for the funds rate and is currently at 4.55% while the effective funds rate is 4.58%. Minutes from the November FOMC meeting indicated officials were considering a “technical adjustment” to the rate.

Expect a 'hawkish cut' from the Fed this week, says BofA's Mark Cabana

Continue Reading

Economics

Iran faces dual crisis amid currency drop and loss of major regional ally

Published

on

A briefcase filled with Iranian rial banknotes sits on display at a currency exchange market on Ferdowsi street in Tehran, Iran, on Saturday, Jan. 6, 2018.

Ali Mohammadi | Bloomberg | Getty Images

Iran is confronting its worst set of crises in years, facing a spiraling economy along with a series of unprecedented geopolitical and military blows to its power in the Middle East.

Over the weekend, Iran’s currency, the rial, hit a record low of 756,000 to the dollar, according to Reuters. Since September, the embattled currency has suffered the ripple effects of devastating hits to Iran’s proxies, including Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Palestinian militant group Hamas, as well as the November election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency.

With the fall of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad amid a shock offensive by rebel groups, Tehran lost its most important ally in the Middle East. Assad, who is accused of war crimes against his own people, fled to Russia and left a highly fractured country behind him.

“The fall of Assad has existential implications for the Islamic Republic,” Behnam ben Taleblu, a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies in Washington, told CNBC. “Lest we forget, the regime ahs spent well over a decade in treasure, blood, and reputation to save a regime which ultimately folded in less than two weeks.”

The currency’s fall exposes the extent of the hardship faced by ordinary Iranians, who struggle to afford everyday goods and suffer high inflation and unemployment after years of heavy Western sanctions compounded by domestic corruption and economic mismanagement.

Trump has pledged to take a hard line on Iran and will be re-entering the White House roughly six years after unilaterally pulling the U.S. out of the Iranian nuclear deal and re-imposing sweeping sanctions on the country.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian has expressed his government’s willingness to negotiate and revive the deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which lifted some sanctions on Iran in exchange for curbs to its nuclear program. But the attempted outreach comes at a time when the International Atomic Energy Agency says Tehran is enriching uranium at record levels, reaching 60% purity — a short technical step from the weapons-grade purity level of 90%.

Continue Reading

Trending