Drug developers condemn Texas judge’s anti-science abortion ruling

Over 400 biopharma leaders are calling for the ruling to be reversed.

See full article...

 

[EVOO]

I wonder if mRNA vaccines would be next because they are 'unsafe'. One wacko antivax judge and the pandemic will be back again.

 

[watermeloncup]

As a lifelong Michigander, I couldn't have been happier with and prouder of our statewide results in November of last year. We very resoundingly and emphatically told the extreme right, "Not here."

But, like you say, other places are doubling down on it in an apparent race to the bottom. Sad.

I was born and raised in Ohio, and it's depressing to see how far my home state has fallen. The divergence from Michigan next door is incredibly striking. Both states used to be on relatively similar political trajectories, usually with Michigan being a little bit more progressive/liberal, but not that different most of the time. I have little hope of things getting better in Ohio after they voted for obvious jackass and charlatan JD Vance over pro-worker Tim Ryan.

I have heard talk of Ohio activists copying Michigan's successful strategy of protecting abortion and ending gerrymandering through ballot measures, which I hope works. Though it seems likely that the GOP will just get rid of ballot measures entirely or if they pass, interpret them so they're ineffective.

 

[spasm]

To be fair, let me add a personal experience: at least talk about the buprenorphine/naloxone combo, Suboxone; buprenorphine, by itself is an unbelievably strong opioid. I know this because I'm an ex-opiate addict who did use Suboxone as part of getting clean. Once, before the regulations made it no longer possible, my two year old kid was in the hospital, and I was about to go into screaming withdrawals -- so they gave me 8mg of buprenorphine. Not bup/naloxone, just straight buprenorphine.

I've never been so high, so long, in my entire life. It was glorious and miserable both -- glorious because, hey, I'm high as a fuckin' kite; miserable because I literally just wanted Suboxone so I could corral the other kids. I didn't want to be a gooey mess in the corner, I just needed to not be in acute opiate withdrawal. I needed to watch the other two kids while my first wife dealt with the doctors. I, pretty emphatically, did NOT need a high on par with Dilaudid, which is where Buprenorphine left me.

I do wish we'd expand access to Suboxone, though -- it's very expensive, and the people who need it most are extremely unlikely to be able to afford it. Parts of me think it should be like condoms at the health center -- want a handful? Grab a handful. The other parts of me think it should be like a methadone clinic -- just show up every morning, dose up, get on with your day. It surely shouldn't cost a psychiatric visit plus a couple hundred bucks for a months supply. (In 2009, I paid $300/month to the doctor and about $500/month to the pharmacy.)

(13 years clean of opiates; 5.5 years clean of alcohol. It takes some serious work to be clean of either. Did the work, got the postcard, now I'm an upstanding citizen who pays taxes and participates in my community. I miss boutique Gin. Everything else? Meh. I had just started getting in to small-distillery gins whenever I got sober. Certainly don't miss it enough to end up back on the vodka for breakfast plan.)

Of the people who tried to get sober with me 5.5 years ago, two of them are still non-drinkers. Two. Out of ~200. I'd guess that your claimed 5-7% success rate is significantly higher than reality. I'd guess closer to 1%, but that's from the perspective of alcoholism and addiction, not from the perspective of drug policy. You're working with data, I'm working with a life of anecdotes, so you're probably right; it just doesn't feel like 12 step programs do MOST people right.


That said, Suboxone used right is probably the best tool there is for opiate addicted people to get clean.

Oh, for sure, I agree with everything you're saying, particularly the 'hand it out like condoms' bit, because all the evidence backs that. I was using 'buprenorphine' as shorthand for a couple of treatment regimens, most prominently suboxone, just because my post wasn't really about drug treatment modalities rather the way judges get inappropriately involved in treatment decisions for people who use drugs. I figured the general Ars readership isn't down in the details of drug treatment, but as always I stand corrected Glad to hear you're doing well!

 

[balthazarr]

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/04/white-supremacists-terror-threat-dhs-409236

John Cohen, who oversaw DHS’s counterterrorism portfolio from 2011 to 2014, said the drafts’ conclusion isn’t surprising.

“This draft document seems to be consistent with earlier intelligence reports from DHS, the FBI, and other law enforcement sources: that the most significant terror-related threat facing the US today comes from violent extremists who are motivated by white supremacy and other far-right ideological causes,” he said.

It certainly doesn't help when the fucking President was/is fuelling the flames and spewing increasingly histrionic rhetoric. Consider his recent 'death and destruction' post. FFS - if he was anyone else he'd be on every 3-letter agency watch list there is.

https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-warns-death-destruction-if-charged-with-crime-2023-03-24/

 

[shelbystripes]

Drug companies could always stop selling ANY medicine to Texas, be interesting to watch a state wither and die as a political experiment.

This was a federal judge, and his injunction declared it has a nationwide scope.

Unfortunately, federal judges can do that. It sort of makes sense to allow, assuming federal judges that attempt to stick to enforcing the law in ways that honor existing precedents won’t be overturned. Which is an assumption people have made for a long time.

 

[Thorzdad]

...the ruling throws into question the FDA's authority over all medicines...

This is, of course, part of the plan. If the right can effectively kneecap the FDA’s ability to do its job, they will have established precedent with which to go after every other federal (and, eventually state) department’s rule-making and approval authority.

 

[balthazarr]

This was a federal judge, and his injunction declared it has a nationwide scope.

Unfortunately, federal judges can do that. It sort of makes sense to allow, assuming federal judges that attempt to stick to enforcing the law in ways that honor existing precedents won’t be overturned. Which is an assumption people have made for a long time.

It's one of the erosions of conventions and traditions that, if not started, markedly accelerated over a cliff under the Trump Administration.

And it's taken hold at the highest level (SCOTUS) - which has decided it won't even follow it's own decisions if it has a bugbear issue it doesn't like for political and religious reasons. (So what hope is there for lower courts to fall in line?)

It's a dark, disturbing development with ramifications that will be widespread and felt for decades.

 

[hecksagon]

Peak Judicial Activism (AKA Hypocrisy).

Keep it up assholes and see just how many national elections your party wins, Not to mention the many, many statewide races you'll blow as well. Wisconsin anyone?

I wish this were the case. Unfortunately our elections don't really accurately reflect our populations, disproportionately amplifying conservative votes. Until that gets resolved, or we actually do start committing election fraud, I'm afraid this just continues to happen.

 

[shelbystripes]

Myeah, and it's time to trot this little image out again.

At the 2021 CPAC they stood on an Odal rune, old symbol of the SS division tasked to defend racial purity and the official symbol (since 2016) of the american neo-nazi party belting out messages cribbed right out of Hitler's campaign speeches. At the 2022 CPAC they held their first CPAC in Hungary, letting Viktor Orban hold the keynote address - which he did, bringing the message of a white christian community bereft of "mixed races".
So popular they invited him to their next CPAC in Texas to tell them all the funny anecdotes on how he rid his country of jews and gypsies.

The GOP today relies on a base which largely consists of bona fide nazis and fascists. There's no getting around that. Not since they exchanged their dogwhistles in favor of bullhorns.

Yeah, the number of people willing to accept that even that goddamn blatant Odal rune was a “coincidence” is … alarming, and depressing.

At some point, you must be willing to recognize (1) a pattern exists of white supremacists using white supremacist imagery or signals and denying intent, and (2) white supremacists are willing to lie to disguise their true motives, at least while they remain in the political minority.

And once you realize #1 and #2 are both true, the undeniable conclusion is that you cannot excuse as coincidence or ignorance, that which is more easily explained as white supremacy.

You cannot give the benefit of the doubt to people who are trying to exploit your desire to give people the benefit of the doubt. Stop doubting. They’ve proven who they are by now.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Yeah, the number of people willing to accept that even that goddamn blatant Odal rune was a “coincidence” is … alarming, and depressing.

At some point, you must be willing to recognize (1) a pattern exists of white supremacists using white supremacist imagery or signals and denying intent, and (2) white supremacists are willing to lie to disguise their true motives, at least while they remain in the political minority.

And once you realize #1 and #2 are both true, the undeniable conclusion is that you cannot excuse as coincidence or ignorance, that which is more easily explained as white supremacy.

You cannot give the benefit of the doubt to people who are trying to exploit your desire to give people the benefit of the doubt. Stop doubting. They’ve proven who they are by now.

I would be willing to accept the rune's use in that stage design as coincidence, if not for how often these "coincidences" keep occurring when it comes to conservative messaging. It's just like the "one bad apple" mindset when it comes to police brutality. Every case gets treated like "just one isolated instance" that has nothing to do with all the others. But, when these isolated instances occur in sufficient numbers, they become evidence. "Anecdote" is not a synonym for data, but a host of hundreds and hundreds of similar anecdotes DO become data. Yes, even for something as outlandish as alien abduction stories. When something like that becomes widespread enough, they merit an explanation. Now, in the case of alien abduction stories, they tie into generations of older stories about demons sitting on people's chests and so on and the explanation turns out to be dream demons, or "dreamons" to use the scientific term, and a circle of salt and clapping your hands three times is the doctor's prescription, but in this case the most parsimonious explanation for all these remarkable coincidences is that there's fascist, sexist, racist leaders sending dog whistles out to voters with a similar mindset. It's just... now that the fascism is becoming more open and "acceptable" in society, they're no longer just whistling.

 

[shelbystripes]

Please stop excluding U.S. Catholics from your tirades.

One of the tactically brilliant things that white evangelicals did, when they realized they were losing the culture war decades ago, was decide to put aside their battles with the Catholic Church in favor of defending “Christianity” on common ground.

This is of course a temporary truce, I believe it’s lasted long enough that the “pro-life” Catholics take it for granted by now, but they will backstab and come for the Catholics once their usefulness has expired.

 

[balthazarr]

Yeah, the number of people willing to accept that even that goddamn blatant Odal rune was a “coincidence” is … alarming, and depressing.

At some point, you must be willing to recognize (1) a pattern exists of white supremacists using white supremacist imagery or signals and denying intent, and (2) white supremacists are willing to lie to disguise their true motives, at least while they remain in the political minority.

And once you realize #1 and #2 are both true, the undeniable conclusion is that you cannot excuse as coincidence or ignorance, that which is more easily explained as white supremacy.

You cannot give the benefit of the doubt to people who are trying to exploit your desire to give people the benefit of the doubt. Stop doubting. They’ve proven who they are by now.

Many of the doubters probably fall into one of two categories:

1) they are white supremacists, but don't want to openly admit it; or
2) they are in denial about their own white supremacist nature and refuse to admit to themselves what they are.

Either way, they're almost certainly white supremacists. Or, at least, tolerant of white supremacy - which makes them a white supremacist.

 

[hecksagon]

It might soon be time for the states to stop complying with Marbury vs. Madison. Remember, the Supreme Court gets the final say only because they decided that they had the right to do so, it isn't written into the constitution anywhere.

I also wonder if the pharmaceutical industry could selectively refuse to sell certain (or all drugs) to Federal judges? It seems to be a thing for stores at least, where one sees signs "we have the right to refuse service to anyone". It would be a terrible shame if certain members of SCOTUS could no longer get their boner pills, statins, or blood pressure meds.

Almost certainly they can not. Pharmaceutical companies sell their products to distributors, who then sell them to individual pharmacies. At no point would the distributor or pharmaceutical company have any knowledge about any individual patient. If they did, it would be a slam dunk HIPPA case.

 

[shelbystripes]

I would be willing to accept the rune's use in that stage design as coincidence, if not for how often these "coincidences" keep occurring when it comes to conservative messaging. It's just like the "one bad apple" mindset when it comes to police brutality. Every case gets treated like "just one isolated instance" that has nothing to do with all the others. But, when these isolated instances occur in sufficient numbers, they become evidence.

Evidence that should, by now, create a default “white supremacy exists and is widespread enough to be the explanation here” assumption amongst rational Americans.

It should be a rebuttable presumption, but instead of making excuses for why something might not be white supremacy, people should force those who do these things to disprove—through action, not just words—a default assumption they’re doing white supremacist things for white supremacist reasons.

 

[Longmile149]

I was born and raised in Ohio, and it's depressing to see how far my home state has fallen. The divergence from Michigan next door is incredibly striking. Both states used to be on relatively similar political trajectories, usually with Michigan being a little bit more progressive/liberal, but not that different most of the time. I have little hope of things getting better in Ohio after they voted for obvious jackass and charlatan JD Vance over pro-worker Tim Ryan.

I have heard talk of Ohio activists copying Michigan's successful strategy of protecting abortion and ending gerrymandering through ballot measures, which I hope works. Though it seems likely that the GOP will just get rid of ballot measures entirely or if they pass, interpret them so they're ineffective.

It’s been great to see a Democratic majority unapologetically, emphatically govern after a win, and I’m super pleased with the pace we’ve been maintaining in MI.

That said, this is who is running the MI GOP these days:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/11/politics/kfile-michigan-gop-chair-kristina-karamo-comments/index.html
One bad election and we’re in for a world of crazy up here.

I’m really hoping that having Dems in power who understand they were put there to use that power will help us expand our majority, but…who knows?

 

[shelbystripes]

Many of the doubters probably fall into one of two categories:

1) they are white supremacists, but don't want to openly admit it; or
2) they are in denial about their own white supremacist nature and refuse to admit to themselves what they are.

Either way, they're almost certainly white supremacists. Or, at least, tolerant of white supremacy - which makes them a white supremacist.

I’m actually going to disagree with you here.

I do sincerely believe there are a meaningful number of Americans who 3) would reject white supremacy if they recognized it, but just want to remain in denial about how awful their society is.

Which is a fine distinction—they’re still being tolerant of white supremacy—but I don’t think it’s in their “nature”, so much as something they just don’t want to admit.

Such people do still exist, I’ve even seen them on Ars, as people gradually have listened to folks (like me) or noticed it becoming more blatant, and woken up to how real white supremacy is in America, and started giving a damn now that they see it.

And I feel I must be optimistic that there are still quite a few people like that left, who just need their eyes opened. Because if there aren’t, this country is doomed, and so am I.

 

[pkh]

Yeah, the number of people willing to accept that even that goddamn blatant Odal rune was a “coincidence” is … alarming, and depressing.

At some point, you must be willing to recognize (1) a pattern exists of white supremacists using white supremacist imagery or signals and denying intent, and (2) white supremacists are willing to lie to disguise their true motives, at least while they remain in the political minority.

And once you realize #1 and #2 are both true, the undeniable conclusion is that you cannot excuse as coincidence or ignorance, that which is more easily explained as white supremacy.

You cannot give the benefit of the doubt to people who are trying to exploit your desire to give people the benefit of the doubt. Stop doubting. They’ve proven who they are by now.

The symbolism at CPAC is no surprise when you consider that one of TFG's most senior advisors (Stephen Miller) was/is an active white supremacist and pushed for such policies to be implemented by the orange guy.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch...nity-white-nationalism-revealed-leaked-emails

 

[balthazarr]

I’m actually going to disagree with you here.

I do sincerely believe there are a meaningful number of Americans who 3) would reject white supremacy if they recognized it, but just want to remain in denial about how awful their society is.

Which is a fine distinction—they’re still being tolerant of white supremacy—but I don’t think it’s in their “nature”, so much as something they just don’t want to admit.

Such people do still exist, I’ve even seen them on Ars, as people gradually have listened to folks (like me) or noticed it becoming more blatant, and woken up to how real white supremacy is in America, and started giving a damn now that they see it.

And I feel I must be optimistic that there are still quite a few people like that left, who just need their eyes opened. Because if there aren’t, this country is doomed, and so am I.

It's funny, I was thinking about the post and going back and editing it to add a third category - those that are in denial, because they refuse to believe, for whatever reason. Don't want to believe a loved one is a white supremacist, don't want to believe that ~40% of the country supports a white supremacist party... any number of reasons.

So I totally agree. But it must be getting harder to continually deny the increasingly obvious, though I'm sure that media echo chambers - both traditional and social - are helping to keep up the illusion.

 

[brightsafflicted]

If the judge with no science/engineering training wants to "do science" can we let the scientists/engineers with no judicial training do law?

I'm trained in both, and have generally found those trained in science "do law" better than those trained in law "do science". But in this case the distinction is irrelevant, since the judge was contriving an argument to reach a desired decision, The real question to me is whether we should allow judges to "do politics" rather than follow clearly-established precedent (such as, for example the question of standing by the plaintiffs).

 

[pug fugly]

It is a stupid and useless legal/political system that allows things like this to happen.

 

[CuriousAF]

I was born and raised in Ohio, and it's depressing to see how far my home state has fallen. The divergence from Michigan next door is incredibly striking. Both states used to be on relatively similar political trajectories, usually with Michigan being a little bit more progressive/liberal, but not that different most of the time. I have little hope of things getting better in Ohio after they voted for obvious jackass and charlatan JD Vance over pro-worker Tim Ryan.

I have heard talk of Ohio activists copying Michigan's successful strategy of protecting abortion and ending gerrymandering through ballot measures, which I hope works. Though it seems likely that the GOP will just get rid of ballot measures entirely or if they pass, interpret them so they're ineffective.

Same here, except I ended up someplace exceedingly worse with little hope of change. However to the point of OH legislators and ballot initiatives, unfortunately OH GOP is already on it, as well as those in other states, and have been since last year:

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023...op-raises-new-barriers-to-ballot-initiatives/

 

[Dark Jaguar]

Evidence that should, by now, create a default “white supremacy exists and is widespread enough to be the explanation here” assumption amongst rational Americans.

It should be a rebuttable presumption, but instead of making excuses for why something might not be white supremacy, people should force those who do these things to disprove—through action, not just words—a default assumption they’re doing white supremacist things for white supremacist reasons.

I agree, of course to a reasonable extent. Someone raising their arm to shield their eyes from the sun? I don't think either of us would suggest that person's doing a nazi salute. However, if they suddenly do that at the end of a speech where they'd been looking that direction the whole time, and boy they certainly didn't take any steps to correct that misconception WHEN they did it? Yeah, just going to assume they're doing a nazi salute there. Heck I'd go further and say that even if they CAN come up with a plausible explanation, if the propensity of the evidence shows numerous examples over a long period of similarly "explained" instances, we can and should just throw all their explanations out and conclude "nazi".

It's like the white washing of slavery as cause of the civil war, which is still such a common talking point no matter how often historians directly debunk it by pointing to letters of the people who led the confederacy directly stating it was about slavery specifically. They'll come up with their excuses, but even without the direct quotes from those letters, I think we can just look at every individual step, see how it all ties into racism and pro-slavery propaganda, and conclude that it was, in fact, about slavery no matter their excuses.

I'll post two videos here... okay maybe three:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjs68UszPh4



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQTJgWkHAwI


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dBJIkp7qIg

 

[watermeloncup]

It’s been great to see a Democratic majority unapologetically, emphatically govern after a win, and I’m super pleased with the pace we’ve been maintaining in MI.

That said, this is who is running the MI GOP these days:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/04/11/politics/kfile-michigan-gop-chair-kristina-karamo-comments/index.html
One bad election and we’re in for a world of crazy up here.

I’m really hoping that having Dems in power who understand they were put there to use that power will help us expand our majority, but…who knows?

Agreed, it's been amazing to see the Michigan Dems not only winning, but actually using their power to change things for the better instead of endlessly circle jerking about reaching across the aisle and healing.

It's definitely possible for things to backslide, and for the GQP to start winning again in the right environment, but due to the brilliant idea of passing popular ideas through ballot measures, they won't be able to do as much damage. Gerrymandering is off the table in Michigan now, so the GQP won't be able to lock itself into power quite as much. They'll either need to nominate relatively moderate candidates or if extremists get elected anyway, they'll probably be thrown out the next election. Abortion is now protected by the state constitution. Yes, it's possible to attack these things, particularly if they elect a bunch of extremist judges, but that's a lot more difficult when they're explicitly protected by the constitution.

 

[grin0048]

Just so people understand the magnitude of Chuckstar’s mistake…

From the Congress.gov annotated guide to the United States Constitution:



From Merriam & Webster’s definition of “Marbury v. Madison” (as a phrase invoking the birth of judicial review):



From Britannica.com:



From The Federalist Society (just to demonstrate unanimity on this point):



And here’s TestMax Prep’s Constitutional Law study guide for law students:



When I say that the first thing law students are taught about constitutional law is that judicial review—the power to review laws for their constitutionality and strike them down as unconstitutional—flows from Marbury v. Madison and didn’t explicitly exist (in the Constitution or otherwise) until then, I’m not being hyperbolic, it’s literally that basic and uncontroversial a lesson. And it’s usually followed by pointing out that supremacy of judicial review, wasn’t fully articulated and tested until the mid 20th century.

And by “tested” I mean President Eisenhower having to deploy the 101st Airborne to Little Rock, Arkansas, before the state government finally accepted SCOTUS’ decision in Brown v. Board of Ed. and Cooper v. Aaron as binding on them. That was a constitutional crisis that would have cost SCOTUS its self-declared judicial review power, if it ended a different way.

Anyone who shows up and claims that SCOTUS was destined to end up with the ultimate judicial review powers it has today, is an idiot, or lying, or both.

Your point and your knowledge of the subject is well taken. Reading Chuckstars comments on the matter, they were essentially making the argument that judicial review, while not explicitly stated in the constitution, is an emergent property of the constitution. It seems like a pretty well founded argument. Either way, it’s a very interesting debate.

 

[watermeloncup]

Same here, except I ended up someplace exceedingly worse with little hope of change. However to the point of OH legislators and ballot initiatives, unfortunately OH GOP is already on it, as well as those in other states, and have been since last year:

https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2023...op-raises-new-barriers-to-ballot-initiatives/

Thanks, I wasn't aware there was a specific proposal from the Ohio GQP, but I am far from surprised. From the article:

An Ohio bill would set a 60% threshold and require petition signatures from all 88 Ohio counties, instead of the current 44, to get a measure on the ballot.
...
If the Missouri, Ohio and Florida legislatures approve the bills, voters would be asked to affirm those changes by a simple majority in Missouri and Ohio and by the current 60% standard in Florida.

I hope that the voters of Ohio are smart enough to see through this and vote against it, though I'm not optimistic based on recent election results. I'll be telling all my friends and family who are still in Ohio to vote against it.

 

[balthazarr]

There really needs to be an alternative system for the appointment of judges. Remove politics out of the equation altogether.

Something like jury duty selection. All practising lawyers with x experience (x increasing as you go up the hierarchy) go into a selection pool.

When there's an opening, there's a random drawing - that person is asked if they want the position, which is not lifetime, but, say, a 5 year term. If they don't want it - draw again and repeat until the position is filled.

That way, the makeup of each court is, effectively, random, and if there's a lemon candidate, or a controversial one, then they're only in the position for a limited time.

It's fair, it's random, it ensures someone with relevant experience is in the position... No confirmation hearings, no sucking up to selection panels... just random chance and a set pool of experienced candidates.

 

[cr08]

Thanks, I wasn't aware there was a specific proposal from the Ohio GQP, but I am far from surprised. From the article:



I hope that the voters of Ohio are smart enough to see through this and vote against it, though I'm not optimistic based on recent election results. I'll be telling all my friends and family who are still in Ohio to vote against it.

I was also not aware of this either and will definitely be making people I know aware of it. Fucking Ohio. If I hadn't just bought a house out of pure necessity a few years back, I'd seriously be looking to move out of this backwards state ASAP.

 

[kvndoom]

Good on them, BUT every large corporation donates to Republicans hoping to get tax cuts and relaxed regulations. You helped create this monster. Don't cry when it eats your face.

 

[msawzall]

I'm not saying the judge isn't wrong here.

But literally the only thing untoward or out of the ordinary with respect to this case is the fact that the ruling - even the original complaint - is 20 years late.

If this had been a ruling overturning the recent approval of that Alzheimers drug that was mired in controversy (aducanumab), nobody would have blinked.

I've got no love for the existing SCOTUS, but given how disruptive and utterly bullshit this ruling was, they won't let it stand, especially when they have a politically neutral, easy way out in the doctrine of laches (aka, unreasonable delay in bringing suit) that'll let them avoid ruling on the abortion side of things altogether. It'll probably be 7-2 with Alito/Thomas saying something stupid in the dissent, but that's it.

Both the left and the right routinely take advantage of the fact that it's not hard to find a district court level judge willing to make some stupid-ass ruling like this, and these rulings always end up getting appealed and usually overturned.

And, as I said, even if it doesn't, the FDA isn't forbidden from re-approving the drug. They just have to make sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed this time, and there's plenty of accelerated approval programs this would fall under.

From the people who brought you, "Roe Will NEVER Be Overturned" comes...

 

[numerobis]

Then we should start "pregnancy" from 2 weeks after the start of last period, not from the start of the last period. Obviously, the pregnancy didn't start during the time that their body is shedding the uterine lining! This makes a full 2 weeks difference for "heartbeat" abortion bans that actually only go by "6 weeks" timing and not the detection of the electrical signal that stimulates the quivering sac that eventually becomes a heart. Also, this timing doesn't consider if they didn't have unprotected sex until later in their cycle; another point of time that may be later than 2 weeks after the start of last period. The point of pregnancy ought to be "first unprotected sex after end of last period", not "start of last period". Yeah, there's some biological wiggle room for potential of conception from sex during menstruation, but otherwise we are effectively making a 4-week ban and calling it 6.

Doesn’t really matter; they’d just put up a 4-week ban on the same basis as the 6-week ban.

 

[numerobis]

From a medical perspective, this is how pregnancy is counted. It's not like an embryo has a "conceived on" date stamped on it.

But this is essential to try to educate people on this terminology, because people hear "6 weeks" and think it means 6 weeks after having sex. No, it means 6 weeks since the last menstrual period, or basically right after your first missed period.

That's why 6 week bans are obscene. Rape victims will literally be prohibited from having abortions before they even know they're pregnant.

Rape victims are literally being prohibited from having abortions — it’s not a future thing, it’s now.

But so are lots of non-rape victims. They shouldn’t be victims, they should be patients, but the GOP wants to punish them.

 

[s73v3r]

That's about it though - I don't see a bunch of geriatrics taking aim at vaccines for example.

The State of Idaho legislature literally voted to ban mRNA vaccines.

 

[Einbrecher]

From the people who brought you, "Roe Will NEVER Be Overturned" comes...

Even though this case was obviously politically motivated by abortion, the actual ruling here very little to do with it. Roe v. Wade spoke directly to abortion, and while it was good public policy, it was objectively bad law. Anyone who thought Roe was safe in the face of a conservative majority and the current political climate was lying to themselves.

But here, you've got a much more general, nuts and bolts legal question as to whether or not a federal judge can dig up a 20+ year old administrative decision and overturn it on a whim.

This SCOTUS, though obviously biased, has shown to be shrewd enough to avoid making rulings that would come back to bite them in the ass, and this is absolutely one of those sorts of rulings. And, especially when upholding the district court's holding here doesn't actually ban the drug - just forces the FDA to re-approve it - they're not going to hand Dems that kind of a sledgehammer for nothing.

 

[DarthSlack]

I'm not saying the judge isn't wrong here.

But literally the only thing untoward or out of the ordinary with respect to this case is the fact that the ruling - even the original complaint - is 20 years late.

If this had been a ruling overturning the recent approval of that Alzheimers drug that was mired in controversy (aducanumab), nobody would have blinked.

I've got no love for the existing SCOTUS, but given how disruptive and utterly bullshit this ruling was, they won't let it stand, especially when they have a politically neutral, easy way out in the doctrine of laches (aka, unreasonable delay in bringing suit) that'll let them avoid ruling on the abortion side of things altogether. It'll probably be 7-2 with Alito/Thomas saying something stupid in the dissent, but that's it.

Both the left and the right routinely take advantage of the fact that it's not hard to find a district court level judge willing to make some stupid-ass ruling like this, and these rulings always end up getting appealed and usually overturned.

And, as I said, even if it doesn't, the FDA isn't forbidden from re-approving the drug. They just have to make sure the i's are dotted and t's are crossed this time, and there's plenty of accelerated approval programs this would fall under.

Wut? No, pretty much every aspect of this ruling was untoward, NOT just that it's 20 years late:

• The group suing likely has no standing to actually sue. The case should never, ever have gotten this far.
• The judge is clearly letting his personal bias impact the decision, including using language straight from the anti-abortion playbook, including referring to a fetus as a person
• The judge concluded that the FDA didn't adequately consider safety risks with absolutely zero evidence. Furthermore, the judge concluded that abortions cause mental distress in women without any actual evidence and without considering the stress associated with unwanted pregnancies. Or the stress associated with forcing a woman to carry a dead fetus to term.

 

[Dark Jaguar]

There really needs to be an alternative system for the appointment of judges. Remove politics out of the equation altogether.

Something like jury duty selection. All practising lawyers with x experience (x increasing as you go up the hierarchy) go into a selection pool.

When there's an opening, there's a random drawing - that person is asked if they want the position, which is not lifetime, but, say, a 5 year term. If they don't want it - draw again and repeat until the position is filled.

That way, the makeup of each court is, effectively, random, and if there's a lemon candidate, or a controversial one, then they're only in the position for a limited time.

It's fair, it's random, it ensures someone with relevant experience is in the position... No confirmation hearings, no sucking up to selection panels... just random chance and a set pool of experienced candidates.

There is no system that is immune from the desires of the masses, and manipulating popular opinion is the key way these fascists gained power. I assure you, if enough people object to a law, enforcement of it will become impossible, not least because even the people tasked with upholding it will just shirk their duties and ignore violations. Sometimes this is good, sometimes this is bad. The law is... fickle in that way.

My point being that if we want good justices, we need a good populace to draw them from. As ever, the fight for the cultural zeitgeist is the most important fight.

 

[CuriousAF]

Thanks, I wasn't aware there was a specific proposal from the Ohio GQP, but I am far from surprised. From the article:



I hope that the voters of Ohio are smart enough to see through this and vote against it, though I'm not optimistic based on recent election results. I'll be telling all my friends and family who are still in Ohio to vote against it.

Probably the only likely reason it's taking them this long to implement. Current state constitutions are forcing them thru the process. I, too, hope there are enough voters, even on the other side of the aisle, that realize this impacts everyone, regardless of how they vote.

 

[watermeloncup]

Even though this case was obviously politically motivated by abortion, the actual ruling here very little to do with it. Roe v. Wade spoke directly to abortion, and while it was good public policy, it was objectively bad law. Anyone who thought Roe was safe in the face of a conservative majority and the current political climate was lying to themselves.

Honestly, it doesn't matter if Roe was a well-designed ruling or not. The Taliban Supreme Court would have still overturned it under made up reasoning if it was the most immaculate ruling ever written.

 

[s73v3r]

I know Republicans who do NOT believe thusly, but I also know Republicans who do.--so sadly--you speak truth. One can guess with which cadre I spend more time.

The Republicans who claim to not believe thusly are still supporting the ones who do.

 

[watermeloncup]

Probably the only likely reason it's taking them this long to implement. Current state constitutions are forcing them thru the process. I, too, hope there are enough voters, even on the other side of the aisle, that realize this impacts everyone, regardless of how they vote.

I think there's a decent chance that the referendum fails even in a very red state like Ohio. It's obviously bad for voters to vote away their own power, and referendum results in places like Kansas and Florida show that people vote less stupidly for single issues than for politicians who represent a lot of different issues.