On today’s NOTICE News Daily: Two courts made conflicting rulings on access to abortion pills. What happens now? Plus: How the war in Ukraine is affecting these Olympic athletes.
- Why would the banning of Mifepristone affect so many people, and why could the reach of that ban end up being nationwide?
- Why would the two court decisions that came out regarding Mifepristone lead to the issue being taken up by the Supreme Court?
- Why is there a concern by many that a case regarding the abortion pill being considered by the Supreme Court could lead to a national ban on the drug?
- Why has the International Olympic Committee recommended Russian athletes return to competition under a neutral flag, and why is this an unsatisfactory solution to Ukrainian athletes?
- What is the purpose of the Olympics that’s supposedly ignored or negated by the potential inclusion of Russian athletes?
- What is suggested by the fact that the Ukrainian athletes have continued to train for the Paris Olympic Games, despite their current environment?
- A significant concern about the court case involving the abortion pill Mifepristone is the question of whether a court has the ability to overrule a government agency like the FDA. Given the agency oversees the safety of food and drugs in the U.S., what could be some results of the FDA not having full, finite authority? What issues could come into question that usually aren’t very debated? What other government agencies could this legal theory then possibly be applied to, and how could that affect people in other arenas?
- Prior to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in early 2022, the Winter Olympic Games had just concluded. While the games are meant to be symbolic in many ways, they also occur amidst the reality of current events. Is it realistic for the games to stay separate from the political climate of the time? Why or why not? What examples are there where current events and political realities have leaked into the games? Is it good for these blendings to happen, or not?