Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So will each medicine from over the counter stuff like Tylenol to prescription drugs now have to be approved by a judge? Someone said this ruling does away with the fda drug approval process.

Tylenol has no chance since it’s way more dangerous than mifepristone.

Anonymous wrote:So will each medicine from over the counter stuff like Tylenol to prescription drugs now have to be approved by a judge? Someone said this ruling does away with the fda drug approval process.

Anonymous wrote:Kacsmaryk lied to the Senate to get confirmed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting part of this to me is that SCOTUS relies on moral authority to maintain its legitimacy as an institution. We do what they say because they are wise and they tell us to. But, they don’t have a lot in the way of enforcement. Some blue states have stocked up on up to 5 years worth of pills. If SCOTUS halts the use of abortion pills and blue state medical boards tell physicians they will not investigate physicians who prescribe, then what? What if aid organizations ignore and start shipping across state lines? How exactly is that enforced. They can make an example of a handful of people, maybe. If the DOJ gets involved.

It’s like Bush v. Gore. They can rule. But if Gore hadn’t agreed to concede and Floridas delegation to the House was blue, then what. Look at how hard enforcing desegregation was. It took decades.

People in power agree to do what SCOTUS says because it’s important to our democracy. But if enough people decide SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, blue states keep prescribing abortion pills and…. What?

If your power lies in your being perceived as legitimate, the fact only 25% of independence say they have confidence in your rulings begs the question. Why not just ignore them?

I do not understand why pro choice groups are not pushing jury nullification for all these radical anti abortion laws. There would be no way to enforce the law if juries did this.

What doctor is going to risk his/her freedom on a bet that a red state jury will nullify?

This. Even with clear exceptions, when those exceptions are affirmative defenses, doctors are pretending that they don't exist

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting part of this to me is that SCOTUS relies on moral authority to maintain its legitimacy as an institution. We do what they say because they are wise and they tell us to. But, they don’t have a lot in the way of enforcement. Some blue states have stocked up on up to 5 years worth of pills. If SCOTUS halts the use of abortion pills and blue state medical boards tell physicians they will not investigate physicians who prescribe, then what? What if aid organizations ignore and start shipping across state lines? How exactly is that enforced. They can make an example of a handful of people, maybe. If the DOJ gets involved.

It’s like Bush v. Gore. They can rule. But if Gore hadn’t agreed to concede and Floridas delegation to the House was blue, then what. Look at how hard enforcing desegregation was. It took decades.

People in power agree to do what SCOTUS says because it’s important to our democracy. But if enough people decide SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, blue states keep prescribing abortion pills and…. What?

If your power lies in your being perceived as legitimate, the fact only 25% of independence say they have confidence in your rulings begs the question. Why not just ignore them?

I do not understand why pro choice groups are not pushing jury nullification for all these radical anti abortion laws. There would be no way to enforce the law if juries did this.

What doctor is going to risk his/her freedom on a bet that a red state jury will nullify?

This. Even with clear exceptions, when those exceptions are affirmative defenses, doctors are pretending that they don't exist

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting part of this to me is that SCOTUS relies on moral authority to maintain its legitimacy as an institution. We do what they say because they are wise and they tell us to. But, they don’t have a lot in the way of enforcement. Some blue states have stocked up on up to 5 years worth of pills. If SCOTUS halts the use of abortion pills and blue state medical boards tell physicians they will not investigate physicians who prescribe, then what? What if aid organizations ignore and start shipping across state lines? How exactly is that enforced. They can make an example of a handful of people, maybe. If the DOJ gets involved.

It’s like Bush v. Gore. They can rule. But if Gore hadn’t agreed to concede and Floridas delegation to the House was blue, then what. Look at how hard enforcing desegregation was. It took decades.

People in power agree to do what SCOTUS says because it’s important to our democracy. But if enough people decide SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, blue states keep prescribing abortion pills and…. What?

If your power lies in your being perceived as legitimate, the fact only 25% of independence say they have confidence in your rulings begs the question. Why not just ignore them?

I do not understand why pro choice groups are not pushing jury nullification for all these radical anti abortion laws. There would be no way to enforce the law if juries did this.

Much of the point of these laws is to make and keep conditions vague and uncertain. A rash of hugely publicized prosecutions will only lead to a push to overturn the laws. But a slow drip of doctors leaving the state or not providing abortion care achieves the desired end without the unpleasant means.

What doctor is going to risk his/her freedom on a bet that a red state jury will nullify?

This. Even with clear exceptions, when those exceptions are affirmative defenses, doctors are pretending that they don't exist

Anonymous wrote:I’m convinced forced birthers have never read a history book.
I realize history is bereft of the stories of women, but still.
Pick up book and read about how women died.
Child birth.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting part of this to me is that SCOTUS relies on moral authority to maintain its legitimacy as an institution. We do what they say because they are wise and they tell us to. But, they don’t have a lot in the way of enforcement. Some blue states have stocked up on up to 5 years worth of pills. If SCOTUS halts the use of abortion pills and blue state medical boards tell physicians they will not investigate physicians who prescribe, then what? What if aid organizations ignore and start shipping across state lines? How exactly is that enforced. They can make an example of a handful of people, maybe. If the DOJ gets involved.

It’s like Bush v. Gore. They can rule. But if Gore hadn’t agreed to concede and Floridas delegation to the House was blue, then what. Look at how hard enforcing desegregation was. It took decades.

People in power agree to do what SCOTUS says because it’s important to our democracy. But if enough people decide SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, blue states keep prescribing abortion pills and…. What?

If your power lies in your being perceived as legitimate, the fact only 25% of independence say they have confidence in your rulings begs the question. Why not just ignore them?

I do not understand why pro choice groups are not pushing jury nullification for all these radical anti abortion laws. There would be no way to enforce the law if juries did this.

What doctor is going to risk his/her freedom on a bet that a red state jury will nullify?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting part of this to me is that SCOTUS relies on moral authority to maintain its legitimacy as an institution. We do what they say because they are wise and they tell us to. But, they don’t have a lot in the way of enforcement. Some blue states have stocked up on up to 5 years worth of pills. If SCOTUS halts the use of abortion pills and blue state medical boards tell physicians they will not investigate physicians who prescribe, then what? What if aid organizations ignore and start shipping across state lines? How exactly is that enforced. They can make an example of a handful of people, maybe. If the DOJ gets involved.

It’s like Bush v. Gore. They can rule. But if Gore hadn’t agreed to concede and Floridas delegation to the House was blue, then what. Look at how hard enforcing desegregation was. It took decades.

People in power agree to do what SCOTUS says because it’s important to our democracy. But if enough people decide SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, blue states keep prescribing abortion pills and…. What?

If your power lies in your being perceived as legitimate, the fact only 25% of independence say they have confidence in your rulings begs the question. Why not just ignore them?

I do not understand why pro choice groups are not pushing jury nullification for all these radical anti abortion laws. There would be no way to enforce the law if juries did this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The interesting part of this to me is that SCOTUS relies on moral authority to maintain its legitimacy as an institution. We do what they say because they are wise and they tell us to. But, they don’t have a lot in the way of enforcement. Some blue states have stocked up on up to 5 years worth of pills. If SCOTUS halts the use of abortion pills and blue state medical boards tell physicians they will not investigate physicians who prescribe, then what? What if aid organizations ignore and start shipping across state lines? How exactly is that enforced. They can make an example of a handful of people, maybe. If the DOJ gets involved.

It’s like Bush v. Gore. They can rule. But if Gore hadn’t agreed to concede and Floridas delegation to the House was blue, then what. Look at how hard enforcing desegregation was. It took decades.

People in power agree to do what SCOTUS says because it’s important to our democracy. But if enough people decide SCOTUS isn’t legitimate, blue states keep prescribing abortion pills and…. What?

If your power lies in your being perceived as legitimate, the fact only 25% of independence say they have confidence in your rulings begs the question. Why not just ignore them?

I do not understand why pro choice groups are not pushing jury nullification for all these radical anti abortion laws. There would be no way to enforce the law if juries did this.