Vice-president Kamala Harris said the ruling “threatens the rights of women nationwide to make decisions about their healthcare and the ability to access medication prescribed to them by their doctors”.
This being rather the point:
A federal judge in Texas on Friday suspended US approval of the abortion medication mifepristone, one of the two drugs commonly used for medication abortions, in a closely watched case brought by anti-abortion activists.
Now, whether that right and decision should be threatened or not is another matter. But that is exactly what the entire case is about, yes.
In which case we’ve found Kamala saying something both true and useful. Which is a surprise, no?
A system whereby a judge in Texas or Florida or New England can make a ruling affecting the whole of the country seems a bit odd to me. The FDA withdrawing a drug I can understand, but just on the opinion of one judge?
A lot of the time the system we have seems odd too.
That the judge was in Texas doesn’t matter. If he had been a Texas state judge then it would have been odd indeed. But he is a federal judge, ruling on the decision of a federal agency. Different thing.
I assume that the judges all have the same training and it isn’t some kind of “Justice West of the Pecos” we are dealing with.
We have High Courts in different parts of England and of course Jockland and Norniron have their own courts too.
If there is an appeal, then it should go to a central body.
Of course the Guardian omits an important part of the judgement (from Rollcall):-
“In Texas, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, in a 67-page ruling, wrote that the FDA “exceeded its authority” in approving mifepristone, saying the agency used an accelerated approval process meant for drugs intended to treat “life-threatening diseases” and because the drug does not provide a “meaningful therapeutic benefit” for patients.”
They can write that he’s “Trump-appointed” and works with Christian groups, but whether you like the ruling or not, that’s a reasonable judgement. The FDA have a process to follow, and failed to do so.
Okay, so mifepristone goes back to the lab and the pharmaceutical company that made it does the legwork on approvals that should have been done and another year or two it is back on the shelves.
Seems like more “Ooo! Look a Squirrel” going on in US politics rather than anything else. Anything to keep the Democrats and Republicans at each others throats while the actual uniparty in Congress keeps passing bills to stuff their pockets full of gold with ever increasing abandon.
Hey, but as long as “The Big Guy gets his 10%”!
So Harris is wrong. (again)
If the drug is federally banned then doctors can’t prescribe it.Not even to Dylan Mulvaney or Eddie Izzard.
The entire problem is that we have drug regulations and medical guidelines etc for safety reasons, but when it comes to certain issues like abortion the activists scream about what are considered standard safety protocols in other parts of the world.
Sharon Davies comment on the trans sport ruling can be applied to more than sport, it’s Safety then Fairness then Inclusivity in that order.
@Mr Galt,
That is where it gets complicated. Because mifepristone is now generic, out of patent.
Likely the original manufacturer, upon whose approval the generics are piggy backed on the basis of bioequivalence rather than proper, independent, phase 3 Efficacy and safety trials (I am educatedly guessing here, as on me hols and cannot be arsed to look up) has little desire to submit >20 year old data for re-evaluation.
Especially as there is no guarantee the capricious, maleovlent, and intensely aware of which way various political winds blow, FDA, would take the same attitude today.
And thus you could end up with a kind of reverse Shkreli. Especially if the supply dries up as pharmacists are scared off and abortion advocates can’t set up their own pharma and get hold of supply to do a new bioequivalence trial.
I think there is a good chance this drug is dead in the USA.
Republicans last week: “Scrap the FDA!”
Republicans this week: “All hail the FDA!”
Absent the FDA, these pills would be sold next to pregnancy tests on supermarket shelves.
According to the NYT
“ Read the Court Decision Ordering the F.D.A. to Keep Mifepristone Available
April 7, 2023
A federal judge in Washington State issued a ruling ordering the Food and Drug Administration to make no changes to the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone on Friday, directly contradicting another judge’s ruling in a legal standoff likely to escalate to the Supreme Court.”
This is going to be an interesting test when it gets to SCOTUS. Will they use the Chevron Doctrine and run a mile or do their jobs and make a ruling based on the Constitution?
Al Beebra reported it as follows:
A Trump-appointed federal judge in Texas has ordered a hold on the longstanding approval of a widely used abortion drug, mifepristone.
But an hour later an Obama-picked judge in Washington state issued a competing ruling, ordering that access to the drug be preserved in 17 states.
Is it just me, or… this isn’t how things should be done in a normal society, is it?
BinD @ 5.42 and Steve, thank you for confirming my belief that a system in which one bloke can make a ruling for the whole country is odd.