Writes Justice Thomas, dissenting from the Supreme Court's grant of a stay in Danco Laboratories v. Louisiana, pending its disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari. The stay permits Danco to continue to ship its abortion drug mifepristone, undercutting Louisiana's law criminalizing abortion.
There's also an Alito dissent. Excerpt: "What is at stake is the perpetration of a scheme to undermine our decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U. S. 215 (2022), which restored the right of each State to decide how to regulate abortions within its borders. Some States responded to Dobbs by making it even easier to obtain an abortion than it was before, and that is their prerogative.... [M]ifepristone shipped to Louisiana... causes nearly 1,000 abortions per month...."
Posts
18 comments:
This seems like a job for the FDA.
I thought y'all didn't like when a district court put out sweeping injunctions that change the law for the country in one opinion.
It enjoins Louisiana. Not any other state. Ignorance is a choice.
I thought y'all didn't like when a district court put out sweeping injunctions that change the law for the country in one opinion.
Even if that were what had happened here, which it isn't as far as I understand it, the relevant criterion would be whether the ruling was explicably and defensibly in accordance with existing law. "Existing law can be put aside in this particular instance, and not in any instance in which a Democratic president acted similarly,, because Trump's action threatens Our Democracy" is not.
So many abortions are chemical now. Abortion control has become drug control. And we know how well that works.
I don't think anyone has said the above out loud. Maybe it's buried in footnotes in the Dobbs briefs or opinion. But it must have been part of everyone's reasoning. If it wasn't, it should be.
If we can't effectively stop people from getting recreational drugs and putting them in their mouths for fun or to stop withdrawal symptoms, we aren't going to be able to effectively stop them from putting pills in their mouths to stop what they think is a life-disrupting consequence. Not with government coercion, anyway.
There's not always an automatic step from 'this is bad' to 'there oughta be a law.' CC, JSM
Theres alao a health issue with the pill which will manifest itself in due course
Human rites, selective-child, performed with carbon leftovers to imperil the mother... woman for the sake of RAAT and Democrats for social, clinical; criminal, political, and climate progress under the Pro-Choice religion in liberal cultures.
Re: health issue
Mental disorders, for one. Aborting a "burden" comes with "benefits". RAAT is a shared responsibility that should not indemnify either the male, female, the couple, the abortionist et al. That said, six weeks before aborting a life is homicide in all 50 states.
The key to solving this problem is creating a population of people who think killing babies out of convenience is wrong.
Mark said...
I thought y'all didn't like when a district court put out sweeping injunctions that change the law for the country in one opinion.
Louisiana State legislature and governor signed a law that made it illegal to take chemicals to kill a pregnancy.
The Supreme Court said you can't stop them from shipping a drug that can allow people to kill a pregnancy with a law.
Because the Supreme Court rules over those lowly worthless states.
Separation of Progressive Cult and State. Abort the liberal establishment and license. RAAT is misogynistic and transhumane
Demos-cracy is aborted at The Twilight Fringe.
Achilles: "The key to solving this problem is creating a population of people who think killing babies out of convenience is wrong."
Yes, part of the high-trust society. No gun control, because everyone handles them responsibly. No drug control, because no one wants to let down their family & society by abuse and addiction, and if they do slip up, family & society will help them. And no abortion bans, because who wants to get rid of a baby? If she wants to do that, she must have a very grave, private reason. Best to leave that with her doctor. CC, JSM
A district court put out a narrow injunction that changed the law of one state. I don’t like it, but this post is about the Supreme Court allowing the narrow injunction in contradiction of a state law despite precedence from a Supreme Court decision. That prior decision clearly stated that the matter of making such statements laws was a protected 10th Amendment right of the state, and that federal laws or rulings to the contrary are unconstitutional.
Aww, poor Sammy Alito is weally weally mad 😤.
If you are sitting around getting upset by a stranger in some other state taking a pill to end an early pregnancy you are a such a fucking weirdo. I don’t really care, do you?
Clarence Thomas displaying genius-level legal reasoning as usual.
If you are sitting around getting upset by a stranger in some other state
Another dishonest hack that's argument is based on fundamentally changing the details.
The issue is a stranger outside the state sending fatal drugs into a state that has banned them. If you don't care about it, then you likely didn't care about Latin American drug lords sending drugs into your state either. However, I bet if that drug was Ivermectin; you would act all weird about people using a therapeutic drug.
So would this also stop gun manufacturers from shipping guns to states that make that illegal?
Gun makers and sellers already observe the crap out of the kaleidoscopic mosaic of local gun laws, and when in doubt, they don't ship the item. That's part of the rage another commenter mentioned yesterday. The Right get locked up for the slightest technical violation; the Left get to play fast and loose. People are just tired of it. CC, JSM
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 4 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.