Texas judge suspends abortion pill approval
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Anonymous
Anonymous
|
This is from Kavanaugh's concurrence in Dobbs. As I read this, it's as if the GOP and its judges have been on a mission over the last 9 months to make him look like a complete fool.
"After today’s decision, the nine Members of this Court will no longer decide the basic legality of pre-viability abortion for all 330 million Americans. That issue will be resolved by the people and their representatives in the democratic process in the States or Congress. But the parties’ arguments have raised other related questions, and I address some of them here. First is the question of how this decision will affect other precedents involving issues such as contraception and marriage—in particular, the decisions in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1965); Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U. S. 438 (1972); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967); and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015). I emphasize what the Court today states: Overruling Roe does not mean the overruling of those precedents, and does not threaten or cast doubt on those precedents. Second, as I see it, some of the other abortion-related legal questions raised by today’s decision are not especially difficult as a constitutional matter. For example, may a State bar a resident of that State from traveling to another State to obtain an abortion? In my view, the answer is no based on the constitutional right to interstate travel. May a State retroactively impose liability or punishment for an abortion that occurred before today’s decision takes effect? In my view, the answer is no based on the Due Process Clause or the Ex Post Facto Clause. Cf. Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347 (1964). Other abortion-related legal questions may emerge in the future. But this Court will no longer decide the fundamental question of whether abortion must be allowed throughout the United States through 6 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 15 weeks, or 24 weeks, or some other line. The Court will no longer decide how to evaluate the interests of the pregnant woman and the interests in protecting fetal life throughout pregnancy. Instead, those difficult moral and policy questions will be decided, as the Constitution dictates, by the people and their elected representatives through the constitutional processes of democratic self-government." |
Anonymous
Anonymous
I would hope so - the current GOP are extremists and undermining democracy … however realistically, people often vote according to their economist interests. I personally believe that the Dems are much better financial managers and invest more in education, health, infrastructure and research. But not everyone agrees with that. |
Anonymous
You're a total idiot. You do know that China restricts birth rights. Moron. |
Anonymous
Explain, please. |
Anonymous
PP has to explain the decades of the one child policy? Come on now. |
Anonymous
You could Google it, but the state had a one-child policy for decades. In 2016, they changed the law and now people can have 3 children. So, essentially killing kids by restrictive policy, yes? It was also one of the first countries to support abortion, though they curbed it for awhile because parents were killing girl babies due to the one-child policy rule. They wanted boys, and ended up with gender lop-sided. So your scenario makes no friggin difference, and I would stop citing it so you don't appear uneducated. Let's focus on US policy. |
Anonymous
NP. I'm Christian (Methodist) and used to vote for whatever candidate I thought could do the best job, frequently split ticket. That stopped in 2016. Straight Democrat vote now. I found Trump and his ilk disgusting. I was always more socially liberal, fiscally conservative anyway, and the fear-mongering of "others" from the far right has taken over the GOP. I was raised to love thy neighbor. And as a woman who had a life-saving medical abortion (methotrexate for an ectopic), I'll admit I am frightened of what the future holds for my 2 DDs. |
Anonymous
This is kind of where I am at. Let’s just ignore the judge. It’s not like he has any real authority. |
Anonymous
Indeed. |
Anonymous
| If the government doesn't ignore this decision, pharma companies will be able to sue each other right and left to get their competitors drug off the market. |
Anonymous
Just the record, the FDA absolutely did made a decision on this drug based on politics and not safety concerns — just not in the direction the judge implies. For roughly 20 years, Mifepristone was dispensed under needlessly restrictive requirements (like receiving the pill in person at a doctor’s office) that weren’t in any way justified by the drug’s very safe history and weren’t imposed on any similar drugs. Those restrictions were entirely a concession to anti-abortion political forces and it was a big deal when they eased up a little in the past couple of years. |
Anonymous
Yet a single judge was able to place a nationwide injunction. Clarence Thomas in one of his opinions complained about this practice. |