Texas judge suspends abortion pill approval

[Anonymous]

Included in the Fifth Circuit panel’s 35 (!) pages on standing is this insanity from Judge Ho:

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Included in the Fifth Circuit panel’s 35 (!) pages on standing is this insanity from Judge Ho:

Indefensible ___waffle.

I sure hope everyone who voted third party from 2000 forward sits in shame. The forced birthers who vote GOP every time are beyond shame.

[Anonymous]

I’m not going to go wading through Elon Musk’s personal issues site to find this tweet, so I’ll just post the screen grab:



Of course there are layers of corruption.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to go wading through Elon Musk’s personal issues site to find this tweet, so I’ll just post the screen grab:



Of course there are layers of corruption.

Yup. Here's additional information:

https://jacobin.com/2023/08/james-ho-abortion-pill-judge-alliance-defending-freedom-religious-right-money

These people are shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to go wading through Elon Musk’s personal issues site to find this tweet, so I’ll just post the screen grab:



Of course there are layers of corruption.

Yup. Here's additional information:

https://jacobin.com/2023/08/james-ho-abortion-pill-judge-alliance-defending-freedom-religious-right-money

These people are shameful.

What strikes me as most shameful is that the GOP, who is still obsessed with Hunter Biden, will not have anything to say about this.

[Anonymous]

Mifepristone’s manufacturer has appealed this to SCOTUS
https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-abortion-pill-mifepristone-fda-approval-c673116607517af1e0e0f9ba95d0f9df?taid=64fb7b5b0fbb3c0001cb79e6&utm_campaign=TrueAnthem&utm_medium=AP&utm_source=Twitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m not going to go wading through Elon Musk’s personal issues site to find this tweet, so I’ll just post the screen grab:



Of course there are layers of corruption.

Yup. Here's additional information:

https://jacobin.com/2023/08/james-ho-abortion-pill-judge-alliance-defending-freedom-religious-right-money

These people are shameful.

What strikes me as most shameful is that the GOP, who is still obsessed with Hunter Biden, will not have anything to say about this.

Nearly a month later and I was right!

[Anonymous]

The Supreme Court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug -- even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html?Date=20231213&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1702478257&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug -- even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html?Date=20231213&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1702478257&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

Hey more GOP fascism.

I bet the Republicans on the blue dog Democrat thread are having a grand time both sides’ing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug -- even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html?Date=20231213&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1702478257&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

You can take action tomorrow night! https://www.mobilize.us/movementlabs/event/595069/

Planned Parenthood Montana is working overtime to get ready for next year. This phone bank is reaching out to PP supporters and asking them to get involved in upcoming events and step up into new volunteer roles. This is a very friendly list of people and I promise you will restore your faith in "red states." Dems need to win Montana to keep the Senate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug -- even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html?Date=20231213&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1702478257&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

It would be a cold day in hell before SCOTUS defies big pharma. I hope. I saw the headline and felt like this snuck up on me. The issue the antis are claiming is safety. I’ve not seen any stories showing that the drug is unsafe. As long as big pharma donates to Thomas I think we’re good though. Having a SCOTUS decision that restricts the drug will make it hard to unravel if we ever get out of this dystopian nightmare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug -- even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html?Date=20231213&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1702478257&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

It would be a cold day in hell before SCOTUS defies big pharma. I hope. I saw the headline and felt like this snuck up on me. The issue the antis are claiming is safety. I’ve not seen any stories showing that the drug is unsafe. As long as big pharma donates to Thomas I think we’re good though. Having a SCOTUS decision that restricts the drug will make it hard to unravel if we ever get out of this dystopian nightmare.

Of course the drug it's not safe. It kills 'babies'.

Why don't we just ban everything that has the potential kill a fetus? Drinking alcohol, driving, eating soft cheese and raw fish, jogging, or other things that women might do that could possibly be dangerous. We could limit these things to females under the age of 8 and over 60. I mean, you have to show a driver's license to buy alcohol, and no-one objects to that. State governments could keep a national fetus monitoring registry to keep every fetus safe (have I gone too far? If any GOP members are reading this, it's just a joke, not a suggestion for new policies).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court says it will consider whether to restrict access to a widely used abortion drug -- even in states where the procedure is still allowed.
https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/13/politics/supreme-court-to-decide-whether-to-restrict-abortion-drug-nationwide/index.html?Date=20231213&Profile=cnnbrk&utm_content=1702478257&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter

It would be a cold day in hell before SCOTUS defies big pharma. I hope. I saw the headline and felt like this snuck up on me. The issue the antis are claiming is safety. I’ve not seen any stories showing that the drug is unsafe. As long as big pharma donates to Thomas I think we’re good though. Having a SCOTUS decision that restricts the drug will make it hard to unravel if we ever get out of this dystopian nightmare.

Of course the drug it's not safe. It kills 'babies'.

Why don't we just ban everything that has the potential kill a fetus? Drinking alcohol, driving, eating soft cheese and raw fish, jogging, or other things that women might do that could possibly be dangerous. We could limit these things to females under the age of 8 and over 60. I mean, you have to show a driver's license to buy alcohol, and no-one objects to that. State governments could keep a national fetus monitoring registry to keep every fetus safe (have I gone too far? If any GOP members are reading this, it's just a joke, not a suggestion for new policies).

God, Nov. 2024 can't come soon enough. And for the love of god, vote for Democrats. No ifs, and, or buts. Ladies (and the men who love women), this is the whole enchilada. There is NOTHING more important.

[Anonymous]

Just so we are all on the same page. SCOTUS is not reviewing the actual approval of this medication. It declined to review that part of the case. It is not in danger of being pulled from the market. SCOTUS is reviewing subsequent regs (including a COVID Reg) that made it easier to dispense this medication (ie, you don’t have to go to a doctors office and have them watch you take the pills). On one hand, this SCOTUS could very well rule against the changes making the pills easier to get, and thus allow Courts to overrule the FDA when they place restrictions on the use of medicine. It’s a bad place for Courts to be. And one would think they learned their lesson with Dobbs about Courts practicing medicine. But they probably didn’t. And if they didn’t, I hope viagra is the next drug up. Needs to be taken in an MD’s office every single time and BP measured, and an EKG run and patient’s penis observed because of cardiac risks and risk of erections that last for hours. But your love bunny can join you for observed copulation (in case you have a heart attack midway). That’s where the plaintiff’s reasoning could go.

BUT, there is an issue they need to consider first as to whether the plaintiffs having standing to bring this suit. Smart legal scholars I follow are betting that SCOTUS decides no standing and gets rid of the case without ever looking at the merits of the Regs at issue.

[Anonymous]

Women who want autonomy over there bodies better vote for Dems straight ticket.