Connect with us

Economics

The Supreme Court hears its first abortion case since ending Roe

Published

on

Listen to this story.
Enjoy more audio and podcasts on iOS or Android.

Your browser does not support the <audio> element.

Nearly two-thirds of the Americans who choose to end their pregnancies now do so using pills. Medication abortion has been an increasingly popular option since 2000, when the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved mifepristone as part of a two-drug regimen with misoprostol. More recently, the FDA widened the window during which the medicine may be used and eased dispensing requirements. But on March 26th the Supreme Court will consider whether these loosened regulations should be tightened back up.

FDA v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine began as an assault on the FDA’s original approval of mifepristone. In April 2023 the district-court judge in Texas who heard the case invalidated the authorisation from 2000 and each of the subsequent liberalisations. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals kept mifepristone on the shelves when it pared back this extraordinary ruling last August. But the appeals court agreed that the 2016 and 2021 changes—allowing the drug to be used through ten weeks of pregnancy (up from seven) and to be sent to women by post with a remote prescription—had to go.

The plaintiffs will be represented at the Supreme Court by Erin Hawley, wife of Senator Josh Hawley of Missouri. They contend that the FDA violated the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governing how agencies operate, when it expanded access to the purportedly “high risk” drug in 2016 and 2021. The changes in 2016 followed a “piecemeal analysis” of insufficient data, the Alliance writes, and the action of 2021 relied on “unreliable” information. Lifting “long-existing and common-sense safety standards” was “arbitrary and capricious” and thus “unreasonable”.

The federal government and Danco, which markets mifepristone as Mifeprex, paint the FDA’s decisions in a rosier light. The move in 2016 was based on “an enormous and highly reliable data set”, the government says. The decision to allow pills-by-post in 2021 was informed by “extensive published literature”, plus more than two decades of women safely using mifepristone. Emergencies arise in at most 0.7% of cases, making the medicine safer than Viagra or penicillin.

The two sides will surely debate the wisdom of the FDA’s moves in next week’s oral argument. But the question of standing could dominate the conversation: whether the challengers have the legal right to bring the case. The Supreme Court has held that fierce opposition to a policy is no grounds to sue the government. Litigants must show they have suffered a “concrete injury” with a clear causal link.

The plaintiffs advance a host of arguments to claim standing. Their main contention is reminiscent of a Rube Goldberg machine: pro-life doctors could be forced to violate their conscience if no one else is available to complete terminations for women rushed to the emergency room after complications from a medical abortion prescribed elsewhere. This “long chain of contingencies” stemming from “an exceedingly rare serious adverse event” is purely speculative, the government argues: the plaintiffs have not named “even a single doctor among their thousands of members who has ever been required to perform an abortion in the decades mifepristone has been on the market”.

The Supreme Court arguably bent the rules of standing last year in a case that dashed President Joe Biden’s plan to cancel student loans. But the winding argument from mifepristone’s foesand the legal adventurism of the lower courts—may stretch too far even for the five justices who dispatched Roe v Wade in 2022.

Stay on top of American politics with The US in brief, our daily newsletter with fast analysis of the most important electoral stories, and Checks and Balance, a weekly note from our Lexington columnist that examines the state of American democracy and the issues that matter to voters.

Economics

China targets U.S. services and other areas after decrying ‘meaningless’ tariff hikes on goods

Published

on

Dilara Irem Sancar | Anadolu | Getty Images

China last week announced it was done retaliating against U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs, saying any further increases by the U.S. would be a “joke,” and Beijing would “ignore” them.

Instead of continuing to focus on tariffing goods, however, China has chosen to resort to other measures, including steps targeting the American services sector.

Trump has jacked up U.S. levies on select goods from China by up to 245% after several rounds of tit-for-tat measures with Beijing in recent weeks. Before calling it a “meaningless numbers game,” China last week imposed additional duties on imports from the U.S. of up to 125%.

While the Trump administration has largely focused on pressing ahead on his tariff plans, Beijing has rolled out a series of non-tariff restrictive measures including widening export controls of rare-earth minerals and opening antitrust probes into American companies, such as pharmaceutical giant DuPont and IT major Google.

Before the latest escalation, in February Beijing had put dozens of U.S. businesses on a so-called “unreliable entity” list, which would restrict or ban firms from trading with or investing in China. American firms such as PVH, the parent company of Tommy Hilfiger, and Illumina, a gene-sequencing equipment provider, were among those added to the list.

Its tightening of exports of critical mineral elements will require Chinese companies to secure special licenses for exporting these resources, effectively restricting U.S. access to the key minerals needed for semiconductors, missile-defense systems and solar cells.

In its latest move on Tuesday, Beijing went after Boeing — America’s largest exporter — by ordering Chinese airlines not to take any further deliveries for its jets and requested carriers to halt any purchases of aircraft-related equipment and parts from U.S. companies, according to Bloomberg.

Having deliveries to China cut off will add to the cash-strapped plane maker’s troubles, as it struggles with a lingering quality-control crisis.

In another sign of growing hostilities, Chinese police issued notices for apprehending three people they claimed to have engaged in cyberattacks against China on behalf of the U.S. National Security Agency.

Chinese state media, which published the notice, urged domestic users and companies to avoid using American technology and replace them with domestic alternatives.

“Beijing is clearly signaling to Washington that two can play in this retaliation game and that it has many levers to pull, all creating different levels of pain for U.S. companies,” said Wendy Cutler, vice president at Asia Society Policy Institute.

“With high tariffs and other restrictions in place, the decoupling of the two economies is at full steam,” Cutler said.

Targeting trade in services

China is seen by some as seeking to broaden the trade war to encompass services trade — which covers travel, legal, consulting and financial services — where the U.S. has been running a significant surplus with China for years.

China Beige Book CEO: U.S. needs to articulate what they want from China

Earlier this month, a social media account affiliated with Chinese state media Xinhua News Agency, suggested Beijing could impose curbs on U.S. legal consultancy firms and consider a probe into U.S. companies’ China operations for the huge “monopoly benefits” they have gained from intellectual-property rights.

China’s imports of U.S. services surged more than 10-fold to $55 billion in 2024 over the past two decades, according to Nomura estimates, driving U.S. services trade surplus with China to $32 billion last year.

Last week, China said it would reduce imports of U.S. films and warned its citizens against traveling or studying in the U.S., in a sign of Beijing’s intent to put pressure on the U.S. entertainment, tourism and education sectors.

“These measures target high-visibility sectors — aviation, media, and education — that resonate politically in the U.S.,” said Jing Qian, managing director at Center for China Analysis.

While they might be low on actual dollar impact given the smaller scale of these sectors, “reputational effects — such as fewer Chinese students or more cautious Chinese employees — could ripple through academia and the tech talent ecosystem,” he added.

Nomura estimates $24 billion could be at stake if Beijing significantly step up restrictions on travel to the U.S.

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

Travel dominated U.S. services exports to China, reflecting expenditure by millions of Chinese tourists in the U.S., according to Nomura. Within travel, education-related spending leads at 71%, it estimates, mostly coming from tuition and living expenses for the more than 270,000 Chinese students studying in the U.S.

Entertainment exports, encompassing films, music and television programs, accounted for just 6% of U.S. exports within this sector, the investment firm said, noting that Beijing’s latest move on film imports “carries more symbolic heft than economic bite.”

“We could see deeper decoupling — not only in supply chains, but in people-to-people ties, knowledge exchange, and regulatory frameworks. This may signal a shift from transactional tension to systemic divergence,” said Qian.

Can Beijing get more aggressive?

Analysts largely expect Beijing to continue deploying its arsenal of non-tariff policy tools in an effort to raise its leverage ahead of any potential negotiation with the Trump administration.

“From the Chinese government’s perspective, the U.S. companies’ operations in China are the biggest remaining target for inflicting pain on the U.S .side,” said Gabriel Wildau, managing director at risk advisory firm Teneo.

Apple, Tesla, pharmaceutical and medical device companies are among the businesses that could be targeted as Beijing presses ahead with non-tariff measures, including sanction, regulatory harassment and export controls, Wildau added.

Shoppers and staff are seen inside the Apple Store, with its sleek modern interior design and prominent Apple logo, in Chongqing, China, on Sept. 10, 2024.

Cheng Xin | Getty Images

While a deal may allow both sides to unwind some of the retaliatory measures, hopes for near-term talks between the two leaders are fading fast.

Chinese officials have repeatedly condemned the “unilateral tariffs” imposed by Trump as “bullying” and vowed to “fight to the end.” Still, Beijing has left the door open for negotiations but they must be on “an equal footing.”

On Tuesday, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump is open to making a deal with China but Beijing needs to make the first move.

“In the end, only when a country experiences sufficient self-inflicted harm might it consider softening its stance and truly returning to the negotiation table,” said Jianwei Xu, economist at Natixis.

Continue Reading

Economics

Donald Trump’s approval rating is dropping

Published

on

EVEN WHEN Donald Trump does something well, he exaggerates. He won the popular vote last November for the first time in three tries, by a 1.5 point margin. “The mandate was massive,” he told Time. In fact it was the slimmest margin since 2000, but it was an improvement on Mr Trump’s two previous popular-vote losses, by 2.1 points in 2016 and 4.5 points in 2020. (He was elected in 2016 through the vagaries of the Electoral College.)

Continue Reading

Economics

Can Progressives learn to make progress again?

Published

on

In the political wilderness, Democrats are asking themselves how they lost their way

Continue Reading

Trending