Why so few negatives?

Supreme Court fails to disallow rejecting a bill that wouldn't allow women to not be unable to have access to abortion pills.

This is the best summary I could come up with:

The court found unanimously that the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, wrote that while plaintiffs have "sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA's relaxed regulation of mifepristone," that does not mean they have a federal case.

"We are disappointed that the Supreme Court did not reach the merits of the FDA’s lawless removal of commonsense safety standards for abortion drugs," said Erin Hawley, one of the group's lawyers.

In rejecting the challenge, the court "maintained the stability of the FDA drug approval process, which is based on the agency’s expertise and on which patients, health care providers and the U.S. pharmaceutical industry rely," company spokeswoman Abigail Long said.

Calling the case “one tactic in a broader, relentless strategy” by anti-abortion activists, Chavez-Rodriguez said if Trump is elected, his advisers and allies would try to ban abortion nationwide “without the help of Congress or the court,” and also restrict access to contraception — a threat, she said, to blue as well as red states.

Last year, Texas-based U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a sweeping ruling that completely invalidated the FDA’s approval of the pill, leading to panic among abortion-rights activists that it would be banned nationwide.

The original article contains 1,044 words, the summary contains 228 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!