In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 12 Mar 2023 14:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Roy <
montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:
On 3/9/2023 8:01 AM, S K wrote:
This potential decision would have the effect of a red-state federal judge ending reproductive freedom
I don't think it would affect reproductive freedom. It would affect anti-reproductive freedom.
in every state throughout America, and ending the right of private companies
You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lots
of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.
to engage in interstate commerce selling the abortion pill.
The OP didn't specify what case but here is what I can figure out.
A case was filed in Federal Court in Amarillo Texas concerning the FDA's >approval of the pill used in medical abortion.
Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk has been assigned the case. He is the only
Federal Judge in Amarillo and basically is assigned 100% of the cases
there. Assigning all cases filed in Amarillo to a judge who actually
sits in Amarillo could save ordinary litigants from traveling hundreds
of miles to a court hearing. Judge Kacsmaryk is a conservative so
people complain about forum shopping.
Of course both left and right employ tactics to get a judge of their
liking.
Yes, they both do. It doesn't seem right that this is so easy to do, or
that it can be done at all.
To change the focus here a little bit, haven't the news media been
alarmist about this issue?
If the judge decides against the pill, the government will appeal and
won't the judge's order have to be stayed until the appeal concludes, in
the absence of any showing of death or serious illness because of the
alleged, by then almost proven inferior approval process? AIUI, there
is no allegation that the drug is dangerous, only that the approval
process wasn't up to snuff***.
During the time it takes for appeals, both of the possible failures of
the approval process can be cured, I would think.
The data and the process they used for the original approval can be
re-examined and re-done. I think they had more than enough data, but if
the allegation is that there was not enough data, now there are 20
years' more data, most of it computerized. All they would have to do
is look for every entry that uses the name of the drug and that same day
or within say 10 days after its first listed, see if there is a code for
death or hemorrhage or whatever other serious bad side effect it might
have or is known to have. (AIUI it's not known to have any worse than discomfort and similar.) When they find examples of that, they can
check if the drug is considered the cause. That part may take a while,
but I hear there are very few such cases, and the vast majority would be coincidences.
Even if the coding is incomplete or different methods** are used by
different clinics, insurance companies, states, there are easily enough
to find millions of women who have taken the drug and check their cases
for disqualifying side effects.
If you tell me that the ban won't be stayed during appeal, the
government has known about this case for months, they've known which
judge was to handle it and what his views on abortion are, for months.
Wouldn't they have started the re-review process months ago?
And I've heard on the tv that the normal review period is about 18
months, but this drug got almost twice that, plus it was re-reviewed --
I don't know how well -- when the time limit for its use was extended.
And again for some other reason.
IOW aren't the news media, at least msnbc, being alarmist about this in
order to ilncrease ratings? And how come they don't mention any of the mitigating factors that I just listed?
They sound like if it's banned it will stay banned until the Supreme
Court flips.
***Also: MSNBC keeps talking about 21 years, but if the approval
process wasn't carried out correctly, I don't see why the passage of
time makes much difference. Just go back and do it right. If you start letting sloppy work sneak by and then be approved because it was years
ago, there will be a lot more sloppy work. It's no more work to do it
right years later than it would have been to do it right in the first
place.
MSNBC also complains that this is the first time an approved drug
has been challenged like this, years later. it's also the first time an ex-president has been indicted and for that they explain that the
circumstances have not happened before, but they don't seem to think of
that when it comes to this drug.
**The medical info portability act was supposed to get every clinic to
keep records the same way, but aiui it hasn't worked.
In San Francisco is an example where Presidents Trump and
George W. Bush had zero nominees to this division.
Here is a good artcle
https://reason.com/volokh/2023/02/05/forum-shopping-in-california/
extract:
There are other examples, of course. The New York Attorney General could
file strategic suits in Albany, the state capital. But it routinely
files in the Southern District of New York. By contrast, conservative >litigants challenge COVID restrictions and gun control laws in Albany.
There is a 50/50 shot at drawing a Republican-appointed judge. The
Maryland Attorney General could have sued Trump over the Emoluments
Clause in the Baltimore division of the District of Maryland, but he
chose the Greenbelt division. Lo and behold, all the judges in Greenbelt
are Democratic appointees. In New Jersey, the Attorney General recently
tried to transfer a Second Amendment from a Trump appointee to a more >favorable judge.
--
I think you can tell, but just to be sure:
I am not a lawyer.
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)