Texas judge suspends abortion pill approval

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Decision is based on standing, so the new red state AG challengers can bring the case again after the election when banning the pill wouldn't look so bad for the republican justices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

they learned not to issue decisions restriction abortion rights in the June of an election year. They left the door wide open for the case to be brought again at a more politically convenient time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don’t worry.
The conservative justices gave the forced birth psychos plenty of tips on how to bring a stronger case next time.

This is the strongest case for reelecting Joe Biden. Donald Trump will potentially have 3 appointments in a 2nd term. We are toast if he is able cement this court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Decision is based on standing, so the new red state AG challengers can bring the case again after the election when banning the pill wouldn't look so bad for the republican justices.

But they also have to find people who were adversely affected by the FDA's approval of the drugs. SCOTUS has ruled that doctors have no standing; they are not affected by the availability of the abortion drugs to patients.

So, they have to find someone who will argue that they were somehow damaged by abortion drugs being available to other people for them to have a medically induced abortion. How does one get damaged by someone else's abortion? About the only case I can see is perhaps a father wants the child, but the mother does not.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/issue-brief-securing-fathers-rights-and-enforcing-their-responsibilities-could-help-prevent-abortion

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth that a father has no constitutional right to prevent a pregnant mother from obtaining an abortion. In doing so, the Court reasoned that a mother is more directly affected by pregnancy. As it explained, the reality of the pregnancy places the physical burden of the pregnancy solely on the mother. Therefore, the right to make final decisions rests with the mother. In other words, the Court said that because the woman actually carries the baby, the father should not have a say over her decision.

About the only argument could be:

However, in light of the historic 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court ruling finding no constitutional right to abortion, these precedents undermining fathers’ rights to protect an unborn child should be revisited. Because of the changing landscape surrounding abortion, fathers now have a stronger opportunity to assert their voice in the debate who have equal rights to the child. This is an important time to reframe this issue by asserting the critical role that fatherhood plays in supporting the pregnancy and the life of children. Fathers have a larger role to play in these critical decisions, and they should not be denied this right. Additionally, policymakers should consider measures to protect the rights of fathers who are eligible for custodial rights. This includes pre-abortive paternal notifications and policies to support negotiated agreements empowering worthy fathers to prevent abortion and assume full custody of their unborn child.

But. a father would have to be willing to say that he wanted the child and be willing to take the case all the way to SCOTUS to try and argue that in light of the Dobbs decision that his child's mother was taking away his parental rights when she no longer had a right to an abortion. It's a very tenuous (at best) logical argument.

Outside of something like this, I cannot see anyone else who would have standing to challenge that the availablity of abortion drugs to other people and their pregnancies, somehow damaged the litigant.

I have a feeling it will be very, very difficult to find a case where someone can realistically prove standing to resubmit this case.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Decision is based on standing, so the new red state AG challengers can bring the case again after the election when banning the pill wouldn't look so bad for the republican justices.

But they also have to find people who were adversely affected by the FDA's approval of the drugs. SCOTUS has ruled that doctors have no standing; they are not affected by the availability of the abortion drugs to patients.

So, they have to find someone who will argue that they were somehow damaged by abortion drugs being available to other people for them to have a medically induced abortion. How does one get damaged by someone else's abortion? About the only case I can see is perhaps a father wants the child, but the mother does not.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/issue-brief-securing-fathers-rights-and-enforcing-their-responsibilities-could-help-prevent-abortion

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth that a father has no constitutional right to prevent a pregnant mother from obtaining an abortion. In doing so, the Court reasoned that a mother is more directly affected by pregnancy. As it explained, the reality of the pregnancy places the physical burden of the pregnancy solely on the mother. Therefore, the right to make final decisions rests with the mother. In other words, the Court said that because the woman actually carries the baby, the father should not have a say over her decision.

About the only argument could be:

However, in light of the historic 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court ruling finding no constitutional right to abortion, these precedents undermining fathers’ rights to protect an unborn child should be revisited. Because of the changing landscape surrounding abortion, fathers now have a stronger opportunity to assert their voice in the debate who have equal rights to the child. This is an important time to reframe this issue by asserting the critical role that fatherhood plays in supporting the pregnancy and the life of children. Fathers have a larger role to play in these critical decisions, and they should not be denied this right. Additionally, policymakers should consider measures to protect the rights of fathers who are eligible for custodial rights. This includes pre-abortive paternal notifications and policies to support negotiated agreements empowering worthy fathers to prevent abortion and assume full custody of their unborn child.

But. a father would have to be willing to say that he wanted the child and be willing to take the case all the way to SCOTUS to try and argue that in light of the Dobbs decision that his child's mother was taking away his parental rights when she no longer had a right to an abortion. It's a very tenuous (at best) logical argument.

Outside of something like this, I cannot see anyone else who would have standing to challenge that the availablity of abortion drugs to other people and their pregnancies, somehow damaged the litigant.

I have a feeling it will be very, very difficult to find a case where someone can realistically prove standing to resubmit this case.

You can spin yourself six ways to Sunday but doesn’t change the fact that SCOTUS is playing politics.

They will prohibit abortion drugs and contraception. Make no mistake.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Decision is based on standing, so the new red state AG challengers can bring the case again after the election when banning the pill wouldn't look so bad for the republican justices.

But they also have to find people who were adversely affected by the FDA's approval of the drugs. SCOTUS has ruled that doctors have no standing; they are not affected by the availability of the abortion drugs to patients.

So, they have to find someone who will argue that they were somehow damaged by abortion drugs being available to other people for them to have a medically induced abortion. How does one get damaged by someone else's abortion? About the only case I can see is perhaps a father wants the child, but the mother does not.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/issue-brief-securing-fathers-rights-and-enforcing-their-responsibilities-could-help-prevent-abortion

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth that a father has no constitutional right to prevent a pregnant mother from obtaining an abortion. In doing so, the Court reasoned that a mother is more directly affected by pregnancy. As it explained, the reality of the pregnancy places the physical burden of the pregnancy solely on the mother. Therefore, the right to make final decisions rests with the mother. In other words, the Court said that because the woman actually carries the baby, the father should not have a say over her decision.

About the only argument could be:

However, in light of the historic 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court ruling finding no constitutional right to abortion, these precedents undermining fathers’ rights to protect an unborn child should be revisited. Because of the changing landscape surrounding abortion, fathers now have a stronger opportunity to assert their voice in the debate who have equal rights to the child. This is an important time to reframe this issue by asserting the critical role that fatherhood plays in supporting the pregnancy and the life of children. Fathers have a larger role to play in these critical decisions, and they should not be denied this right. Additionally, policymakers should consider measures to protect the rights of fathers who are eligible for custodial rights. This includes pre-abortive paternal notifications and policies to support negotiated agreements empowering worthy fathers to prevent abortion and assume full custody of their unborn child.

But. a father would have to be willing to say that he wanted the child and be willing to take the case all the way to SCOTUS to try and argue that in light of the Dobbs decision that his child's mother was taking away his parental rights when she no longer had a right to an abortion. It's a very tenuous (at best) logical argument.

Outside of something like this, I cannot see anyone else who would have standing to challenge that the availablity of abortion drugs to other people and their pregnancies, somehow damaged the litigant.

I have a feeling it will be very, very difficult to find a case where someone can realistically prove standing to resubmit this case.

A bunch of red state AGs intervened in the case after SCOTUS took it up because it was clearly going down in standing. The religious nutjub judge will just reissue his prior decision using the new state plaintiffs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Decision is based on standing, so the new red state AG challengers can bring the case again after the election when banning the pill wouldn't look so bad for the republican justices.

Yup, this reporter should get a prize.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

Decision is based on standing, so the new red state AG challengers can bring the case again after the election when banning the pill wouldn't look so bad for the republican justices.

But they also have to find people who were adversely affected by the FDA's approval of the drugs. SCOTUS has ruled that doctors have no standing; they are not affected by the availability of the abortion drugs to patients.

So, they have to find someone who will argue that they were somehow damaged by abortion drugs being available to other people for them to have a medically induced abortion. How does one get damaged by someone else's abortion? About the only case I can see is perhaps a father wants the child, but the mother does not.
https://americafirstpolicy.com/issues/issue-brief-securing-fathers-rights-and-enforcing-their-responsibilities-could-help-prevent-abortion

In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Planned Parenthood v. Danforth that a father has no constitutional right to prevent a pregnant mother from obtaining an abortion. In doing so, the Court reasoned that a mother is more directly affected by pregnancy. As it explained, the reality of the pregnancy places the physical burden of the pregnancy solely on the mother. Therefore, the right to make final decisions rests with the mother. In other words, the Court said that because the woman actually carries the baby, the father should not have a say over her decision.

About the only argument could be:

However, in light of the historic 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court ruling finding no constitutional right to abortion, these precedents undermining fathers’ rights to protect an unborn child should be revisited. Because of the changing landscape surrounding abortion, fathers now have a stronger opportunity to assert their voice in the debate who have equal rights to the child. This is an important time to reframe this issue by asserting the critical role that fatherhood plays in supporting the pregnancy and the life of children. Fathers have a larger role to play in these critical decisions, and they should not be denied this right. Additionally, policymakers should consider measures to protect the rights of fathers who are eligible for custodial rights. This includes pre-abortive paternal notifications and policies to support negotiated agreements empowering worthy fathers to prevent abortion and assume full custody of their unborn child.

But. a father would have to be willing to say that he wanted the child and be willing to take the case all the way to SCOTUS to try and argue that in light of the Dobbs decision that his child's mother was taking away his parental rights when she no longer had a right to an abortion. It's a very tenuous (at best) logical argument.

Outside of something like this, I cannot see anyone else who would have standing to challenge that the availablity of abortion drugs to other people and their pregnancies, somehow damaged the litigant.

I have a feeling it will be very, very difficult to find a case where someone can realistically prove standing to resubmit this case.

A bunch of red state AGs intervened in the case after SCOTUS took it up because it was clearly going down in standing. The religious nutjub judge will just reissue his prior decision using the new state plaintiffs.

Pretty much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

they learned not to issue decisions restriction abortion rights in the June of an election year. They left the door wide open for the case to be brought again at a more politically convenient time.

+1
That’s all this is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

they learned not to issue decisions restriction abortion rights in the June of an election year. They left the door wide open for the case to be brought again at a more politically convenient time.

Yup. And they get applause from the WSJ ed board for it, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

they learned not to issue decisions restriction abortion rights in the June of an election year. They left the door wide open for the case to be brought again at a more politically convenient time.

Yup. And they get applause from the WSJ ed board for it, of course.

WSJ is one of the worst out there in that they manage to keep their hat on covering most of the crazy - but they’ll unleash it later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

they learned not to issue decisions restriction abortion rights in the June of an election year. They left the door wide open for the case to be brought again at a more politically convenient time.

Yup. And they get applause from the WSJ ed board for it, of course.

WSJ is one of the worst out there in that they manage to keep their hat on covering most of the crazy - but they’ll unleash it later.

The editorial board has been crazy for years now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

they learned not to issue decisions restriction abortion rights in the June of an election year. They left the door wide open for the case to be brought again at a more politically convenient time.

Yup. And they get applause from the WSJ ed board for it, of course.

WSJ is one of the worst out there in that they manage to keep their hat on covering most of the crazy - but they’ll unleash it later.

The editorial board has been crazy for years now.

Oh certainly. But like the crazy right wingers on the Court they can keep a lid on it when needed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Supreme Court on Thursday rejected a lawsuit challenging the Food and Drug Administration’s approach to regulating the abortion pill mifepristone with a unanimous ruling that will continue to allow the pills to be mailed to patients without an in-person doctor’s visit. Kavanaugh wrote the opinion.

sounds like they may have learned the lesson? i am surprised it is unanimous though

Because the conservatives stayed consistent and were willing to rule against their policy preferences. Before the liberals on the court pushed policy first and ruled the other way on standing and were willing to throw out a law on hospital admitting privileges.