Anonymous wrote:Mifepristone SAVES lives. This is what these idiots don’t get.

Yeah they do. They don't care.

Anonymous wrote:Mifepristone SAVES lives. This is what these idiots don’t get.

No, they get it.

Feature, not bug.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Well, perhaps we should attend to the fact that there's precedent for something other than FDA rules regulating MDs' prescribing practices.

Mifepristone SAVES lives. This is what these idiots don’t get.

The cooch, who then was part of homeland security under trump?

Good riddance to Mr transvaginal

Anonymous wrote:The American Taliban thing seems more and more real every day. When one Judge can overrule FDA scientists on medication proven to be very safe over 23 years based on his religious views, it’s over. And this guy used rationale like: the FDA did not adequately consider women’s PTSD over seeing the products of abortion. It’s a heavy period dude. We deal with it 25% of the time for 30+ years. My miscarriage at 8 weeks wasn’t traumatic because I found a tiny baby (clearly I did not) it was traumatic because it was a wanted pregnancy.

He also fails to mention that a surgical abortion is less safe and more traumatic.

Remember VA’s transvaginal US AG who got soundly voted out? Same deal. His legal reasoning is controlling and punishing women.

Also less safe and more traumatic: CHILDBIRTH.

The American Taliban thing seems more and more real every day. When one Judge can overrule FDA scientists on medication proven to be very safe over 23 years based on his religious views, it’s over. And this guy used rationale like: the FDA did not adequately consider women’s PTSD over seeing the products of abortion. It’s a heavy period dude. We deal with it 25% of the time for 30+ years. My miscarriage at 8 weeks wasn’t traumatic because I found a tiny baby (clearly I did not) it was traumatic because it was a wanted pregnancy.

He also fails to mention that a surgical abortion is less safe and more traumatic.

Remember VA’s transvaginal US AG who got soundly voted out? Same deal. His legal reasoning is controlling and punishing women.

Anonymous wrote:What’s the legal reasoning for restricting the medication by mail or requiring an in-person visit?

Seems pretty arbitrary, given all the medications currently RX’d via Teledoc and the USPS.

Because they can.

Anonymous wrote:What’s the legal reasoning for restricting the medication by mail or requiring an in-person visit?

Seems pretty arbitrary, given all the medications currently RX’d via Teledoc and the USPS.

That’s the beauty of deciding this case on the shadow docket. One sentence decision. No rationale necessary. Great for cases where there is no good rationale.

And yes. It’s arbitrary. Before COVID I don’t think teledoc was allowed. But in some states you could pick it up at the MD office with no interaction with an MD. While others made you see an MD and get an ultrasound. And other made you do the US and attend back to back MD appointments and have them watch you take the medication, even though it wouldn’t start to work for hours. No one believes the see an MD get an ultrasound requirements were about women’s health. They were about making abortions as expensive, time consuming and out of reach for poor women as possible.

There have been millions of medication abortions in the US. 30 reported deaths. And like COVID reporting, no all of these deaths were due to the pill. All pregnancy related deaths— including do,estimated violence, ectopic pregnancy rupture and even COVID are included.

Very safe medication. Harder to get than Oxycodone.

What’s the legal reasoning for restricting the medication by mail or requiring an in-person visit?

Seems pretty arbitrary, given all the medications currently RX’d via Teledoc and the USPS.

Anonymous wrote:Really unhappy SCOTUS is making such a consequential ruling on the shadow docket.

Big middle fingers to all the third party voters of the last 22 years. And to the Republican voters, but I don’t expect them to know any better.

Really unhappy SCOTUS is making such a consequential ruling on the shadow docket.

Anonymous wrote:

Seems kind of impeachable.

Not with this House. Plus, Thomas did it first and worst.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Actually it just gives Kav cover to restrict abortion rights without aging to explain why, when he said in Dobbs the Court would not rule on abortion rights in the future

Anonymous wrote:

Seems kind of impeachable.

Would his impeachment have the same absurd hurdle to clear as Thomas’s does, i.e, somehow finding a number of decent Republicans who have heretofore been invisible?