If this judge rules wrong on the abortion pill, all states will take that hit, blue or red UPDATE: SCOTUS blocks lower court

[lightbright]

12 blue states sue FDA, saying it’s too strict in limiting abortion drugs as legal battle over mifepristone heats up
7:13 PM EST, Fri February 24, 2023

(CNN)-- Twelve states led by liberal attorneys general announced Friday that they had sued the Food and Drug Administration, saying its limits on mifepristone, one of the two drugs used for medication abortion, are too strict.

The suit is a possible hedge by states waiting to see how a federal judge in Texas rules in a lawsuit brought by anti-abortion groups seeking to block the FDA’s approval of mifepristone altogether. Conflicting rulings could mean the Supreme Court is asked to sort out the issue.

“The federal government has known for years that mifepristone is safe and effective,” Washington state Attorney General Bob Ferguson said in a statement. “In the wake of the Supreme Court’s radical decision overturning Roe v. Wade, the FDA is now exposing doctors, pharmacists and patients to unnecessary risk. The FDA’s excessive restrictions on this important drug have no basis in medical science.”

Mifepristone was first approved in 2000 and medication abortion accounts for more than half of the abortions in the US. It is the first drug, followed by misoprostol, in the medication abortion regimen. Patients and providers must sign agreements stating the drug will be used to end a pregnancy, and pharmacies must have special certification.

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in the Eastern District of Washington state. The states in the lawsuit are: Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, Rhode Island and Vermont.

Final brief filed in Texas lawsuit
A lawsuit seeking to block the use of medication abortion nationwide could receive an initial decision at any moment, after the plaintiffs in the case submitted to the court on Friday their final brief on the challenge.

The lawsuit, filed in November by anti-abortion advocates against FDA, challenges the two-decade-old approval of mifepristone, the first drug in the medication abortion process.

A decision by US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, in favor of the plaintiffs could have far-reaching consequences since medication abortion now makes up a majority of abortions obtained in the US.

In the filing submitted Friday, the anti-abortion advocates rehashed many of the arguments they made in earlier briefs. Its submission means that Kacsmaryk could soon rule on a motion by the plaintiffs to temporarily block use of the medication. The judge had previously said that once the February 24 filing deadline ended, “briefing will then be closed on the matter, absent any ‘exceptional or extraordinary circumstances.’”

Kacsmaryk, however, could also call for a hearing, or ask for additional responses.

The defendants in the case – the FDA and Danco, which makes mifepristone – argued in separate briefs to the court that a decision against the drug’s approval would be unprecedented and would shutter the drugmaker’s business.

Reproductive rights advocates have stressed that a ruling in favor of the plaintiffs would be devastating, with NARAL Pro-Choice America saying in a statement that if the drug is yanked from the market, “64.5 million women of reproductive age in the US would lose access to medication abortion care, an exponential increase in harm overnight.”

12 blue states sue FDA, saying it's too strict in limiting abortion drugs as legal battle over mifepristone heats up | CNN Politics

 

[RoadRage]

The same people who are blocking this are blocking male fatality pills, due to their wanting to keep the poverty factory that restricts the upward mobility of the poor, intact.

 

[lightbright]

TEXAS LAW ALLOWS LAWSUITS AGAINST THOSE WHO:

• PERFORM OR INDUCE ABORTION IN VIOLATION OF SENATE BILL 8
• KNOWINGLY ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT AIDS OR ABETS PERFORMANCE OR INDUCEMENT OF AN ABORTION
• INTEND TO ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT DESCRIBED BY SENATE BILL 8
• PENALTY: DAMAGES OF NOT LESS THAN #10K PER ABORTION; ATTORNEY FEES

Three women in Texas are being sued for more than $1 million each for allegedly helping another woman get abortion pills to end her pregnancy. The woman's ex-husband filed a wrongful death lawsuit in civil court in Galveston County. As NPR's Sarah McCammon reports, the case could lay the groundwork for prosecutors to bring criminal charges against people who help those seeking abortions.

SARAH MCCAMMON, BYLINE: In his lawsuit, Marcus A. Silva claims that last July, three women secretly helped his now ex-wife obtain pills to self-manage her abortion. One of Silva's attorneys, Peter Breen, says it's believed to be the first such case since last summer's Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade.

PETER BREEN: What we're establishing here is that individuals and, apparently, entities assisted in the unjust killing, unlawful killing of an unborn child. And so the father of that child, who had his child taken from him and never got to know that child, has a legal right to recover for the damages suffered in that act.

MCCAMMON: Silva's then-wife already had filed for divorce at the time of the abortion. According to the lawsuit, she and two of the defendants exchanged text messages in which she said she feared Silva would pressure her to stay with him if he learned about the pregnancy. In addition to monetary damages, the civil lawsuit seeks an injunction blocking the defendants from helping with abortions in the future. Breen says it may expand to include pill manufacturers, pharmacies and groups that help people seeking abortions. Breen, who's with the conservative Catholic legal group the Thomas More Society, says he believes the case also should send a message to criminal prosecutors.

BREEN: In terms of the criminal system, certainly there - you know, we're citing the murder law of the state of Texas. And so there are - obviously, you know, there are going to be other issues that arise that local prosecutors are going to need to be asked about.

MCCAMMON: Silva's lead attorney, Jonathan Mitchell, is known for helping craft the Texas abortion law known as SB 8, which allows private citizens to file civil suits against anyone who facilitates an illegal abortion in the state. This case pushes that idea further from civil court, potentially to criminal court by pointing to murder and wrongful death laws. Farah Diaz-Tello is senior counsel with the reproductive rights legal group If/When/How.

FARAH DIAZ-TELLO: I think what they're trying to do here is lay out a playbook for prosecutors. And that seems fairly transparent on the face of the papers, that they want to lay out the strategy that they want to see prosecutors using in going after not only people who support others in having abortions, but against people who have abortions themselves.

MCCAMMON: Silva says in the filing that he's not targeting his ex-wife. Abortion laws in Texas and many other states exempt people from prosecution for terminating their own pregnancies. And Cynthia Soohoo, a law professor at the City University of New York, also sees the case as part of a larger strategy by some anti-abortion groups to treat fetuses as full persons under the law.

CYNTHIA SOOHOO: That's a dangerous conceptual move - right? - because I think it's one thing for the legislature to say we think that abortion is wrong and we think abortion should be criminalized. But I think it's a huge leap to sort of say that general laws, murder laws and wrongful death statutes should be applied to abortion.

MCCAMMON: Whatever the outcome of this civil case, NYU Law professor Melissa Murray says it's likely to intimidate people seeking abortions or helping them in Texas and beyond.

MELISSA MURRAY: This lawsuit is a shot across the bow that whatever you do, we can identify you. And we can sue you. And we can possibly convince the state to not just deal with you civilly, but perhaps criminally as well.

MCCAMMON: The lawsuit also comes at a time when abortion drugs may soon become harder to get. A federal judge in Texas is expected to decide soon whether to curb access to a common abortion pill. If that happens, it would drive access to abortion even further underground.


A Texas man sues ex-wife's friends for allegedly helping her get abortion pills : NPR

 

[lightbright]

Texas judge halts FDA approval of abortion pill

The J. Marvin Jones Federal Building and Mary Lou Robinson United States Courthouse where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk will decide on a lawsuit to ban the abortion drug mifepristone Saturday, Feb. 11, 2023, in Amarillo, Texas.

A Texas federal judge ruled Friday to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone — one of two drugs used together to cause an abortion — virtually banning the sale of the pills across the country.

The decision, however, gives the Biden administration a week to appeal, meaning the hundreds of thousands of patients who use the medication both for abortions and treating miscarriages will not be immediately impacted.

The pills, which the FDA approved for use in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy more than two decades ago, recently became the most common method of abortion in the United States, and a way many people have circumvented state bans since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last June.

Both abortion-rights supporters and opponents have focused intensely on the pills in recent months — leading to clashes in state legislatures, regulatory agencies, and the courts.



CONTINUED:
Texas judge halts FDA approval of abortion pill - POLITICO

 

[Dr. Truth]

BOTH FUCKING SIDES!!!!!

 

[Coldchi]

morning after pills are about to start flying off the shelves............

 

[Flawless]

Same people who vote against kids getting free lunch at school want to ban abortion

 

[darth frosty]

 

[lightbright]

.

 

[lightbright]

Judge in Washington orders feds to keep abortion pill access

SPOKANE, Wash. (AP) — A federal judge in Washington state on Friday ordered U.S. authorities not to make any changes that would restrict access to the abortion medication mifepristone in 17 Democratic-led states that sued over the issue, countering a ruling by a judge in Texas on the same day that ordered a hold on federal approval of the drug.

The dueling decisions threw into question access to the nation’s most common method of abortion, one that scientists have approved for use for decades.

U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a Trump administration appointee in Amarillo, Texas, signed an injunctio n directing the Food and Drug Administration to stay mifepristone’s approval while a lawsuit challenging the safety and approval of the drug continues. That ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom.

In Washington state, Spokane-based Judge Thomas O. Rice, an Obama administration appointee, partially granted a request from 17 states and the District of Columbia. While the states sued in an effort to expand access to the pill, Rice did not go that far — instead, he blocked the FDA from making any changes to the drug’s access in the states that sued.


Judge in Washington orders feds to keep abortion pill access | AP News

 

[darth frosty]

 

[lightbright]

U.S. Supreme Court blocks lower court decision in FDA approval of abortion pill case​

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling on access to mifepristone, a drug widely used in medication abortions. The case was brought to the high court after a federal judge decided earlier this month that the Food and Drug Administration improperly approved the medication 23 years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court decisions banning or limiting the FDA-approved use of the abortion pill mifepristone for the foreseeable future.

But the justices, for now, left the case in the hands of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral arguments in the case for May 17. However the 5th Circuit rules, the case will almost certainly end up back at the Supreme Court, with the potential for a decision next term in the case.

The court's action means that for now at least, the drug will be widely available, at least in those states where abortion is legal for up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy.

The court's action came on a vote of 7 to 2.

Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Alito argued, "As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market. It would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations."

President Biden on Friday said that his administration will continue to defend the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, and he called on Americans to elect lawmakers to pass a law restoring abortion rights.

"I continue to stand by FDA's evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and my Administration will continue to defend FDA's independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs," Biden said in a statement.

"The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically-driven attacks on women's health. But let's be clear – the American people must continue to use their vote as their voice, and elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v Wade," Biden stated.

The latest legal clash over abortion began April 7 in Texas when U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a onetime anti-abortion activist, imposed a nationwide ban on mifepristone, declaring that the FDA had improperly approved the drug 23 years ago. Within minutes of that decision, U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice in Washington state issued a contrary ruling. In a case brought by 17 states and the District of Columbia seeking to expand the use of mifepristone, Rice declared that the current FDA rules must remain in place.
On April 12, the case became even more procedurally convoluted when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially pulled back on the Texas ruling from Kacsmaryk. Because the statute of limitations for challenging FDA approval of a drug had long passed, the appeals court ruled that mifepristone could continue to be used up to seven weeks into pregnancy in states where abortion is legal — this despite the fact that the FDA has approved use of the pill for up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.

In addition, the appeals court sought to roll back rules adopted since 2015 that have facilitated access to abortion pills — among them, rules that allow patients seeking an abortion to obtain the drug by mail and rules allowing telemedicine appointments with doctors. Instead, the appeals court sought to reimpose rules not in effect since 2016, such as a rule requiring three in-person appointments for anyone using the drug and a ban on the cheaper generic version of the drug.

There is little likelihood that the appeals court will substantially change its view after oral arguments in the case. Its 42-page preliminary order is based, in part, on the Comstock Act, a law that for generations has not been enforced. Enacted in 1873, the statute sought to prevent the mailing of obscene or lewd materials and to bar the mailing of any substance, article or drug used for birth control or for the purpose of "unlawful abortion."

Regardless of how the appeals court rules, though, there is certain to be an appeal from the Biden administration, on behalf of the FDA, and Danco Laboratories, maker of the leading brand of mifepristone, Mifeprex. In briefs already filed, they note that medical abortions using pills account for the majority of abortions in the the U.S. today. And they cite dozens of studies and clinical trials showing that the drug is exceedingly safe for use up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Both the FDA and Danco assert that were the 5th Circuit's decision to become law, it would create "regulatory chaos across the country." As Danco put it in its brief, the result would be "an untenable limbo," not only for Danco, which could not legally market and distribute its drug, but for the FDA, doctors, health care systems and women, some of whom use the drug when they miscarry.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1170742958/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-lower-court-decision-in-fda-approval-of-abortion-pill-c#:~:text=abortion%20drug%2C%20Friday.-,The%20case%20was%20brought%20to%20the%20high%20court%20after%20a,the%20pill%2023%20years%20ago.&text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20on,mifepristone%20for%20the%20foreseeable%20future.

 

[easy_b]

U.S. Supreme Court blocks lower court decision in FDA approval of abortion pill case​

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday issued a ruling on access to mifepristone, a drug widely used in medication abortions. The case was brought to the high court after a federal judge decided earlier this month that the Food and Drug Administration improperly approved the medication 23 years ago.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday blocked lower court decisions banning or limiting the FDA-approved use of the abortion pill mifepristone for the foreseeable future.

But the justices, for now, left the case in the hands of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has scheduled oral arguments in the case for May 17. However the 5th Circuit rules, the case will almost certainly end up back at the Supreme Court, with the potential for a decision next term in the case.

The court's action means that for now at least, the drug will be widely available, at least in those states where abortion is legal for up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy.

The court's action came on a vote of 7 to 2.

Dissenting were Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

In his dissent, Alito argued, "As narrowed by the Court of Appeals, the stay that would apply if we failed to broaden it would not remove mifepristone from the market. It would simply restore the circumstances that existed (and that the Government defended) from 2000 to 2016 under three Presidential administrations."

President Biden on Friday said that his administration will continue to defend the Food and Drug Administration's approval of mifepristone, and he called on Americans to elect lawmakers to pass a law restoring abortion rights.

"I continue to stand by FDA's evidence-based approval of mifepristone, and my Administration will continue to defend FDA's independent, expert authority to review, approve, and regulate a wide range of prescription drugs," Biden said in a statement.

"The stakes could not be higher for women across America. I will continue to fight politically-driven attacks on women's health. But let's be clear – the American people must continue to use their vote as their voice, and elect a Congress who will pass a law restoring the protections of Roe v Wade," Biden stated.

The latest legal clash over abortion began April 7 in Texas when U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a onetime anti-abortion activist, imposed a nationwide ban on mifepristone, declaring that the FDA had improperly approved the drug 23 years ago. Within minutes of that decision, U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice in Washington state issued a contrary ruling. In a case brought by 17 states and the District of Columbia seeking to expand the use of mifepristone, Rice declared that the current FDA rules must remain in place.
On April 12, the case became even more procedurally convoluted when the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals partially pulled back on the Texas ruling from Kacsmaryk. Because the statute of limitations for challenging FDA approval of a drug had long passed, the appeals court ruled that mifepristone could continue to be used up to seven weeks into pregnancy in states where abortion is legal — this despite the fact that the FDA has approved use of the pill for up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.

In addition, the appeals court sought to roll back rules adopted since 2015 that have facilitated access to abortion pills — among them, rules that allow patients seeking an abortion to obtain the drug by mail and rules allowing telemedicine appointments with doctors. Instead, the appeals court sought to reimpose rules not in effect since 2016, such as a rule requiring three in-person appointments for anyone using the drug and a ban on the cheaper generic version of the drug.

There is little likelihood that the appeals court will substantially change its view after oral arguments in the case. Its 42-page preliminary order is based, in part, on the Comstock Act, a law that for generations has not been enforced. Enacted in 1873, the statute sought to prevent the mailing of obscene or lewd materials and to bar the mailing of any substance, article or drug used for birth control or for the purpose of "unlawful abortion."

Regardless of how the appeals court rules, though, there is certain to be an appeal from the Biden administration, on behalf of the FDA, and Danco Laboratories, maker of the leading brand of mifepristone, Mifeprex. In briefs already filed, they note that medical abortions using pills account for the majority of abortions in the the U.S. today. And they cite dozens of studies and clinical trials showing that the drug is exceedingly safe for use up to 10 weeks into pregnancy.

Both the FDA and Danco assert that were the 5th Circuit's decision to become law, it would create "regulatory chaos across the country." As Danco put it in its brief, the result would be "an untenable limbo," not only for Danco, which could not legally market and distribute its drug, but for the FDA, doctors, health care systems and women, some of whom use the drug when they miscarry.

https://www.npr.org/2023/04/21/1170742958/u-s-supreme-court-blocks-lower-court-decision-in-fda-approval-of-abortion-pill-c#:~:text=abortion%20drug%2C%20Friday.-,The%20case%20was%20brought%20to%20the%20high%20court%20after%20a,the%20pill%2023%20years%20ago.&text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20on,mifepristone%20for%20the%20foreseeable%20future.

Interesting Republicans have been taking a beating over this, so I’m not surprised

 

[HeathCliff]

Interesting Republicans have been taking a beating over this, so I’m not surprised

It ain't over yet...

 

[easy_b]

It ain't over yet...

I know

 

[lightbright]

Most adults value reproductive rights when deciding where to go to college, poll shows​

(CNN) — Class sizes, available majors and extracurriculars aren’t the only things going into college decisions this year.

A new poll shows that incoming and current college students are also thinking about whether their school is in a state with reproductive health access.

Among adults in the United States ages 18 to 59 who are not enrolled in a college and do not have a degree, 60% said reproductive health laws are at least somewhat important to their decision about whether to enroll in a particular college or university, according to the latest Lumina Foundation-Gallup State of Higher Education 2022 study, which was released Thursday.

Nearly three-quarters of enrolled students say their decision to stay at their college or university is at least somewhat affected by their state’s reproductive health laws, the poll showed.

“That’s a large percentage of people saying, ‘You know what, if they had those restrictive reproductive care [laws], I don’t think I would attend a school in those states,’ ” said Courtney Brown, vice president of strategic impact and planning at Lumina, a foundation that promotes access to post-secondary education.

In June, the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling ended the federal right to an abortion. Legislation around reproductive health has since varied across the country; some states have restricted access to abortion, and others have moved to increase access.

“The reality of abortion being banned in all or most scenarios is a growing reality for many,” said Brandon Crawford, an assistant professor of applied health science at Indiana University who wasn’t involved in the survey.

“Although there was already significant variation in reproductive health policies across states, [Roe v. Wade] provided a ‘floor’ to legislation, meaning that abortion generally couldn’t be banned before viability,” Crawford wrote in an email. “With the Dobbs decision, that floor is gone.”

Crawford and Indiana University professor of sexual health Kristen Jozkowski have been leading a multiyear study on US adults’ attitudes on abortion. Much of the results don’t surprise them, said Jozkowski, who also was not involved in the latest survey.

Their results have shown that abortion and reproductive health are more salient to younger generations but also point out more nuanced perspectives generally.

“We find that people may be more inclined to tolerate abortion than to necessarily support or oppose it, meaning that restricting it entirely, as many states have post-Dobbs, seems misaligned with the public sentiment,” Jozkowski wrote in an email.

The new survey, which is part of Gallup and Lumina’s work on pressing issues facing higher education, has gone out annually since the Covid-19 pandemic started in 2020. The data was collected from October 26 to November 17.

Questions were added with the recent developments on access to abortion, Brown said.

“If you go to a state that doesn’t allow you to have autonomy over your body, then that that is not only not appealing, that is offensive to many women,” she said.

The results show some similarity among demographics.

When asked whether they would be more likely to enroll in a college if it was in a state that allowed greater access to reproductive health services, most people said yes, Brown said.

“The overwhelming majority of every single subpopulation — women, men, older, younger and, most importantly, party identification — the overwhelming majority said, ‘yes, greater access to reproductive health,’ ” she added.

That means respondents who identified as Republican as well as those who identified as Democrat showed a preference for attending a college in a state with less restriction on reproductive health. And it wasn’t just the youngest cohort that felt that way, Brown said.

“The fact that 74% of Republican unenrolled adults say, ‘I would consider enrolling a state that had greater access’ is, I think, a really impressive number,” she said.

A problem for states and individuals​

Enrollment in colleges and universities has been dropping since 2017, and the problem has been getting worse — especially after the pandemic began, Brown said.

Since 2017, the US has seen a 14% decline in enrollment, she added.

The survey results may foreshadow a particular problem for states that are hostile to reproductive rights, Brown said. The data shows that students may be more likely to consider leaving their state for college or ruling out going to school in a state that otherwise would have been a contender.

“That’s a problem for the economic development in the states, because you want the students to learn about the local universities and then stay and get jobs in those states,” Brown said. “Once they leave to go to another state to attend college or university, they’re less likely to come back.”

That can mean losing the educated talent that everyone is looking for, she added.

It’s also a problem for the people who are already often disadvantaged in college enrollment and reproductive rights, including Black, Latino, Native American and low-income students, Brown said. “They are going to face more criminal charges, if it becomes criminal, or they don’t they don’t have the funds to actually leave the state and go to another state if they actually need health care.

“Basically, we’re concerned about them being able to continue their college pathway if they’re up against both legal as well as monetary barriers to taking care of themselves,” Brown said.

Most adults value reproductive rights when deciding where to go to college, poll shows

Class sizes, available majors and extracurriculars aren’t the only things going into college decisions this year.

nbcpalmsprings.com

 

[praetor]