Texas judge suspends abortion pill approval

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Unelected bureaucrat imposes his religious practice on the nation. What happen to states right?

It's the Republican definition. Just like being pro-life is not actually about babies, "states rights" is not actually about the rights of the states to make decisions for themselves.

[Anonymous]

The DOJ has just asked SCOTUS for an emergency ruling on the appeals court decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Unelected bureaucrat imposes his religious practice on the nation. What happen to states right?

It's the Republican definition. Just like being pro-life is not actually about babies, "states rights" is not actually about the rights of the states to make decisions for themselves.

That was only for Jim Crow.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DOJ has just asked SCOTUS for an emergency ruling on the appeals court decision.

That should end well. /s

[Anonymous]

Wonder how much this ruling cost? Maybe a trip or a new car paid by some republican donor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DOJ has just asked SCOTUS for an emergency ruling on the appeals court decision.

That should end well. /s

That’s one way to overturn the Washington injunction protecting availability

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DOJ has just asked SCOTUS for an emergency ruling on the appeals court decision.

That should end well. /s

That’s one way to overturn the Washington injunction protecting availability

They didn’t appeal that one. And any ruling SCOTUS makes on this motion is non-precedential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The DOJ has just asked SCOTUS for an emergency ruling on the appeals court decision.

That should end well. /s

That’s one way to overturn the Washington injunction protecting availability

They didn’t appeal that one. And any ruling SCOTUS makes on this motion is non-precedential.

Do we really think this particular bench is going to honor things like procedure and process when they have an opportunity to shove their religion down our throats for good?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these Fed Soc judges are trying to goad the Administration into ignoring judicial rulings, thereby setting the stage for a Biden impeachment.

Hmmmm

I think ignoring it would be entirely legitimate.
Didn't the Washington State ruling basically counter the Texas ruling?

Of course it will be ignored. You think people are going to allow their loved ones that suffer a miscarriage to get substandard care because of one loony women-hating judge in Texas?

The doctors who need to prescribe this drug and the companies that manufacture, distribute and sell it are not in a position to ignore a ruling by a federal judge no matter how absurd it is. They all have lawyers and insurance policies that won’t let them.

If DOJ doesn't get a stay from either the Fifth or SCOTUS, the FDA will announce it is exercising enforcement discretion to not go after anyone selling the abortion pill. They will have to do this to comply with the WA injunction and doing that would not violate the TX order.

Does that make it fine for any MD to write a prescription for this medication?

FDA doesn't regulate MD's prescribing of any drug. It regulates what can be sold and dispensed, so the issue will be whether the pharmacy will dispense it and whether the drug companies will keep making it and selling it.

Until very recently, pharmacies didn’t dispense. That would be the MD or hospital

States don’t decide. Federal pre-emption

There is more to the world than red states. Blue states and all the other nations of the world use this drug. Sometimes for Not abort (ie Cushing). It will keep being manufactured.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these Fed Soc judges are trying to goad the Administration into ignoring judicial rulings, thereby setting the stage for a Biden impeachment.

Hmmmm

I think ignoring it would be entirely legitimate.
Didn't the Washington State ruling basically counter the Texas ruling?

Of course it will be ignored. You think people are going to allow their loved ones that suffer a miscarriage to get substandard care because of one loony women-hating judge in Texas?

The doctors who need to prescribe this drug and the companies that manufacture, distribute and sell it are not in a position to ignore a ruling by a federal judge no matter how absurd it is. They all have lawyers and insurance policies that won’t let them.

If DOJ doesn't get a stay from either the Fifth or SCOTUS, the FDA will announce it is exercising enforcement discretion to not go after anyone selling the abortion pill. They will have to do this to comply with the WA injunction and doing that would not violate the TX order.

Does that make it fine for any MD to write a prescription for this medication?

FDA doesn't regulate MD's prescribing of any drug. It regulates what can be sold and dispensed, so the issue will be whether the pharmacy will dispense it and whether the drug companies will keep making it and selling it.

That’s not accurate. See, for instance, the constraints on who can Rx medication assisted treatment for opioid abuse—and how many patients they can have at a time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pretty sure these Fed Soc judges are trying to goad the Administration into ignoring judicial rulings, thereby setting the stage for a Biden impeachment.

Hmmmm

I think ignoring it would be entirely legitimate.
Didn't the Washington State ruling basically counter the Texas ruling?

Of course it will be ignored. You think people are going to allow their loved ones that suffer a miscarriage to get substandard care because of one loony women-hating judge in Texas?

The doctors who need to prescribe this drug and the companies that manufacture, distribute and sell it are not in a position to ignore a ruling by a federal judge no matter how absurd it is. They all have lawyers and insurance policies that won’t let them.

If DOJ doesn't get a stay from either the Fifth or SCOTUS, the FDA will announce it is exercising enforcement discretion to not go after anyone selling the abortion pill. They will have to do this to comply with the WA injunction and doing that would not violate the TX order.

Does that make it fine for any MD to write a prescription for this medication?

FDA doesn't regulate MD's prescribing of any drug. It regulates what can be sold and dispensed, so the issue will be whether the pharmacy will dispense it and whether the drug companies will keep making it and selling it.

That’s not accurate. See, for instance, the constraints on who can Rx medication assisted treatment for opioid abuse—and how many patients they can have at a time.

Not FDA rules.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The DOJ has just asked SCOTUS for an emergency ruling on the appeals court decision.

Will the bought SCOTUS justice have any say? We already know his vote has been bought and paid for by the anti-choice, misogynist mega-donors. Will it be the cost of a yacht trip or new housing for this particular vote.

[Anonymous]

Stayed by SCOTUS until Weds evening. Expedited briefing due on Tuesday. Presumably a one sentence ruling the next day.

So this legal issue, which is incredibly important because now one Judge could overrule the FDA on any med, will be decided with no opinion on the shadow docket. And in the majority will be the guy who illegally failed to report bribes to rule on case exactly like this.

Anti-vaxxed field day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Stayed by SCOTUS until Weds evening. Expedited briefing due on Tuesday. Presumably a one sentence ruling the next day.

So this legal issue, which is incredibly important because now one Judge could overrule the FDA on any med, will be decided with no opinion on the shadow docket. And in the majority will be the guy who illegally failed to report bribes to rule on case exactly like this.

Anti-vaxxed field day.

All the better to ensure that these specious standing and other procedural rulings aren’t precedent for future cases where the conservatives want to use them again.

[Anonymous]

Seems kind of impeachable.