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?

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?

Yet a single judge was able to place a nationwide injunction. Clarence Thomas in one of his opinions complained about this practice.

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.

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.

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 wrote:

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.

Indeed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Op here, do judges have the jurisdiction to do stuff like this? Can they ban IUDs, hormonal birth control?
FFS

I think we’re rocketing towards the point where decisions become so partisan that governments start disregarding them. Courts rely on legitimacy more than anything else, and that’s fading fast. It’s happened before, when Jackson just disregarded the court “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it”

This is kind of where I am at. Let’s just ignore the judge. It’s not like he has any real authority.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

1. Terrible precedent of non medical legal interference in medical decisions. This medicine was used safely for 23 years.
2. Using 150 year old law to ban even mailing the abortion pill between states.
3. Ban will mess up life saving medication needed for much existing human life.


Many main stream Christians support women’s reproductive rights and prudent science. It is infuriating that so much harm is being done to women and existing life in the name of Christianity. Jesus and the OT prophets had nothing to say about abortion but there are thousands of references in the Bible to helping the poor and vulnerable. Many of us mainstream Christians reject this misuse of our religion to justify immoral treatment of existing life and religious interference in medical decisions.

Well, then I expect those Christians vote for Democrats for the next 4-6 cycles until the courts are balanced and the Evangelical wing of the party is eradicated from any leadership.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats, Cons. You've just lost the 2024 election.

Youth: Wait….we just wanted to be able to abort our children! We didn’t want to be ruled by China. WTAF

You're a total idiot. You do know that China restricts birth rights. Moron.

Explain, please.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats, Cons. You've just lost the 2024 election.

Youth: Wait….we just wanted to be able to abort our children! We didn’t want to be ruled by China. WTAF

You're a total idiot. You do know that China restricts birth rights. Moron.

Explain, please.

PP has to explain the decades of the one child policy? Come on now.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats, Cons. You've just lost the 2024 election.

Youth: Wait….we just wanted to be able to abort our children! We didn’t want to be ruled by China. WTAF

You're a total idiot. You do know that China restricts birth rights. Moron.

Explain, please.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Congrats, Cons. You've just lost the 2024 election.

Youth: Wait….we just wanted to be able to abort our children! We didn’t want to be ruled by China. WTAF

You're a total idiot. You do know that China restricts birth rights. Moron.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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

1. Terrible precedent of non medical legal interference in medical decisions. This medicine was used safely for 23 years.
2. Using 150 year old law to ban even mailing the abortion pill between states.
3. Ban will mess up life saving medication needed for much existing human life.


Many main stream Christians support women’s reproductive rights and prudent science. It is infuriating that so much harm is being done to women and existing life in the name of Christianity. Jesus and the OT prophets had nothing to say about abortion but there are thousands of references in the Bible to helping the poor and vulnerable. Many of us mainstream Christians reject this misuse of our religion to justify immoral treatment of existing life and religious interference in medical decisions.

Well, then I expect those Christians vote for Democrats for the next 4-6 cycles until the courts are balanced and the Evangelical wing of the party is eradicated from any leadership.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My civil procedure is rusty, but I don’t think the Supreme Court can do anything about the Washington injunction unless someone appeals it. And DOJ has not appealed it yet. We may end up in the odd situation where DOJ has to choose between two equally binding injunctions.

That doesn't seem to address the question of what happens if DOJ appeals the Texas one and not the WA one.

I think what will happen is if the 5th Circuit doesn't issue a stay then it will be appealed to SCOTUS. If they do issue a stay, will the plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS?

I'm sure that's what will happen in the Texas case. But there is a standing injunction in the WA case and DOJ has not appealed. I don't think anyone, either the 9th Circuit or SCOTUS, can vacate that injunction unless DOJ appeals it. Even if the Texas case goes to SCOTUS and the anti-abortion side wins, that doesn't undo the WA injunction.

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 wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My civil procedure is rusty, but I don’t think the Supreme Court can do anything about the Washington injunction unless someone appeals it. And DOJ has not appealed it yet. We may end up in the odd situation where DOJ has to choose between two equally binding injunctions.

That doesn't seem to address the question of what happens if DOJ appeals the Texas one and not the WA one.

I think what will happen is if the 5th Circuit doesn't issue a stay then it will be appealed to SCOTUS. If they do issue a stay, will the plaintiffs appeal to SCOTUS?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My civil procedure is rusty, but I don’t think the Supreme Court can do anything about the Washington injunction unless someone appeals it. And DOJ has not appealed it yet. We may end up in the odd situation where DOJ has to choose between two equally binding injunctions.

That doesn't seem to address the question of what happens if DOJ appeals the Texas one and not the WA one.