• Are the rulings of Federal judges serving in one state applicable to th

    From S K@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 9 08:01:49 2023
    This potential decision would have the effect of a red-state federal judge ending reproductive freedom in every state throughout America, and ending the right of private companies to engage in interstate commerce selling the abortion pill.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to S K on Sun Mar 12 14:30:43 2023
    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 in every state throughout America, and ending the right of private companies 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. 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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to montanawolf@outlook.com on Thu Mar 16 07:39:04 2023
    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)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to micky on Thu Mar 16 08:51:08 2023
    On 3/16/2023 7:39 AM, micky wrote:
    ...



    You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lots
    of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.

    ...
    As an example, California controls the content of the windshield washer
    fluid in your car. Most of the premixed fluid sold in the US is illegal
    to sell in about half of California. I found this out when I visited
    family in Utah and my fluid froze solid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Levine@21:1/5 to All on Thu Mar 16 09:16:48 2023
    According to micky <misc07@fmguy.com>:
    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***.

    It's at the discretion of the judge, and given this judge's background,
    I expect he will claim there is an extreme emergency and the order goes
    into effect immediately, nationwide.

    Even worse, an appeal would be to the Fifth Circuit which is almost as
    crazy as he is. See their recent rant, er, decision about the Texas
    Internet censorship law.

    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?

    Because the entire case is ridiculous. There is vast evidence that
    these pills are safe and effective. If they weren't, there'd be a
    two decade pile of dead bodies.

    --
    Regards,
    John Levine, johnl@taugh.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies",
    Please consider the environment before reading this e-mail. https://jl.ly

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to montanawolf@outlook.com on Thu Mar 16 10:06:01 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

    On 3/16/2023 7:39 AM, micky wrote:
    ...



    You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lots
    of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.

    ...
    As an example, California controls the content of the windshield washer
    fluid in your car. Most of the premixed fluid sold in the US is illegal
    to sell in about half of California. I found this out when I visited
    family in Utah and my fluid froze solid.

    Amazing. They have mountains in California too. Cold mountains too.


    --
    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)
  • From Roy@21:1/5 to micky on Thu Mar 16 16:42:39 2023
    On 3/16/2023 10:06 AM, micky wrote:
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 16 Mar 2023 08:51:08 -0700 (PDT), Roy <montanawolf@outlook.com> wrote:

    On 3/16/2023 7:39 AM, micky wrote:
    ...



    You say private companies as if that makes a difference. There are lots >>> of things that private companies are not allowed to sell.

    ...
    As an example, California controls the content of the windshield washer
    fluid in your car. Most of the premixed fluid sold in the US is illegal
    to sell in about half of California. I found this out when I visited
    family in Utah and my fluid froze solid.

    Amazing. They have mountains in California too. Cold mountains too.



    It has to do with the chemicals they use to prevent freezing. They can
    cause air pollution. Basically the eastern mountains and foothills of
    CA are approved for sale of fluid rated below 32 degrees.

    https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/consumer-products-program/complying-consumer-products-regulations/windshield

    I would just stock up when on trips outside of CA.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to misc07@fmguy.com on Fri Mar 17 12:30:30 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 16 Mar 2023 07:39:04 -0700 (PDT), micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:


    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***.

    Another thing that confused me is that lots of talk was about using the
    other drug, misprostol, if mifepristone was out. No talk about it being
    barred from the mail. If its purpose is the same, why doesn't the
    Comstock Act apply to it too?

    There are a lot of articles and a lot of words, but it's very hard to
    find the basis for the lawsuit. I haven't even found the name of the
    lawsuit.

    Here's a paragraph called Revisiting a deecades-old drug approval. Maybe
    I wasn't wrong in the first place? The lawsuit "claims the FDA exceeded
    its authority when it used an accelerated process typically reserved for serious or life-threatening illnnesses to approve mifepristone..."
    So I re-instate all that I said in my first post.

    The lawsuit is Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2:22-cv-00223. And it has its own very short wikipedia
    page.

    --
    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)
  • From micky@21:1/5 to misc07@fmguy.com on Fri Mar 17 12:29:40 2023
    In misc.legal.moderated, on Thu, 16 Mar 2023 07:39:04 -0700 (PDT), micky <misc07@fmguy.com> wrote:


    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***.

    I heard more on the radio and it seems I was totally wrong (and none of
    you corrected me).

    I must have heard the allegation that it was "improperly approved" and I
    took that to be an allegation that the approval process wasn't done
    correctly.

    That's not the basis of the suit at all. According to an ACLU article
    it's the 150-year old Comstock Act, specifically (from the wikip
    article) "...every article... intended for ... producing abortion... is
    hereby declared to be a non-mailable matter and shall not be conveyed by
    the mails or delivered from any post offiice or by any letter carrier.". Nothing to do with the approval process so re-approving it won't work. I
    just imagined that.

    OTOH, when they wrote this in 1873, the Pony Express had come and gone.
    There were probably private messenger services at work in the business
    district of cities, and some stores may have had delivery. If stores
    didn't have delivery, you could have your chauffeur go get something for
    you. But does this law include Fedex and UPS? Not on its face. Post
    office refers to letters, not packages. Letter carrier even more
    specifically refers to letters. Admittedly, even in 1870's it would be
    hard to put an abortifacient in a letter, probably need a package, but
    that doesn't prove Fedex and UPS are included. Is there some basis for
    them to be included with "the mails" or "letter carrier"? Is there any
    basis to include a courier service like they have in midtown and
    downtown NYC?

    Does some other law or court decision merge the three things together.

    If not, how come I'm the only one noticing this?

    And in the states where abortion is legal, or other states where early
    abortion is legal, why is the mail involved at all? Drug stores get
    their stock delivered by truck, their own trucks or a company contracted directly with them. That's even more remote from the text of the law
    than UPS and Fedex are.

    Maaybe there is a different law that is the basis of the suit, but I
    want to get this out asap to correct my big mistake and to give you
    folks something to think about.


    BTW, why do they say things like " a 60-year old law"? What does that
    matter? The state laws against murder are probably more than 250 years
    old, but murder is still wrong.


    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.

    --
    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)