December 13, 2023
"The move sets up a high-stakes fight over the drug, mifepristone, that could sharply curtail access to medication that is used in more than half of all pregnancy terminations in the United States."
"It could also have implications for the regulatory authority of the Food and Drug Administration, which approved the pill more than two decades ago. The Supreme Court is now in the unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
18 comments:
Does this drug have a peppy commercial with happy women talking about how great it is to abort babies?
Of course, in this commercial there won't be any kids or grandparents around, so cost-effective to shoot with just one actor...
Abortion drugs indeed largely rendered the abortion debate moot. Who cares if the SC bans a drug or the interstate sale of the drug in prohibition states? Drug makers and buyers will quickly establish a black market, and local dealers will add it to the menu.
It's not like the failure of alcohol prohibition again? Or marijuana bans? Or opioid bans?
Respect for authority and laws is long gone.
From the Court's point of view, this isn't an abortion case; it's a federal-bureaucracy case. I'll be surprised if they rule against the FDA.
I may be wrong. It looks like this is actually a case about who has standing to challenge a regulatory decision. Now I predict they will find standing lacking and vacate the proceedings below.
What’s the theory on why this drug should be treated differently from other drugs? The FDA approves drugs and it has a process it follows. Suddenly they can’t be trusted?
I have asked this, before: wo is bringing this case to the Supreme court?
Is it some far right nut-job group, a represented individual, or a white flag progressive organization?
It seems like this is important information (forgive me if it's mentioned in the article, I do not have access).
A dud of a case, ginned up to excite the pro and anti abortion voter bases. At worst, the FDA would have to spend some time doing a more thorough review to allow the current access to the drug, again, while it maintained its previous availability through physician prescription and pharmacy pickup.
"The Supreme Court is now in the unusual position of ruling on abortion access even after its conservative majority declared that it would leave that question to the states...."
As Tom noted the case itself seems more about the actions of a federal regulatory agency, rather than abortion rights. I wonder if the American left will start appreciating the values of federalism. I don't think liking federalism is inherently only a right-wing principle. Russel Brand appears to value the idea of smaller more localized sources of power, and he is left-wing. But sometimes it is hard to see the risk unless the danger already manifests itself. I saw some tweet from the Democrat candidate running against Ted Cruz in Texas. One of his policy positions was that he was going to use the Federal Government to codify Abortion rights, with seemingly no appreciation of the risk of what could happen if the precedent is set that the Federal Government gets to regulate abortion.
tim Maguire @ 11:56: "...Suddenly they can't be trusted?"
Made me laugh. Thanks!
More red meat designed to keep the middle classes focus away from the ever widening income gap.
Tim, Owen,
Yeah it's like they slept through the entire mRNA vaccine debacle. But I suppose they're leftists, for whom history begins anew each morning.
I always understood the Constitutional issue about abortion to involve the boundary between State and Federal power. The Supreme Court has now decided (correctly in my opinion) that the Constitutional legality of abortion (whether, when, how) is an issue for each State to resolve.
So where does that leave federal regulation of drugs? As long as abortion is legal in any State, then federal drug regulators ought to determine whether or not to approve particular abortion-causing drugs according to the relevant scientific standards for legal medical treatments. This may require regulators to re-examine previous approvals to see if they were based, in whole or in part, on the notion that abortion is a Constitutionally-protected civil right.
"with seemingly no appreciation of the risk of what could happen if the precedent is set that the Federal Government gets to regulate abortion."
Democrats routinely assume that they'll always be the ones calling the shots. Of course, considering how good they are at cheating in elections, that conclusion is understandable.
Planned child, planned parent/hood too, boys in girls' bathrooms, elites deport illegal aliens, Spring in progress, rent-a-woman... womb, eugenics, Biden-garage, citizens under Capitol Hill, and shared responsibility through progressive prices... we didn't start the conflagration.
The Court refused to hear a challenge to the original FDA approval, denying cert on respondents' cross-petition.
Food and Drug Administration, et al., Petitioners v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al.
Brief of respondents Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, et al.
In 2000, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
approved mifepristone under Subpart H—the only
regulatory pathway available for such approval—by
labeling pregnancy a “serious and life-threatening
illness.” Because the drug could not safely be
approved without restrictions, the agency conditioned
its approval on numerous safeguards. Yet in 2016,
FDA stripped away many safeguards, failing to
explain why it was proper to eliminate them all
without a study showing their cumulative safety. In
2021, FDA removed the last-remaining doctor’s visit,
allowing mail-order chemical abortions despite
admitting the safety studies on which it relied were
“insufficient.” The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly held that
individual doctors and medical associations have
Article III standing to challenge an agency’s removal
of drug safeguards where: (1) the named Respondents
have suffered repeated injury; (2) it is undisputed
that complications result in emergency room visits for
2.9%–4.6% of women; and (3) relying on emergency
room doctors like Respondents to treat those serious
complications was a central part of FDA’s plan to deal
with those complications.
2. Whether the Fifth Circuit correctly required
FDA to address important aspects of the problem and
adequately explain its decisions to remove critical
safeguards in 2016 and 2021, allowing chemical
abortion drugs to be dispensed through the mail
without any physical examination to diagnose
gestational age or an ectopic pregnancy, both of which
affect the health and safety of pregnant women.
Those aren't the questions the Court set out in accepting cert from the other side.
Post a Comment