新柔地铁一地两检机制如何运作？

2026年5月5日 23:51 / 联合早报 邓玮婷

新柔地铁系统已去年12月26日完成首次列车动态试行，预计将于今年12月正式投入运作。 （取自新马联营公司RTSO脸书）

新柔地铁即将投入运作，有关一址通关、铁路安全协调和跨境事故管理，以及数据保护事务的相关法律也在国会三读通过，确保乘客体验安全顺畅。

连接新加坡兀兰北站和新山武吉查卡站（Bukit Chagar）的新柔地铁全长4公里，预计今年12月投入服务，单向的每小时乘客量约为1万人次，每趟车程约五分钟。

新柔地铁通车前， 新马两国将进行联合演练，测试和熟悉所有程序，之后也会展开定期演习，确保做好应对突发情况的准备。

1. 列车出发后，若发生任何事故，是新方还是马方处理？

要是列车能顺利开往目的地，负责处理事故的国家会根据车程终点而定。例如，列车从新加坡出发后，途中发生事故，要是列车能继续开往新山，事件就交由马国处理，并按马国法律侦办，反之亦然。

列车如果不能继续行驶，就根据列车停在哪个领土而定。第47和48桥墩之间是行事分界点。往马国行驶的列车车头一旦过了第47桥墩，就由马国负责处理事件，车头一旦过了第48桥墩，则由新加坡处理。

要是第47和第48桥墩之间的轨道上没有列车却发生事故，如有人擅闯轨道，哪一国的官员先抵达现场，就是负责事件的那一方。

新加坡负起应对事件的责任后，若向马国申请援助，马国须要协助，反之亦然。执法机构会和新柔地铁运营商密切合作，收集和保存证据。

新加坡官员在处理事件时，若须进入马国领土，必须获得批准，反之亦然。若是搜救或医疗运送行动，则只须通知对方就能跨入。

2. 列车上若发生偷窃或非礼等案件，将根据新加坡还是马国法律执法？

要是有人在行驶中的列车干案，优先司法管辖权会根据车程终点而定。例如，列车从新加坡出发后，有人在开往新山途中偷窃，列车抵达新山后，干案者会交由马国处理和执法，反之亦然。

要是马国持有一起案件的优先司法管辖权，但新加坡认为由它调查和提控更符合公众利益，可要求马国放弃案件的司法管辖权，让新加坡跟进执法，反之亦然。

只要新马根据协议处理，一般不可能出现涉事者为同个行为被双重提控的情况。

3. 走进兀兰北关卡设施划为马国关卡、移民及检疫区域时，是遵守新加坡还是马国法律？

划为马国指定区域的地方只允许实行马国的关卡、移民及检疫法律，即检查旅游证件、展开安检包括搜身，及拒绝旅客和物品入境马国，其余一切根据新加坡法律行事。

指定区域会有清楚标示，并以新加坡四个官方语言陈述。

在指定区工作的马国官员执行公务时将赋予特别权力，包括佩戴手铐和警棍等束缚配备，并使用合理武力拘留扰乱秩序或对公共安全构成威胁者。马国官员无权逮捕任何人，若扣留任何人或物品，也须尽快移交给新加坡执法人员。

只有我国内政部长批准的马国官员能被调派到新加坡工作。内政部长也可在不提供任何理由下，拒绝或撤销特定马国关卡人员在新加坡境内执行公务的权力。

在特殊情况下，如关卡、移民及检疫设施的运作或安检系统及流程出现中断，或发生严重的公共卫生事故时，马国政府可向我国申请在特定时期内增派人手进入指定区域执行公务。这类安排不应超过三天，除非马国政府要求更长时期，并获得我国部长准许。

在指定区域执行公务的马国官员将享有一定的保护和豁免权。例如执行公务时若被旅客暴力对待，涉案者等同于对新加坡公务员施暴，可根据新加坡法律被提控。

4. 我要搭列车去新山，要是在兀兰北过新加坡安检时被发现持有马国违禁或管制品，会发生什么事？

新加坡官员会让旅客自愿丢弃马国违禁或管制品。不过，物品若对人身安全构成威胁、是活体生物，或是与调查工作相关的证据，新加坡官员就会从旅客身上移除或扣留物品。

5. 旅客试图携带电子烟和毒品入境新加坡会发生什么事？

在武吉查卡关卡设施划为新加坡关卡、移民及检疫区域工作的新加坡官员要是发现电子烟或毒品，会把旅客交给马国当局，并根据马国法律执法。

新加坡会竭尽所能，避免违禁和管制品入境我国。旅客在新山乘搭新柔列车前，除了接受马方的安检，新加坡官员也有权在指定区域进行抽样案件，当旅客抵达新加坡兀兰北站后，我国官员也有权做进一步抽样安检。

6. 新加坡官员在武吉查卡关卡设施划为新加坡关卡、移民及检疫区域履行职务时，设施和数据有哪些安全保障？

新加坡官员在马国执行公务时，无论是在划定区域或处理事件时收集到的所有资料和数据，都会视作在新加坡收集到的资料和数据，受新加坡法律保护。

所有安装、存放和设于武吉查卡关卡设施划为新加坡关卡、移民及检疫区域内，并属于新加坡政府的文件、器材和设备，不能被扣押、没收或有任何干扰。马国法律也注明新加坡的数据、文件、器材和设备不能被侵犯，反之亦然。

新加坡官员收集到的数据都会通过隐蔽信道传输，以保障安全。

既然所有数据是根据新加坡法律收集、传输、保存和监控，任何资料外泄也会按我国法律处理。

For some older Americans, retirement today means unretiring

2026-05-05 10:02 EDT / CBS News

On weekday mornings, Myndie Friedman is out the door just as the sun rises over the Atlantic Ocean, a block from her home in Long Beach, New York.

Friedman’s first stop is a 7:30 a.m. bus, which she takes to a local train station for a roughly hourlong trip into Manhattan’s Midtown neighborhood. Then she hops on the subway before exiting and hoofing it 10 minutes to her office job. Total commute: two hours door to desk, along with another couple of hours for the return trip home.

It would be a challenging daily trek even if Friedman weren’t almost 70 years old.

Still, she has no plans to quit her job as an administrator in a medical office. Friedman, a widow, told CBS News her monthly Social Security check covers only a third of her living expenses.

“I need another two-thirds to live the way I’m living,” she said.

“You have to eat”

Friedman is part of a growing cohort of older Americans for whom retirement today is financially out of reach or who find themselves having to return to work to make ends meet.

Nearly one in five adults aged 65 and older is employed or looking for work, the highest percentage in decades, according to federal labor data and Pew Research. Such workers, found across a range of industries, regions and educational levels, tend to describe their jobs not as a choice but as a financial necessity.

The average Social Security benefit in 2026 is roughly $2,071 a month. But the typical single adult spends a baseline of $4,641 a month, according to SoFi Bank, and that’s before a single dollar goes toward a phone bill, home repairs or a birthday gift for a grandchild.

For many older Americans, that financial gap amounts to a chasm, forcing them back to work at a time they expected, or at least hoped, to be retiring.

“Rising costs are on my mind, and they’re just going to go higher,” Friedman said. “You have to eat. You have to have healthcare. But when you retire, you don’t only want ‘have-tos.’ I’d like to enjoy my life.”

A 2024 AARP survey found that 20% of Americans 50 and older have no retirement savings, while 70% are worried that prices will rise faster than their income.

This crisis has been decades in the making. In 1985, the labor force participation rate for Americans 65 and older hit a historic low of just under 11%.

Over the past 20 years, however, the employment rate among workers in that demographic has soared 117%, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The Bureau of Labor Statistics now projects that the 75-and-older workforce will grow faster than any other age cohort in the labor market, increasing an estimated 97% between 2020 and 2030.

The CDC cites the country’s aging population as a primary driver of this shift in the American workforce. Americans are living longer, but many older adults find that their savings haven’t kept up with rising costs. The grim math is simple: A nest egg that might have funded a 15-year period of retirement falls short when stretched across 25 or 30 years.

The average American worker has less than $1,000 saved for retirement, according to a recent report from the National Institute on Retirement Security, a nonpartisan think tank. That encompasses people with employer-sponsored retirement plans, as well as the roughly 56 million workers who lack access to one.

For workers who do have retirement savings, the median balance is $40,000, the group found.

“This is really nice”

Not all workers of retirement age describe their work lives as a hardship. Helen Cuocci, who is in her 70s, spends much of her day on her feet, stocking shelves and ringing up customers at a CVS in Connecticut. She’s worked at CVS for the last 18 years, a job she took after working for 40 years as an administrative assistant.

Cuocci likes to look on the bright side when it comes to working at an age people would normally have punched out for good.

“I never thought I would get a retail job,” she told CBS News. “I always thought I’d be sitting at a little desk with my cup of coffee and just on my computer. But this is really nice. You’re more active, and you see more people.”

For Cuocci, the paycheck is only part of the calculation. Her husband requires an expensive medication, and her full-time status at CVS gives the couple access to health benefits that lower his prescription costs to a manageable level.

“We own a home, we have two cars and we like to travel,” she said. “Without working at CVS, I couldn’t do all these things.”

Old skills, new jobs

For many seniors like Cuocci, it is not uncommon to shift to a different type of work in retirement.

Alan Bergman, a 71-year-old resident of Somers, New York, spent most of his career running a commercial printing company. He retired shortly after selling his business in 2018.

But Bergman felt restless and was also concerned that his savings might not stretch far enough to support both him and his wife through retirement. So he launched a business as a personal historian, a job he does from his home office, interviewing other older adults to privately publish their life stories.

“I never expected it, but this chapter is the most fulfilling one yet,” Bergman said.

Geoffrey Sanzenbacher, an associate professor of economics at Boston College and a researcher at the Center for Retirement Research, counts Bergman among the growing ranks of “un-retired” Americans. Older workers are most likely to return to the labor force when the economy is strong, Sanzenbacher said.

Workers “tend to un-retire when it’s easiest to do so,” he told CBS News, while noting that re-entering the workforce means competing with younger job candidates.

For older adults who need to resume working to afford basic necessities, this may mean taking jobs in industries different from their previous careers. That can also require working in physically demanding roles, such as retail, that involve a lot of standing and customer interaction.

Catherine Fisher, a career expert at LinkedIn, said the skills older workers bring are routinely underestimated.

“The older generation has so much experience that they can bring to the table,” she said. “Communication, adaptability, leadership — those are skills that you acquire over time.”

Edited by Alain Sherter

支持者：伊朗诺奖得主穆罕默迪“徘徊于生死之间”

2026年5月5日 23:48 / 联合早报

伊朗诺贝尔和平奖得主穆罕默迪在过去20年间，因维权活动多次入狱，最近一次被捕是在去年12月，当时她在一位律师的葬礼上谴责了伊朗伊斯兰共和国。 （法新社）

据支持者星期二（5月5日）透露，被监禁的伊朗诺贝尔和平奖得主纳尔吉斯·穆罕默迪因心脏问题在狱中接受治疗五天后，生命垂危。

法新社报道，她的律师、常驻巴黎的阿尔达卡尼在新闻发布会上说：“我们不仅为纳尔吉斯的自由而战，我们也为她的心脏继续跳动而战。”她说，穆罕默迪目前“生死攸关”。

总部位于巴黎的无国界记者组织成员达格尔说：“这是我们第一次说她生命垂危，面临死亡风险。”

“我们必须在为时已晚之前采取行动。”

穆罕默迪在过去20年间，因维权活动多次入狱，最近一次被捕是在去年12月，当时她在一位律师的葬礼上谴责了伊朗伊斯兰共和国。

支持者称，穆罕默迪患有心脏病，3月24日和5月1日在伊朗北部赞詹市的监狱中疑似两次心脏病发作。

阿尔达卡尼说，在最近一次发作后，她被紧急送往赞詹市的医院接受治疗，但仍受到严密监视。她的健康状况正在“前所未有地恶化”。

“我们从未如此担心纳尔吉斯的生命安全；她随时都可能离开我们。”

穆罕默迪在狱中体重减轻了20公斤，说话困难，与最近一次被捕前的状态相比，如今的她“判若两人”。

穆罕默迪的支持者希望她能被转移到德黑兰，由她的私人医疗团队进行治疗，但目前还没有任何迹象表明她会离开赞詹。

穆罕默迪的双胞胎子女和丈夫住在巴黎。阿尔达卡尼敦促法国外交部和总统马克龙对她的案件采取更强硬的立场。

“我们期待共和国总统（马克龙）采取强硬立场。我认为这并不算过分。”

No English content available

UnitedHealthcare to cut prior authorization for 30% of services. Here’s what to know.

May 5, 2026 / 10:51 AM EDT / CBS News

UnitedHealthcare said on Tuesday it is eliminating “prior authorization” requirements for 30% of medical services that previously required insurer approval, a policy shift that could eliminate red tape and speed access to patient care.

The move comes amid pressure on the health insurance industry to limit prior authorizations, the process by which health care providers such as doctors or hospitals obtain approval from patients’ insurance carriers to deliver care.

Prior authorizations have long drawn criticism for the time they require of physicians’ offices and for hindering patients’ access to care, with the American Medical Association finding that such offices spend an average of 12 hours per week seeking insurer approval for medical treatments.

Critics say those hours would be better spent providing medical care, while some patients report being denied treatment by their insurance companies.

UnitedHealthcare, the largest U.S. health insurer, said in a statement that prior authorization is required for 2% of the medical services covered under its policies. About 92% of those are approved within 24 hours, the company said.

“Prior authorization is an essential safeguard but should only be used when it truly protects patients and improves care,” UnitedHealthcare CEO Tim Noel said in a statement. “Eliminating these requirements is one more way we are working to make it easier for patients to get the care they need when they need it and ensure doctors can spend more time with their patients.”

Former UnitedHealth CEO Brian Thomson was shot and killed in December 2024. The suspect in the shooting, Luigi Mangione, is awaiting trial in both federal and state court.

Which treatments will no longer require prior authorizations?

UnitedHealthcare said the following procedures will no longer require prior authorization:

• Select outpatient surgeries
• Some diagnostic tests, such as echocardiograms
• Some outpatient therapies
• Some chiropractic care

In its statement, the company said it would post the full list of services at UHCProvider.com before the changes take effect.

When does this take effect?

UnitedHealthcare said it will implement the changes by the end of 2026.

Are other health insurers reducing prior authorizations?

Last year, a group of insurers represented by Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), a trade association for the health insurance industry, said some of its biggest members would take steps to streamline prior authorization.

They include many Blue Cross Blue Shield insurers, such as Blue Cross Blue Shield of California, as well as large insurers such as Humana, Kaiser Permanente and UnitedHealthcare.

By Ellis Kim, Lauren Fox, Manu Raju

1 hr 20 min ago

PUBLISHED May 5, 2026, 10:50 AM ET

The U.S. Capitol Building seen from atop of the Washington Monument in Washington, DC, May 2, 2026.

Ken Cedeno/Reuters

Senate Republicans are looking to give the US Secret Service $1 billion to shore up security for President Donald Trump’s future White House ballroom, as part of a broader immigration enforcement package.

Two GOP-led Senate committees unveiled late Monday their roughly $70 billion package to fund US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and border patrol, which they plan to pass with only Republican votes.

The Senate Judiciary and Homeland Security committees are aiming to spend roughly $38 billion for ICE and around $26 billion for US Customs and Border Patrol functions and upgrades, according to legislative text released by the panels. The funding would run through the end of September 2029.

The Judiciary Committee also tucked in the additional $1 billion in Secret Service funding that could go toward Trump’s ballroom project.

The text allocates the cash for “security adjustments and upgrades … to support enhancements by the United States Secret Service relating to the East Wing Modernization Project, including above-ground and below-ground security features,” later stating the funding can’t be used for “non-security elements” of the project.

The Trump administration has long said the president would rely on money from private donors rather than American taxpayers, to fund his East Wing renovation.

But in the wake of the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner last month, Republicans have grown increasingly vocal about the need for a White House ballroom, with some arguing that the public should foot some of the cost to aid construction.

“Congress has rightly recognized the need for these funds. Due in part to the recent assassination attempt on President Trump at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, the proposal would provide the United States Secret Service with the resources they need to fully and completely harden the White House complex, in addition to the many other critical missions for the USSS,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said in a statement.

South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham demanded last week that the Senate vote on his separate bill to authorize $400 million for the ballroom, including a national security annex underground, after the shooting, though Senate Majority Leader John Thune didn’t indicate whether he would take up the legislation.

Asked about the prospect of using taxpayer money on the project, Sen. Katie Britt, who is backing Graham’s effort, argued at the time that “we need to make sure that we have oversight and do that responsibly,” and said the ballroom will mostly be for “future presidents” since it won’t be completed until further into Trump’s term.

The attack, the Alabama Republican told CNN, “kind of showed us where we are as a nation, and it’s not a good place. I mean, we have people that, instead of taking their fight to the ballot box, are taking their fight to people with bullets, and it’s fundamentally un-American.”

The committees are expected to mark up the immigration enforcement package after senators return next week from their recess away from Washington, keeping in step with congressional Republicans’ plans to fund Trump’s border and immigration priorities through a multi-step budgetary process, known as reconciliation, which allows them to bypass a Senate filibuster.

Last month, the president publicly issued a directive to GOP congressional leaders to figure out full funding for the Department of Homeland Security by June 1.

Before returning to their home districts for the week-long break, lawmakers voted to reopen key parts of the department after weeks of infighting. But the bill that ended the record DHS shutdown did not include money for federal immigration enforcement.

CNN’s Betsy Klein contributed to this report.

2 hikers injured in bear attack at Yellowstone National Park

May 5, 2026 / 10:43 AM EDT / CBS News

By Stephen Smith

Two hikers were attacked by one or more bears at Yellowstone National Park, officials said on Tuesday, marking the first time this year that a bear has injured people at the popular tourist attraction.

The National Park Service said emergency personnel responded to the attack, which occurred on Monday afternoon on the Mystic Falls Trail near the iconic Old Faithful geyser. Park officials said the incident is under investigation and did not reveal the extent of the hikers’ injuries.

The most recent bear attack in the park was in September when officials said a 29-year-old hiker was seriously injured in a “surprise encounter” on the Turbid Lake Trail.

The last human fatality caused by a bear inside Yellowstone National Park occurred in 2015, but a grizzly killed a woman just west of the park in 2023.

After Monday’s attack, at least five trails and multiple campsites at the park were closed. The park reminded visitors to stay at least 100 yards away from bears, carry bear spray and look for possible signs of the animals.

“See the bear before you surprise it,” the park said. “Watch for fresh tracks, scat, and feeding sites.”

In March, scientists spotted the first grizzly bear of 2026 at Yellowstone, marking the beginning of the end of hibernation season for the animals.

There are more than 1,000 grizzlies living across what’s called the “greater Yellowstone ecosystem,” an area covering portions of Montana, Idaho and Wyoming outside of the immediate park boundaries.

Grizzly bears are currently listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, after they were brought back from the brink of extinction in the contiguous United States over the last five decades. Yellowstone officials have estimated that the grizzly bear population in the region had dropped to just 136 in 1975. But, thanks to conservation efforts, scientists now consider the population to be doing well, occupying more than 27,000 square miles and expanding their habitats.

Emily Mae Czachor contributed to this report.

Alito rips Jackson’s ‘utterly irresponsible’ solo dissent as Supreme Court fight shakes up 2026 map

May 5, 2026 10:40am EDT / Fox News

Alito’s concurrence, joined by Gorsuch and Thomas, said Jackson’s rhetoric ‘lacks restraint’

By Ashley Oliver Fox News

Justice Samuel Alito tore into Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s lone dissent in a high-stakes Louisiana redistricting dispute on Monday, calling her arguments “baseless and insulting” after the Supreme Court decided to fast-track implementing its recent redistricting ruling ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Alito used a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas, to directly rebuke Jackson, saying her “dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.”

“The dissent goes on to claim that our decision represents an unprincipled use of power,” Alito wrote, adding that that was a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”

The clash highlighted Jackson’s increasingly isolated position on the court, as she broke not only from the conservative majority but also from her two liberal colleagues, who did not join her dissent. Jackson forcefully accused the Supreme Court of overreach, marking the latest in a pattern of solo dissents in which the Biden-appointed liberal justice has blasted high-profile majority decisions that have frequently favored President Donald Trump and Republicans.

MEDIA OUTRAGE OVER SUPREME COURT’S VOTING RIGHTS ACT DECISION COLLIDES WITH REALITY

Justice Samuel Alito joins his colleagues for the formal group photograph at the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on Oct. 7, 2022.

In Monday’s order, the high court decided in an unsigned ruling to allow Louisiana officials to quickly move forward with changing their congressional map, which is expected to reshape the state’s congressional representation in favor of Republicans ahead of the midterms.

Alito argued that delaying the judgment of the high court’s 6-3 ruling last month — which significantly narrowed section two of the Voting Rights Act by finding Louisiana’s map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander — served no practical purpose. Jackson’s reasons for wanting to prolong implementation of the landmark ruling were “trivial at best” and “baseless and insulting,” Alito said.

“The dissent accuses the Court of ‘unshackl[ing]’ itself from ‘constraints,’” Alito wrote. “It is the dissent’s rhetoric that lacks restraint.”

SUPREME COURT HEARS PIVOTAL LOUISIANA ELECTION MAP CASE AHEAD OF 2026 MIDTERMS

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at an event.(Getty Images)

Jackson had warned that the high court’s intervention risked improperly injecting itself into an active election and creating the “appearance of partiality,” pointing to ongoing voting and legal challenges already unfolding in the state.

Legal experts observed the unusually pointed tone of Alito’s response, suggesting it indicated a deeper internal friction. George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley said the conservative justice appeared to reach a breaking point in responding to Jackson’s criticism.

“Justice Alito had had enough,” Turley wrote. “He noted that her reliance on the 32-day period was a ‘trivial’ objection that put form above substance since no party had asked for reconsideration. It would be waiting for 32 days for no purpose, while the other parties had stated a reasonable and pressing need to finalize the opinion.”

Turley added that Alito took particular issue with Jackson’s accusation that the Supreme Court was acting in an “unprincipled” manner.

Voting rights activists protest outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington on Oct. 15, 2025, as the court prepares to hear arguments challenging Louisiana’s congressional map.(Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

The dispute centered on the Supreme Court’s procedural rule that typically allows about 32 days before a judgment is formally sent down to lower courts. Alito emphasized that the rule is flexible and intended primarily to allow time for rehearing petitions, which he signaled were not expected in this case.

The Supreme Court’s decision Monday sends Louisiana into a scramble to implement a new map as ballots have already been sent to voters and the state’s primary has been paused. The ruling is expected to have broader implications across the country as state election officials and courts attempt to finalize constitutionally compliant maps in time for the upcoming election.

Ashley Oliver is a reporter for Fox News Digital and FOX Business, covering the Justice Department and legal affairs. Email story tips to ashley.oliver@fox.com.

德国东部莱比锡市汽车冲撞人群 酿两死多伤

2026年5月5日 20:43 / 联合早报

德国东部莱比锡市汽车冲撞人群 酿两死多伤

5月4日，德国东部莱比锡市发生一辆汽车冲撞事件。大批救援人员在事发区域进行救援工作，警方已对现场实施封锁并展开调查。 （法新社）

（柏林综合电）德国东部城市莱比锡周一发生汽车冲撞人群事件，造成两人死亡、20多人受伤，其中三人重伤。33岁的嫌犯当场被捕。

当地警方说，一辆大众SUV从老城区中心广场驶入步行区，沿商业街冲撞数百米后停下。

一名居民称，他险些被撞到，随后追赶车子并协助伤者。 他说：“一名女子先被撞到车顶上，随后掉落到车下，被车辆压住身亡。”

萨克森州州长克雷奇默说，嫌疑人可能存在心理健康问题。警方也称，没有发现政治或宗教动机。两名死者分别为63岁女性与77岁男性。

莱比锡市长容格说：“目前还有三人重伤，以及许多轻伤者。” 他形容事件令人震惊。

近年来，德国多地发生类似车辆冲撞事件，包括2024年12月在马格德堡针对圣诞市场的袭击，造成6死、200多人伤，柏林和慕尼黑也发生过类似事件。

Supreme Court abortion case could force Trump to take a public stance on mifepristone

2026-05-05T15:21:12.070Z / CNN

By Tierney Sneed

9 min ago

PUBLISHED May 5, 2026, 11:21 AM ET

Abortion rights Donald Trump Supreme Court Federal agencies

See all topics

Anti-abortion activists participate in the annual March for Life rally on January 23 in Washington, DC.

Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

The return of abortion to the Supreme Court is testing President Donald Trump’s strategy of avoiding the issue as the anti-abortion advocates grow increasingly frustrated that his administration hasn’t done more to crack down on access to mifepristone, the drug approved to terminate pregnancies.

By leaving intact a Biden-era regulatory regime that made abortion pills easier to obtain, Trump’s administration has mostly kept the issue off the political front burner for both parties. But a conservative appeals court threw wrench in that approach Friday, with a ruling that would add limits to access nationwide by requiring in-person doctor’s visits to obtain the pills.

The ruling from the US 5th Circuit Cout of Appeals is a major win for anti-abortion state officials and advocates who sued the Trump administration to force it to tighten the rules for mifepristone. They argue that allowing the medication to be obtained by online appointments was undermining state laws restricting abortion.

If the 6-3 conservative Supreme Court doesn’t freeze the ruling, as mifepristone manufacturers are now asking, it will limit access to abortion nationwide as the midterms approach.

“What is shocking is that the Trump administration’s inaction has stopped pro-life laws from taking effect, and that they forced several Republican attorneys general to take their battle to the federal courts,” said Kelsey Pritchard, the communications director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, which supports anti-abortion candidates.

The group on Monday reiterated its calls that US Food and Drug Administration head Marty Makary be fired, which the White House has repeatedly rebuffed.

“It’s just really hard for us to understand how the Trump administration has been so negligent as to leave this policy in place,” Pritchard added.

In lower courts, the Trump administration has tried to thread the needle by pushing back on the lawsuit, brought by Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, for procedural reasons while not defending the safety of the drug outright.

“It’s clear that they do not want to have a ruling taking access to mifepristone away from women across the country before the midterms,” said Sam Bagenstos, who was general counsel for US Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration and who defended the FDA rules in court then.

“However,” Bagenstos added, “they are doing everything they can to preserve their ability to take access to mifepristone away from women across the country as soon as they’re out of the woods.”

Even the administration’s silence could be a political problem for Trump as Democrats are already seizing on the case, with the Democratic National Committee accusing Trump in a statement Monday of making “it even harder to get lifesaving reproductive healthcare by banning medication that has been safely used for decades.”

Asked by CNN whether Trump supports the 5th Circuit ruling, the White House did not answer the question directly. Instead, a spokesperson issued a statement pointing to the “Gold Standard Science-based review of mifepristone” that the US Food and Drug Administration is conducting “to address widespread safety concerns about its use.”

The Justice Department has similarly pointed to that review – which is expected to last at least several months – to argue the lawsuit challenging the regulations should be paused.

Standing by regulatory chief under fire

Anti-abortion advocates have grown to suspect the review is just a way for the administration to slow-walk the issue – a claim that the FDA has previously denied. Their concerns were exacerbated by a Wall Street Journal report this weekend indicating Makary had expressed indifference to regulations for mifepristone.

Court briefs from Louisiana noted how a Justice Department lawyer could promise in the proceedings only that parts of the review “’might’ be done by 2027.

“As this case moves along, the current game plan about making this only about procedural issues is going to become more and more untenable,” said Mary Ziegler, a law professor at University of California, Davis, and author of several books about the anti-abortion movement. “The 5th Circuit blew up that strategy.”

Trump, touting his appointment of three of the five justices who overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, has embraced the way that ruling was framed in the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito as returning the issue to the states to decide for themselves.

Related article: A patient prepares to take Mifepristone at Alamo Women’s Clinic in Carbondale, Illinois, on April 20, 2023. Evelyn Hockstein/Reuters Supreme Court temporarily restores ability to receive abortion drug mifepristone by mail 3 min read

But medication abortion – the two-pill regimen that terminates a pregnancy – has shown such an approach is easier said than done. The method now makes up some two-thirds of all US abortions – as the number of abortions overall has increased since the 2022 Supreme Court ruling – and now it’s the top target of the anti-abortion movement.

Reviews of mifepristone have found it to be safe. The Supreme Court in 2024 rejected a challenge to the pill’s access brought by anti-abortion doctors, concluding that the physicians hadn’t shown they were being harmed by the current regulations in a way that would warrant a court’s intervention.

Since his reelection, Trump has enacted some policies sought by abortion opponents. But his appointees to lead federal health agencies have not shown interest in implementing regulatory changes that would limit access to medication abortion. Pritchard, the SBA List spokesperson, argued that Trump’s refusal to act on the regulations will dampen turnout by Republicans’ base in the midterms as she pointed to CNN exit polling from 2024.

“If 1-2% of pro-lifers had stayed home in 2024, Trump wouldn’t be president,” she said.

The White House is apparently making the opposite gamble and standing by Makary.

Makary “continues to deliver for the American people, from modernizing the drug approvals process to cracking down on artificial ingredients in our food supply,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai told CNN.

What comes next in the Supreme Court case

The Supreme Court has put the 5th Circuit ruling on a brief “administrative” hold, allowing telehealth abortions to continue, until May 11. Louisiana has been asked to file briefs on Thursday. A DOJ spokesperson did not respond to CNN’s inquiry as to whether it will file briefs by then as well.

Among the options for next steps put forward by the mifepristone manufacturers is the possibility that the Supreme Court could take up the case on the merits now, hearing arguments in the coming weeks.

Supreme Court temporarily restores ability to receive abortion drug mifepristone by mail

1:55

For now, according to Ziegler, the administration could hold on to the arguments that Louisiana’s lawsuit should be thrown out for procedural reasons and maintain its approach of not spelling out its views on the safety of mifepristone and allowing it to be procured online.

“What I think will get complicated is if the justices have the appetite for anything more,” she said.

However, the Supreme Court itself might not be eager to jump into another abortion dispute that has nationwide implications, after framing its 2023 Roe reversal as putting the policy debate in the hands of state legislators.

The Trump administration is eventually “going to have to put up or shut up about their position regarding whether mifepristone was appropriately approved for termination of pregnancy and whether the in-person dispensing requirement should have been eliminated,” Bagenstos, now a University of Michigan Law School professor, said. “Are they going to have to do that soon? You know, it all depends on what the Supreme Court does.”

Abortion rights Donald Trump Supreme Court Federal agencies

See all topics