Anonymous wrote:This judge is a joke to the judiciary and to the rule of law. I would hope the more seasoned jurists on the Fifth Circuit will set this right. If they don’t, I am perfectly fine with the Biden administration ignoring the judge and letting the Marshals figure out how to enforce these decisions. As a lawyer, I don’t say this lightly.

These judges are flirting with danger. I don’t think many of them truly comprehend the level of disgust and hatred people are developing for the fundamentalist fanatics trying to take over our country. They are hoping for a righteous civil war a la Iran, and are convinced God is on their side. The world has changed, and Americans have changed. The outcome these days is more likely to be a mass purging of the fundies from all aspects of civil life and the severe constriction of religious practice in America. And they will have brought it all on themselves.

I'm sorry to inform you that the Fifth Circuit is made up of a bunch of wacko religious zealots. It's possible this decision is too out there even for them, but I'm not counting on it.

Anonymous wrote:

A single judge cannot make a ruling on medicine. The story focuses on abortion, but the bigger picture here is that a single state is trying to make a ruling on medication that undermines FDA authority. The power to approve drugs is solely granted to the FDA and is part of the Code of Federal Regulations. It is the law of the land. If this is ever successful, it'd mean pharmaceutical companies in the future will try to bypass FDA authority and try to lobby each individual state in order to sell their new drugs that might not even work or be safe. It's be an unprecedented disaster for patient safety, healthcare costs and the way medicine works in this country. The drug is FDA approved, therefore the maker has a right to sell it in any state. FDA power has been built on 100 years of case law. I doubt this goes anywhere, otherwise it sets up the country for disasters in the future.

Can this judge be disbarred or impeached based on this case? He is clearly incompetent.

Yes. But it’s a federal judge, so Congress would have to impeach with Rs holding the House, that won’t happen.

This judge is a joke to the judiciary and to the rule of law. I would hope the more seasoned jurists on the Fifth Circuit will set this right. If they don’t, I am perfectly fine with the Biden administration ignoring the judge and letting the Marshals figure out how to enforce these decisions. As a lawyer, I don’t say this lightly.

These judges are flirting with danger. I don’t think many of them truly comprehend the level of disgust and hatred people are developing for the fundamentalist fanatics trying to take over our country. They are hoping for a righteous civil war a la Iran, and are convinced God is on their side. The world has changed, and Americans have changed. The outcome these days is more likely to be a mass purging of the fundies from all aspects of civil life and the severe constriction of religious practice in America. And they will have brought it all on themselves.

A single judge cannot make a ruling on medicine. The story focuses on abortion, but the bigger picture here is that a single state is trying to make a ruling on medication that undermines FDA authority. The power to approve drugs is solely granted to the FDA and is part of the Code of Federal Regulations. It is the law of the land. If this is ever successful, it'd mean pharmaceutical companies in the future will try to bypass FDA authority and try to lobby each individual state in order to sell their new drugs that might not even work or be safe. It's be an unprecedented disaster for patient safety, healthcare costs and the way medicine works in this country. The drug is FDA approved, therefore the maker has a right to sell it in any state. FDA power has been built on 100 years of case law. I doubt this goes anywhere, otherwise it sets up the country for disasters in the future.

Can this judge be disbarred or impeached based on this case? He is clearly incompetent.

A single judge cannot make a ruling on medicine. The story focuses on abortion, but the bigger picture here is that a single state is trying to make a ruling on medication that undermines FDA authority. The power to approve drugs is solely granted to the FDA and is part of the Code of Federal Regulations. It is the law of the land. If this is ever successful, it'd mean pharmaceutical companies in the future will try to bypass FDA authority and try to lobby each individual state in order to sell their new drugs that might not even work or be safe. It's be an unprecedented disaster for patient safety, healthcare costs and the way medicine works in this country. The drug is FDA approved, therefore the maker has a right to sell it in any state. FDA power has been built on 100 years of case law. I doubt this goes anywhere, otherwise it sets up the country for disasters in the future.

Very soon, one of these Republican goons who pass for "judges" will rule that childhood vaccinations are not allowed because their preacher told them so. Just wait for it.

--signed, furious conservative (whom the GOP has been dead to for some time)

A stay is in effect for 7 days. If the ban on FDA’s approval of mifepristone is allowed to go into effect this could also impact chemotherapy drugs, asthma medicine, blood pressure pills, and insulin .., more medical collateral damage due to anti abortion extremism. .. as if maternity death rates and maternity medical services rapidly closing in red antiabortion states was not bad enough … thank you Judge Rice for your counter injunction!

From Heather Cox Richardson’s well researched daily newsletter for yesterday April 7.

This Friday night’s news dump is a biggie: Texas judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an antiabortion Trump appointee, has ruled that the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the drug mifepristone in 2000 was flawed and must be suspended. In the 23 years since its approval, the drug has been widely proved to be safe, and this is the first time a court has ordered the FDA to remove a drug from the market.

Mifepristone is used to induce abortions as well as for other medical applications. Although the Supreme Court argued last year in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion, that getting rid of Roe would enable states to make their own decisions about abortion, Kacsmaryk’s decision would remove mifepristone across the entire United States. Mifepristone accounts for about 53% of medically induced abortions.

Vice President Kamala Harris, who has led the administration's policy on reproductive rights, noted that Kacsmaryk’s decision does not simply impact abortion: it opens the door to politicizing chemotherapy drugs, asthma medicine, blood pressure pills, insulin, and so on.

Kacsmaryk also said that mailing mifepristone across state lines is illegal based on the Comstock Act, which Congress passed in 1873, making it illegal to send contraceptive materials through the mail. He went further than that, though, going far beyond the Dobbs decision to embrace the concept that a fertilized egg is an “unborn human” from the time of conception.

He stayed the ruling for a week to give the government time to respond.

President Joe Biden vowed to fight the ruling. He noted that the Department of Justice has already filed an appeal and will seek an immediate stay. “But let’s be clear,” he wrote, “the only way to stop those who are committed to taking away women’s rights and freedoms in every state is to elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring Roe versus Wade. Vice President Harris and I will continue to lead the fight to protect a woman’s right to an abortion, and to make her own decisions about her own health. That is our commitment.”

Less than an hour after Kacsmaryk’s ruling, federal judge Thomas O. Rice in Washington state issued an injunction prohibiting the FDA from pulling mifepristone from the market

Anonymous wrote:Part of the Judges rationale was protecting women from PTSD after seeing the productions of abortion. Which at 6-10 weeks look like a heavy period.

Wait until he hears about the PTSD some women have after giving birth.

Dude, just because you think periods are gross is no reason to take rights away from half the population.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you complaining about this judge's ruling, were happy when Trump's policies had nationwide injunctions placed on them by a liberal judge?

So you admit this ruling has no basis in fact or law, but is really just about petty revenge?

You seem like a nice person. Just like the judge.

The judge allledges that the FDA makes decisions based on politics not on science or safety concerns. This is a serious allegation which warrants investigation. They should have Congressional hearings.

About what? A drug that’s been proven safe for 23 years?

Anonymous wrote:Part of the Judges rationale was protecting women from PTSD after seeing the productions of abortion. Which at 6-10 weeks look like a heavy period.

Wait until he hears about the PTSD some women have after giving birth.

Such a patronizing twat.

The FDA should pull viagra while it does a “review” of the safety of drugs. If the rights don’t want drugs on the market with side effects, then viagra should go.

Part of the Judges rationale was protecting women from PTSD after seeing the productions of abortion. Which at 6-10 weeks look like a heavy period.

Wait until he hears about the PTSD some women have after giving birth.

I find it interesting the judge tried to keep the hearing secret, but word got out when it was discovered. Now he drops the ruling on Good Friday, after normal work hours, over a holiday weekend.

Hmmmnn, like he knew this would be controversial and was trying to bury it deep….

Anonymous wrote:
How many of you complaining about this judge's ruling, were happy when Trump's policies had nationwide injunctions placed on them by a liberal judge?

This was not a "Biden" policy that was ruled on. It's an FDA approved drug that has been in use for 23 years. The FDA. How many more drugs will be deemed "unsafe" by a federal judge and taken off the US market?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How many of you complaining about this judge's ruling, were happy when Trump's policies had nationwide injunctions placed on them by a liberal judge?

So you admit this ruling has no basis in fact or law, but is really just about petty revenge?

You seem like a nice person. Just like the judge.

The judge allledges that the FDA makes decisions based on politics not on science or safety concerns. This is a serious allegation which warrants investigation. They should have Congressional hearings.