Comments requested:
I don't see how the mifepristone abortion pill ruling in texas could be
as big a deal as some of the people the press quotes are making out.
micky wrote:
Comments requested:
I don't see how the mifepristone abortion pill ruling in texas
could be as big a deal as some of the people the press quotes are
making out.
To me, it is a big deal because the conflicting ruling in
Washington makes it (much?) more likely this dispute is going to
reach the Supreme Court.
As Kirsten Moore, director of the advocacy organization Expanding
Medication Abortion Access Project, put it: “It shouldn’t have
to say in these states the drug is approved, in these states the
drug isn’t approved. That’s not tenable.”
Elle comment:
I think all reasonable people will agree with Moore that such an
FDA position would be illogical and against science.
On the other hand this would not be the first time one person's
science would be another person's religion. I think abortion is
largely about differing religious values. One culture things life
begins at such-and-such time. Others say it begins at another
time.
Quote from the Washington Post:
"The conflicting opinions probably mean a fast track for a legal
showdown before a conservative Supreme Court that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion last June. If the high court
were to uphold the ruling handed down by U.S. Judge Matthew J.
Kacsmaryk in Texas, the FDA’s authority to vet and approve
drugs, considered the gold standard around the world, could be
permanently undermined, scholars said."
I think watching the High Court Justices navigate this one will be interesting. Here is my prediction:
A majority rules for the FDA.
Roberts will side with Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. Roberts will
do so with a tiny bit of pleasure as he tells the extremists on
the court what the law //is//; they can try to sell their
"originalist" arguments elsewhere. (Later Jackson and spouse will
buy Roberts and spouse drinks and, one glass of wine later, toast,
"Here's to the //real// Originalists." Roberts will blanch and
look around to make sure no one of importance is listening.)
Either Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or both will join the majority. No fools
they.
Barrett does not seem to be another Thomas or Alito. But I think
she is still an unknown. It would be interesting to see whether so
far she has ever joined Thomas and Alito to make up a
three-Justice minority.
Thomas and Alito will be in the minority.
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Comments requested:
I don't see how the mifepristone abortion pill ruling in texas could be
as big a deal as some of the people the press quotes are making out.
To me, it is a big deal because the conflicting ruling in Washington makes
it (much?) more likely this dispute is going to reach the Supreme Court.
As Kirsten Moore, director of the advocacy organization Expanding
Medication Abortion Access Project, put it: “It shouldn’t have to say in >these states the drug is approved, in these states the drug isn’t approved. >That’s not tenable.?
Elle comment:
I think all reasonable people will agree with Moore that such an FDA
position would be illogical and against science.
On the other hand this would not be the first time one person's science
would be another person's religion. I think abortion is largely about >differing religious values. One culture things life begins at such-and-such >time. Others say it begins at another time.
Quote from the Washington Post:Matthew J. Kacsmaryk in Texas, the FDA’s authority to vet and approve drugs, considered the gold standard around the world, could be permanently undermined, scholars said."
"The conflicting opinions probably mean a fast track for a legal showdown before a conservative Supreme Court that overturned the constitutional right to an abortion last June. If the high court were to uphold the ruling handed down by U.S. Judge
I think watching the High Court Justices navigate this one will be interesting.
Here is my prediction:
A majority rules for the FDA.
Roberts will side with Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. Roberts will do so with a tiny
bit of pleasure as he tells the extremists on the court what the law //is//; they can
try to sell their "originalist" arguments elsewhere. (Later Jackson and spouse >will buy Roberts and spouse drinks and, one glass of wine later, toast, >"Here's to the //real// Originalists." Roberts will blanch and look around to make
sure no one of importance is listening.)
Either Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or both will join the majority. No fools they.
Barrett does not seem to be another Thomas or Alito. But I think she is still >an unknown. It would be interesting to see whether so far she has ever joined >Thomas and Alito to make up a three-Justice minority.
Thomas and Alito will be in the minority.
Comments requested:
I don't see how the mifepristone abortion pill ruling in texas could be
as big a deal as some of the people the press quotes are making out.
They say "If this ruling were to stand, no FDA ruling would be safe."
But my impression was that no administrative ruling was ever safe from >judicial review. ...
In misc.legal.moderated, on Sun, 9 Apr 2023 13:06:49 -0700 (PDT), Elle N ><honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, April 9, 2023 at 12:15:40 AM UTC-5, micky wrote:
Comments requested:
I don't see how the mifepristone abortion pill ruling in texas could be
as big a deal as some of the people the press quotes are making out.
To me, it is a big deal because the conflicting ruling in Washington makes >>it (much?) more likely this dispute is going to reach the Supreme Court.
Not as big a deal as some of those quoted made out. They made it sound
like the drug would be unavailable until the Supreme Court flipped, but
it seems to me -- and I could have said this explicitly -- that by the
time the case is decided by the USSC, the FDA will have reviewed its
prior review and expanded it if necessary, both the process and the data
if need be, so the drug will be available without interruption.
IOW, they're making a big practical issue out a small practical issue,
but one that annoys them that is an issue at all.
As Kirsten Moore, director of the advocacy organization Expanding >>Medication Abortion Access Project, put it: “It shouldn’t have to say
in
these states the drug is approved, in these states the drug isn’t >>approved.
That’s not tenable.�
I thought the positions of the judges were that the first one said it
was unappoved in all states, and the second said it was approved in all >states. It's not unusual for courts and even circuits to disagree.
Elle comment:
I think all reasonable people will agree with Moore that such an FDA
position would be illogical and against science.
On the other hand this would not be the first time one person's science >>would be another person's religion. I think abortion is largely about >>differing religious values. One culture things life begins at
such-and-such
time. Others say it begins at another time.
Yes, you're right. But strangely, almost no one on either side gets the >answer right. Live began many many years ago and has continued without >interrruption ever since.
I guess they are talking about specific lives, about when a specific
life begins**, but almost no one ever says that. It's a little
depressing that on an important topic their use of English is so
careless.
-5, Elle N wrote:
I am not sure whether the defendants
made a motion on this point or to what extent the Texas trial
court treated this.
From
https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-challenges-mifepristone-ruling- >>says-plaintiffs-lacked-standing-2023-4:
In their 49-page response on Monday [April 10], DOJ lawyers asked
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to put Kacsmaryk's
ruling on hold indefinitely during the appeals process, arguing
that the case should never have been allowed to move forward in
the first place.
"The district court erred in holding that plaintiffs have
standing," the DOJ motion states. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit
are a group of anti-abortion activists, including medical
professionals, called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. In
order to bring their case forward, they needed to show they have
been or could be personally harmed by the FDA's approval of
mifepristone.
But anti-abortion doctors are neither in a position to use nor
prescribe mifepristone, the DOJ said. Their argument, instead,
relies on speculation — and absurdity: "that other doctors will
prescribe mifepristone; that those doctors' patients will
experience exceedingly rare serious adverse events; that those
patients will then seek out plaintiffs — doctors who oppose
mifepristone and abortion — for care; and that they will do so
in sufficient numbers to burden plaintiffs' medical practice."
I am not sure whether the defendants
made a motion on this point or to what extent the Texas trial court
treated this.
From https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-challenges-mifepristone-ruling-says-plaintiffs-lacked-standing-2023-4:
Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
-5, Elle N wrote:
I am not sure whether the defendants
made a motion on this point or to what extent the Texas trial
court treated this.
From
https://www.businessinsider.com/doj-challenges-mifepristone-ruling- >>>says-plaintiffs-lacked-standing-2023-4:
In their 49-page response on Monday [April 10], DOJ lawyers asked
the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to put Kacsmaryk's
ruling on hold indefinitely during the appeals process, arguing
that the case should never have been allowed to move forward in
the first place.
"The district court erred in holding that plaintiffs have
standing," the DOJ motion states. The plaintiffs in the lawsuit
are a group of anti-abortion activists, including medical
professionals, called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. In
order to bring their case forward, they needed to show they have
been or could be personally harmed by the FDA's approval of
mifepristone.
But anti-abortion doctors are neither in a position to use nor
prescribe mifepristone, the DOJ said. Their argument, instead,
relies on speculation — and absurdity: "that other doctors will
prescribe mifepristone; that those doctors' patients will
experience exceedingly rare serious adverse events; that those
patients will then seek out plaintiffs — doctors who oppose
mifepristone and abortion — for care; and that they will do so
in sufficient numbers to burden plaintiffs' medical practice."
They also did argue that the suit comes many years too late based on
the six year statute of limitations for actions against federal
agency actions.
The court's actions in that case are completely legally unjustified.
This decision makes Judge Eileen Cannon seem fair and balanced in
comparison.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
If you read even the first page of the decision, it is utterly obvious
that the judge was just looking for any excuse to outlaw abortions and
the whole case and decision are a pretext.
John Levine wrote:
If you read even the first page of the decision, it is utterly
obvious that the judge was just looking for any excuse to outlaw
abortions and the whole case and decision are a pretext.
Of course. The judge makes up his mind, then twists into a
pretzel attempting to rationalize his 'judicial decision'.
So... this case, and this judge, differs from any other... how?
It's called human nature - emotion rules - and juvenile to
believe that judges are oh so wise and objective -
For instance, recall that Ginzburg, upon her demise, "lay in
state"... for what reason, pray tell, except that she pushed the
left wing agenda? Of course she rationalized her decisions through
the usual judicial fustian -
But anti-abortion doctors are neither in a position to use nor prescribe mifepristone, the DOJ said. Their argument, instead, relies on speculation — and absurdity: "that other doctors will prescribe mifepristone; that those
doctors' patients will experience exceedingly rare serious adverse events; that those patients will then seek out plaintiffs — doctors who oppose mifepristone and abortion — for care; and that they will do so in sufficient
numbers to burden plaintiffs' medical practice."
On April 10, John Levine wrote:
If you read even the first page of the decision, it is utterly obvious
that the judge was just looking for any excuse to outlaw abortions and
the whole case and decision are a pretext.
Of course. The judge makes up his mind, then twists into a pretzel >attempting to rationalize his 'judicial decision'.
So... this case, and this judge, differs from any other... how?
It's called human nature - emotion rules - and juvenile to
believe that judges are oh so wise and objective -
For instance, recall that Ginzburg, upon her demise, "lay in state"...
for what reason, pray tell, except that she pushed the left wing
agenda? Of course she rationalized her decisions through the
usual judicial fustian -
Of course. The judge makes up his mind, then twists into a pretzel
attempting to rationalize his 'judicial decision'.
So... this case, and this judge, differs from any other... how?
It's called human nature - emotion rules - and juvenile to
believe that judges are oh so wise and objective -
For instance, recall that Ginzburg, upon her demise, "lay in state"...
for what reason, pray tell, except that she pushed the left wing
agenda? Of course she rationalized her decisions through the
usual judicial fustian -
Elle N <honda.lioness@gmail.com> wrote:
micky wrote:
Comments requested:
I don't see how the mifepristone abortion pill ruling in texas
could be as big a deal as some of the people the press quotes are
making out.
To me, it is a big deal because the conflicting ruling in
Washington makes it (much?) more likely this dispute is going to
reach the Supreme Court.
As Kirsten Moore, director of the advocacy organization Expanding
Medication Abortion Access Project, put it: “It shouldn’t have
to say in these states the drug is approved, in these states the
drug isn’t approved. That’s not tenable.?
Elle comment:
I think all reasonable people will agree with Moore that such an
FDA position would be illogical and against science.
On the other hand this would not be the first time one person's
science would be another person's religion. I think abortion is
largely about differing religious values. One culture things life
begins at such-and-such time. Others say it begins at another
time.
Quote from the Washington Post:
"The conflicting opinions probably mean a fast track for a legal
showdown before a conservative Supreme Court that overturned the
constitutional right to an abortion last June. If the high court
were to uphold the ruling handed down by U.S. Judge Matthew J.
Kacsmaryk in Texas, the FDA’s authority to vet and approve
drugs, considered the gold standard around the world, could be
permanently undermined, scholars said."
I think watching the High Court Justices navigate this one will be
interesting. Here is my prediction:
A majority rules for the FDA.
Roberts will side with Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson. Roberts will
do so with a tiny bit of pleasure as he tells the extremists on
the court what the law //is//; they can try to sell their
"originalist" arguments elsewhere. (Later Jackson and spouse will
buy Roberts and spouse drinks and, one glass of wine later, toast,
"Here's to the //real// Originalists." Roberts will blanch and
look around to make sure no one of importance is listening.)
Either Gorsuch, Kavanaugh or both will join the majority. No fools
they.
Barrett does not seem to be another Thomas or Alito. But I think
she is still an unknown. It would be interesting to see whether so
far she has ever joined Thomas and Alito to make up a
three-Justice minority.
Thomas and Alito will be in the minority.
One thing that puzzles me is that there is a general six year statute
of limitations for bringing actions against the federal government,
including for regulatory actions. Why wasn't that applied in this
case? The medication was approved long ago - well outside the six
year limitations perioid. The court shouldn't have jurisdiction to
even hear the case.
--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Elle N wrote:
But anti-abortion doctors are neither in a position to use nor
prescribe mifepristone, the DOJ said. Their argument, instead,
relies on speculation — and absurdity: "that other doctors will
prescribe mifepristone; that those doctors' patients will
experience exceedingly rare serious adverse events; that those
patients will then seek out plaintiffs — doctors who oppose
mifepristone and abortion — for care; and that they will do so
in sufficient numbers to burden plaintiffs' medical practice."
Everyone has heard of the "twinkie defense."
Is there such a thing as a legal team's "twinkie offense"?
Or is a cause of action like that brought here, grabbing
at straws, more typically known simply as "frivolous"?
I guess the plaintiff's attorneys will not be sanctioned. I wish
they could be.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 99:27:44 |
| Calls: | 8,363 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 13,162 |
| Messages: | 5,897,781 |