NARRATIVE JOURNALISM EXISTS.

I mean, when James Joyner of the establishmentarian Outside the Beltway catches it?  "A non-ruling by the Supreme Court is being touted as something else."  Is the continuance of a right to purchase more important than the legalities?  You decide.

Headline-only readers—which is to say, most readers—will come away with the impression that the Supreme Court ruled on the merits that there is a right to access this abortifacient. But they did no such thing. They simply ruled that the group of doctors who brought the suit lacked standing to do so.

The right to continue to purchase mifepristone, for now, might matter to the voters. As, perhaps, might downplaying the process when there's another narrative about how appointing Constitution-respecting Justices is a horrible form of court packing.

Perhaps, in a world with a greater respect for factual reporting, rather than celebrating personal truths that are anything but, the rephrasing Mr Joyner suggests would be what we read.

Even here, though, readers will likely come away with the impression that there was a ruling on the merits. Something like “Supreme Court Declines to Rule in Abortion Drug Mifepristone Case” would better serve the readers.

Perhaps, although reporters, copy editors, and whoever writes the headline would then get caught up in what the lede ought to be.  I bet there are a lot more readers for whom the continuing opportunity to buy abortion pills matters a lot more than the Court's reasoning, let alone the legal maneuvering to come up with a new petitioner with a better claim to standing.