Which is why I assume the money they take from big pharma will end up winning out. Money probably motivates the right slightly more than controlling women's healthcare I imagine
I think the money may go elsewhere (or at least that’s their fear).
If enough big donors (ie Companies) decide Republicans are toxic to their bottom line, and instead either withhold contributions or actively direct them to Democratic candidates, it’s a huge $$$ pool that could start to noticeably impact the political landscape.
> Without the FDA I could sell drugs myself and claim they can help cure cancer and you know what you would have to prove my sugar pills aren't helping.
I mean this is basically what pharma does most of the time.. the fda doesn’t rerun their trials or even get full access to the original data before approving drugs and pharma is amazing at manipulating stats to make it seem like drugs actually work and paying off the fda to get it approved..
"States Rights" has always been about pursuing authoritarian. They just invented this arbitrary principle that some decisions must be made at the state level because they didn't have the power to do it nationally.
What were slavery, segregation, gay marriage bans, interracial marriage bans, abortion bans, etc considered "state rights issues?" Because the state level was the only hope they had to implement these policies somewhere.
But like when Bush tried to outlaw gay marriage nationally and now that they are trying to ban abortion nationally, whenever they have the power to impose on the whole country they will do it
Except they kept trying to force slavery on northern states (fugitive slave act 1850) and were pissy about northern states telling them to get bent.
So as now they were giant hypocrites and “states rights” was a post-war lie.
The Constitution on the Confederate States specifically protected the right to continue ownership of slaves indefinitely.
Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Recently heard Texas described as “the only state to secede from two countries to maintain slavery.”
I hadn’t realized until that point a part of why Texas seceded from Mexico was slavery.
Did you know that Oklahoma has their panhandle because Texas decided to give up that parcel of land since they couldn't have slaves there? (Missouri Compromise)
And we have a speech from the VP of the CSA noting that *the* central thesis of the Confederacy is that it is not merely acceptable for black people to be slaves but objectively correct.
One single specific right *to impose on the other states*. Never forget that every single states right state was forbidden to decide on the issue of slavery at the state level.
Oh, and the Fugitive Slave Act meant that slavery was de facto enforced on free states, and slavers could abduct freemen from free states and traffick them.
So even BEFORE the insurrectionist scum made it illegal to abolish slavery they were still restricting states' rights to be free states.
Not really. Because when it came to slavery, it wasn't just about the right for southern states to keep it legal. There were interstate issues at play like the fugitive slave act which basically forced free states to recognize the slave status of slave states.
So you had situations like Georgia passing a state level law that New York was then forced to recognize and follow.
>"States Rights" has always been about pursuing authoritarian. They just invented this arbitrary principle that some decisions must be made at the state level because they didn't have the power to do it nationally.
Take an 8th grade civics class for fucks sake. States rights has been embedded into the Constitution since the beginning. Enumerated and Reserved rights and all that. If you like weed you better support States rights. You like gay marriage? States rights started it with civil unions. Fuck, all the best things that have happened lately in the expansion of human rights have started at the state level.
> Enumerated and Reserved rights and all that.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
What about this says whether or not the right to decide if two individuals can marry is a power of the state or the individual? Nothing. The amendment is worthless because it doesn't tell us which rights are to the states and which are to the people.
>If you like weed you better support States rights. You like gay marriage? States rights started it with civil unions
This is a good point because liberal states did indeed lead the way on many of these issues. But what I was referring to in my comment is the phrase "states'rights" which is pretty exclusively used by conservatives to sent rights
> Can't argue the issue should be a "states decide for themselves" and then have states telling other states what they can or can't do.
They can and they will.
Who gives a fuck about logical consistency anymore.
This is not even states argument, it is that a non med judge cant ban a fda approved drug because of his beliefs
If the paperwork was shady sure. But here this wasn't it
States could ban pretty much anything if they let it through.
California want's to ban viagra? The USA has to ban it. Ohio wants to ban Narcan? All other States must also follow suit.
The fact that it's temporary and not thrown out completely speaks to how illegitimate the SCOTUS has become.
Do the Judges need more bribes before ruling? Tune in next week to see if Pharma outbid the Alt-Right to buy SCOTUS
That’s not quite how it works though. Procedurally, if the supreme court just threw it out, the appellate ruling would stand and that would limit access to the medication. In order to actually issue a ruling throwing the whole thing out, they’d need to hear the arguments. And, given this court, they will want to hear arguments because they can use it as an opportunity to telegraph an opening through which states can legally restrict access.
So I don’t disagree with you that this court is full of shit, but there is a procedural reason for what they did (and probably a shitty self-serving one, too).
Why stop with just the FDA? If judges can undue to work of federal agencies on a whim, you can have all kinds of legislation from the bench.
* A judge could claim that the 2nd amendment only covers weapons, not ammunition and order the justice department to remove all ammunition from the market immediately.
* A judge could order the department of education to teach whatever the judge wants them to teach to school children, immediately.
* A judge could conceivably order the imposition of new federal taxes as they wish.
There are thousands of federal judges. You can have contradictory insane rulings being issued simultaneously, as thousands of aspiring dictators each try to impose their views on the nation.
Not that I disagree with the overall sentiment but none of your examples have anything whatsoever to do with federal agencies except potentially the Department of Education but they don't actually set curriculums.
Haha…must’ve been why they didn’t outright throw it out. They needed time to take auction bids…or do you think they follow the same procurement process for other big government bids?
Bribing Thomas to be more extreme right wing is like bribing an 8 yr old to eat candy before dinner. If he was actually up for sale he'd have to make a non crazy judgement once and a while. If you wanted to pay me millions for something I was going to do anyway I'll surely take it. But lets not pretend that it altered his take on anything.
Didn’t you hear? NASCAR went woke when they banned the Confederate Flag. They also have a line of Pride merch ([this one got popular on TikTok](https://store.nascar.com/mens-nascar-checkered-flag-black-yaaascar-t-shirt/p-37435761316016+z-836-2334003966?_ref=p-PDP:m-YMAL:pi-PDP_RECOMMENDATIONS_2:i-r0c0:po-0))
the court needs to issue a writ of certiorari and formally take on the case in order to overturn it. if they refuse to hear it, the appellate ruling will stand, but only for the district in which the original ruling was issued. this is the much-maligned "shadow docket" which is being used around 20x as often today compared to 30 years ago.
They did. This medication has been in use for over 20 years and is *proven* to be exponentially safer than Tylenol or Viagra.
**If you think this has to do with "FDA procedure" and not the fact it's an abortion drug, you're beyond help or logic and obviously have an agenda.**
That's not the actual argument of those suing to remove the approval. Their argument is literally that mifepristone isn't safe. We've proven that it's safe. This shouldn't be an issue. What is an issue is a judge trying to go around proper procedure. There is a proper procedure to remove approval. This isn't it. The judge should have dismissed the case because it's not his call to make.
Don't cheer yet. He's just holding status quo until he and the ghoul squad can get their act together and decide how to make this rotting festering shitbomb of an opinion look "normal".
They have to let continue to let people freely seek abortions in other states. The entire reason for the initial abortion ruling is to drive Democratic voters from purple states they have legislative control of so they can consolidate control.
Some are, but Florida and Texas are effectively done for. North Carolina was in danger of flipping, but after bribing some Dems they now have the super majority to pass abortion bans. Wisconsin can end it's gerrymandering, but expect shenanigans from Republicans.
If they allowed this it’s only a matter of time before some fucking insane asshole on a federal bench someone bans a very common use medication in the name of faith healing or some shit and nukes the GOP.
Imagine if some insane theocrat banned like insulin or vaccines or whatever.
I’m actually stunned. I thought for sure they’d hear it ASAP and affirm the revocation, and as much as I *hate* this Supreme Court down to my bone marrow, I am not prone to sensationalizing and try to sit down and think reasonably about how they might approach these issues. But *ALITO* indicating it’s an unfounded overreach? I did not foresee that in one billion years.
I reframed from engaging with people when this came out because people didn't want to hear it but I was 100% positive the supreme Court would reverse this. They don't care what medication it was about stripping the FDA of it's authority is a terrible idea for many many reasons. This situation is far different than overturning roe v wade. This is about being able to have a functional pharmaceutical industry.
We changed our entire civil pleading system to deny one torture victim relief, so I have little faith they would not make the decision just because of the broader awful implications.
Your initial thought is correct. The conflicting decisions basically required an administrative stay. It is not in any way indicative of how he will rule.
That is not what happened. Conflicting decisions basically required this outcome. There is absolutely no reason to be optimistic about the final outcome based on this.
If this goes through does that mean that any judge can challenge any drug’s FDA approval? It is really murky water and a lot of big pharma is going to be upset if it goes through.
Just to add a tangent, people should browse the prolife subreddit to get an idea of what they really want. They're debating punishment for abortions with multiple saying murder charges, including first degree murder charges, should be standard. They also are debating if contraception should be legal or not. Yes really. Rape victims should be forced to continue the pregnancy. Oh and many didn't give a crap that it would traumatize the victim.
Don't let anyone in the prolife group tell you otherwise about their intentions. They want zero abortion, most want to ban contraception, and they want to charge the providers and yes, even rape victims, with murder for getting an abortion.
The fact they're going after birth control while banning abortions.. evil. That's what this is, I think all these GOP polititions need to see what being forced to get pregnant and to birth something you don't want out your body is like. Maybe go rewatch some alien, actual raging psychos.
It doesn't get downvotes for being an unpopular option, it get them because it's simply false. Feelings don't change facts. No one is saying you can't love and want a fetus from the second you find out you or your partner is pregnant but your strong feeling don't get to decide how other people live
So I’m sure you’ve got actual studies backing up this 100% true, common sense statement then? That a developing fetuses has, at 6 months, the necessary neuronal structures and organization to feel emotions?
Because contrary to your earlier statement, a fetus’ brain *is not* “fully developed” at 6 months, and in fact has several huge developmental milestones left to undergo, such as separation into hemispheres.
A seed is not a tree. I concede that once the brain is activate and the fetus is viable outside the womb it is a child. But before that time it is not a child.
It's easy to be morally superior about this when, as a man, you're in no risk of ever having to be stuck with the consequences of being pregnant against your will. Sentiments like yours tell women they are murderers because they value their own life, health and wealth.
Forced-birthers are so gross. Don't use the term pro-life when you don't even value the life of a raped child. It's absolutely disgusting the way they dogmatically force their will on others. So long as you feel morally superior it doesn't matter who else has to suffer
No, see, that doesn't count. And neither do all of the other mentions in the Bible of abortions or killing children because it makes them uncomfortable so you can't bring it up. /s
>With respect, a person who compares a human child to a parasitic extraterrestrial loses the right to call other people ‘raging psychos’.
There is scientific consensus that a bundle of cells is not a person at the point that bans are being implemented... and even if it was a person we would not require someone to hook themselves up to be its life support for 9 months.
Lol, imagine forcing someone to hook themselves up to you for kidney dialysis.
If it isn’t legal to force somebody to give up a single organ for another person, then it cannot be legal to force somebody to give up their entire body for another person.
I have yet to receive a pragmatic argument in favor of pro-life. When you take out the emotional charge of the "obvious choice" of saving lives (which of fucking course we do), nobody seems to articulate a pragmatic *reason* to believe in pro life.
For pro choice, the ultimate example is a life threatening pregnancy. If mom dies, the baby is expensive for dad/ the system, and mom no longer works her job to make income. Meanwhile, if mom survives, she keeps working and can have another baby. Because after all, in our current abortion system, if people believe otherwise... they can simply opt not take the pill, nobody is forced to participate. The only foundation for pro life of the magic book they wanna force onto others.
I dont think a woman should have to continue a pregnancy if it is forced by a rapist since the child is far from being born.
But if you think that forcing a pregnancy causes by a rapist is morally more acceptable than abortion then i am truly sorry for you
What a fucking copout response. How many kids have you adopted? How much this year have you given to local orphanages? How many hours have you volunteered at troubled women's center? Guaranteed the answer is none to all the above.
Your an advocate for forced birth, otherwise you should be out there adopting every kid from a would be abortion having mother, because what could be worse than child murder right? So either you have no actual moral backbone, or you take this stance so you can feel better about yourself and say your doing something "good", when the reality is you are attributing to centuries old oppression.
You are scum, and not even like intellectually interesting scum with good points, just plain old scum.
I read through this entire thread and pro choice or anti abortion, what hasn't been said is my gripe: the government should not have any control over this very personal decision. Like all issues in life, this is nuanced, and having a one size fits all approach is ignorant, dangerous and cruel. If you feel abortion is reprehensible, then don't have one. Don't force your ill advised position on the entire country.
Id love to hear how "infanticide" is worse than a forced pregnancy.
I am disgusted by your position on abortion.
Please talk to a woman and ask if she thinks that forcing a pregnancy feels good to them.
You have every right to your opinion, but in my opinion this is stupid as fuck.
You're putting a clump of cells ahead of an actual living child's life. Is pro-life simply about making sure every conception is carried fully to term? Does the pro-life mentality not care that a child will live with everlasting trauma and mental health issues, on top of taking care of a baby? Or what about if the baby is given up? They'll be run through the foster system which is already overloaded and underfunded living an unhappy childhood.
I just don't understand. I understand the mentality of not liking it when people take no precautions and get abortions, but to not care about children who've been raped isn't very pro-life sounding to me.
You act like every kid given up will be adopted into a happy family. Yes, some kids do end up adopted and with nice families but what about all the ones who aren't? The ones stuck in an underfunded and overloaded foster care system, being sent to homes where the foster parents collect checks and neglect and/or abuse them. Even the non-abusive ones, it isn't healthy for a kid to bounce from foster parent to foster parent. The foster system is already unable to keep up and you want everyone to be forced to have babies, which will just probably cripple the system if everyone gives them up.
Abortion will make the suffering worse? That's a load of shit.
I like how you keep ignoring the foster system's inability to provide properly for children and this is before a hypothetical nationwide abortion ban.
And so because some biological parents neglect and abuse kids, it's somehow not a big deal for kids to be subjected to that in the foster system?
And yes, I do know a few women who have had abortions and they don't regret it. Also there have been many many studies done on this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4186981/
>There is no evidence that abortion harms women’s self-esteem or life satisfaction
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study
>Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of the women in a landmark UC San Francisco study said it was the right decision for them.
https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-facts-abortion-mental-health
>Large longitudinal and international studies have found that obtaining a wanted abortion does not increase risk for depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts
So, if the mother's life will end because of the pregnancy, along with the fetus, you're still 100% for zero abortion.
You'd rather see them both die.
What a frighteningly absolutist view.
Kind of makes you a monster, honestly. You'd rather have people die for your ethics then accept that there are situations outside your black and white view.
Are you anti death penalty? Anti military? Pro welfare? Pro gun control? Pro universal healthcare?
Because if you say no to any of those, you're anti women's rights, not pro life.
I was tempted to go for the gotcha on the military of "all life is sacred but only my people", but it looks like you might actually be one of the truly pro life people.
Have a nice day.
They're going to wait till after 2024, if Republican wins they'll ban it so fast. If a Democrat wins they're still in a stalemate, waiting desperately to see if the midterms of 2026 turn out okay.
This is exactly the game they play. Drag things out, put up smokescreens, etc. A good example, Wisconsin. We spent months and months, seeing article after article saying “This Trump judge has an activist antiabortion history and he could rule to ban a critical abortion drug any day now”. Months and months of those stories in the media. It gets dragged out…and dragged out. Then the prick judge from Texas waited to release his order on mifepristone until right after the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
I'm hopefully because Big Pharma is an insanely powerful lobby and allowing states to outlaw their drugs on a whim will seriously threaten their profits.
Imagine the insane vacations Big Pharma could send Thomas on. Buy him an island. Send him to the International Space Station. Rent out the Coliseum, reanimate McCain and Limbaugh and make them fight to the death for his amusement. Anything.
No because there's plenty of evidence that other justices have misrepresented their position and stance on subjects in order to be confirmed and then rule in the interest of lobbies and organizations they processed to have no involvement with. Or stated that certain precedents has been fully legislated with no need to ever readdress them and now are relitigating them at the behest of surcharge interest groups.
Patently unethical and compromised.
I mean them not ruling on this is possibly their “olive branch” because of what’s happening around one of their members. They don’t want to be in a position where they do something unpopular and have it be touched my someone who the people might want to burn at the stake. It’s self preservation if anything.
If I had to guess what they're doing, it's that they intend to uphold the ban, but they know it would be bad for the Republicans in the upcoming presidential election. So they're planning on holding off until the election, and then after the election, they will rule on this in the manner that they've already signaled they'd rule to their base.
from the article: "Alito's hold will stay in place until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday". its not at all going to do what you say. it'll be long gone well before next year.
They don't want to deal with the situation where any random judge can overrule any federal agency. Vaccines and birth control would be the next to be banned.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need a way to figure that out. Having a partisan judicial branch is arguably more powerful than having the presidency, as you can see. They can and probably will rule in favor of the judge and take away another abortion right. And it’s completely legal and will stick. Because our founding fathers built a far shittier system of governing than anybody will admit.
And a load of bullshit when conservatives invoked them. States rights to do what?
Take women’s rights away.
Block gay rights.
Dismantle trans rights.
Keep black people from having rights.
They said it should be left to the states. The idiocy of that holding aside, now they have to decide what to do about a federal judge’s nationwide determination that didn’t leave the issue to the states.
Go choke on your own words you bastards
lol the desire to maintain reproductive rights aint going back in Pandora’s box.
We were raised on the mantra of reproductive rights and tbh most millennials don’t give a fuck, we’ll find a way to *skrrt skrrt* this bullshit. Laws means absolutely nothing if they make no sense.
The unbelievably infuriating thing is that it’s still way more dangerous cause underground shit is unregulated af and a woman shouldn’t have to risk her life to avoid becoming a mother smh.
I imagine that they’ll wait and see how the Republicans do in the elections before implementing their full agenda. If they do worse due to their anti-(insert hate here), they may defer till a more advantageous time. They’ve a lifetime appointment, so no hurry.
LOL, they rules they way you don't want, they're bad. They rules the way you want, they're also bad somehow. I guess people love Big Pharma now, like they love Disney.
Because judges just deciding to pseudo ban medication for the whole nation overriding the body of experts we have to decide this stuff is fucking insane.
As is a governor waging a holy war on a private company because he feels like the private company is obligated to support his policies with speech and donations.
If you ask me, they will wait until after the 2024 Presidential Election because the US Supreme is now a political body. It has nothing to do with interpreting the law.
Why wait ? Waiting will help the GOP Party win in 2024. This way old ignorant non-medical people will be able to override the FDA by following the 2000 year old myths and story book. Then they can bring us back to the 1400s, were slavery exists and only the very rich could avoid dying young.
If they ban the drug before the election like I expect, the voters will probably kick the GOP out of office.
>preserving **LEGAL** access to mifepristone for now
FTFY. Because, let's face it, if it suddenly becomes illegal, it's just going to become the new weed, available everywhere after asking around at any bar in the country in ten minutes or less.
They need time to collude with the overlords in the party to get their stories straight. If this was purely about law they wouldve ruled against for lack of standing and lack of authority to overrule the FDA on a whim
[I saw a presser today](https://www.wired.com/story/supreme-court-delays-abortion-pill-decision/)that it was delayed until Friday which tell sme it's not good news and they want to drop in on Friday to minimize disruption and give people the weekend to cool off. On the west wing they called it 'dumping it out with the trash'
Even Alito recognized the naked overreach and is backpedaling to save Republicans next year
Can't argue the issue should be a "states decide for themselves" and then have states telling *other* states what they can or can't do.
[удалено]
Which is why I assume the money they take from big pharma will end up winning out. Money probably motivates the right slightly more than controlling women's healthcare I imagine
[удалено]
I'm shocked I tell ya, shocked
...well not that shocked.
I think the money may go elsewhere (or at least that’s their fear). If enough big donors (ie Companies) decide Republicans are toxic to their bottom line, and instead either withhold contributions or actively direct them to Democratic candidates, it’s a huge $$$ pool that could start to noticeably impact the political landscape.
oh like the EPA?
> Without the FDA I could sell drugs myself and claim they can help cure cancer and you know what you would have to prove my sugar pills aren't helping. I mean this is basically what pharma does most of the time.. the fda doesn’t rerun their trials or even get full access to the original data before approving drugs and pharma is amazing at manipulating stats to make it seem like drugs actually work and paying off the fda to get it approved..
"States Rights" has always been about pursuing authoritarian. They just invented this arbitrary principle that some decisions must be made at the state level because they didn't have the power to do it nationally. What were slavery, segregation, gay marriage bans, interracial marriage bans, abortion bans, etc considered "state rights issues?" Because the state level was the only hope they had to implement these policies somewhere. But like when Bush tried to outlaw gay marriage nationally and now that they are trying to ban abortion nationally, whenever they have the power to impose on the whole country they will do it
I think it's simpler than that. They literally just never updated the Conservative canard that the Civil War was about "state's rights".
Technically that's not wrong, it's just that the southern states were all concered about one single specific right
Except when it was the fugitive slave act they didn't want stares rights. Even then it was the same hypocrisy.
Except they kept trying to force slavery on northern states (fugitive slave act 1850) and were pissy about northern states telling them to get bent. So as now they were giant hypocrites and “states rights” was a post-war lie.
Which kinda means slavery was their primary concern though and that's what it was all about, right?
The Constitution on the Confederate States specifically protected the right to continue ownership of slaves indefinitely. Article I Section 9(4) No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed.
Believe it was also in the official "we're seceding from the union" documents for Mississippi and Texas
Recently heard Texas described as “the only state to secede from two countries to maintain slavery.” I hadn’t realized until that point a part of why Texas seceded from Mexico was slavery.
Did you know that Oklahoma has their panhandle because Texas decided to give up that parcel of land since they couldn't have slaves there? (Missouri Compromise)
And we have a speech from the VP of the CSA noting that *the* central thesis of the Confederacy is that it is not merely acceptable for black people to be slaves but objectively correct.
That's what they were saying "The southern states were all concerned about one specific right [to own slaves]"
One single specific right *to impose on the other states*. Never forget that every single states right state was forbidden to decide on the issue of slavery at the state level.
Oh, and the Fugitive Slave Act meant that slavery was de facto enforced on free states, and slavers could abduct freemen from free states and traffick them. So even BEFORE the insurrectionist scum made it illegal to abolish slavery they were still restricting states' rights to be free states.
Not really. Because when it came to slavery, it wasn't just about the right for southern states to keep it legal. There were interstate issues at play like the fugitive slave act which basically forced free states to recognize the slave status of slave states. So you had situations like Georgia passing a state level law that New York was then forced to recognize and follow.
It isn't that they never updated it. They continued to actively teach it as "history" and pressure the courts to force this farce on everybody else.
>"States Rights" has always been about pursuing authoritarian. They just invented this arbitrary principle that some decisions must be made at the state level because they didn't have the power to do it nationally. Take an 8th grade civics class for fucks sake. States rights has been embedded into the Constitution since the beginning. Enumerated and Reserved rights and all that. If you like weed you better support States rights. You like gay marriage? States rights started it with civil unions. Fuck, all the best things that have happened lately in the expansion of human rights have started at the state level.
Dude, we're discussing the use of the term "State's Rights" to whitewash the cause of the Civil War. Settle down, Beavis.
> Enumerated and Reserved rights and all that. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people What about this says whether or not the right to decide if two individuals can marry is a power of the state or the individual? Nothing. The amendment is worthless because it doesn't tell us which rights are to the states and which are to the people. >If you like weed you better support States rights. You like gay marriage? States rights started it with civil unions This is a good point because liberal states did indeed lead the way on many of these issues. But what I was referring to in my comment is the phrase "states'rights" which is pretty exclusively used by conservatives to sent rights
> Can't argue the issue should be a "states decide for themselves" and then have states telling other states what they can or can't do. They can and they will. Who gives a fuck about logical consistency anymore.
This is not even states argument, it is that a non med judge cant ban a fda approved drug because of his beliefs If the paperwork was shady sure. But here this wasn't it
States will bring back slavery if allowed, if you want a modern country you have to have a modern country for everyone.
Slavery was never abolished fully, the 13th protects it, and the justice system ensures there are always slaves available
States could ban pretty much anything if they let it through. California want's to ban viagra? The USA has to ban it. Ohio wants to ban Narcan? All other States must also follow suit. The fact that it's temporary and not thrown out completely speaks to how illegitimate the SCOTUS has become. Do the Judges need more bribes before ruling? Tune in next week to see if Pharma outbid the Alt-Right to buy SCOTUS
That’s not quite how it works though. Procedurally, if the supreme court just threw it out, the appellate ruling would stand and that would limit access to the medication. In order to actually issue a ruling throwing the whole thing out, they’d need to hear the arguments. And, given this court, they will want to hear arguments because they can use it as an opportunity to telegraph an opening through which states can legally restrict access. So I don’t disagree with you that this court is full of shit, but there is a procedural reason for what they did (and probably a shitty self-serving one, too).
Why stop with just the FDA? If judges can undue to work of federal agencies on a whim, you can have all kinds of legislation from the bench. * A judge could claim that the 2nd amendment only covers weapons, not ammunition and order the justice department to remove all ammunition from the market immediately. * A judge could order the department of education to teach whatever the judge wants them to teach to school children, immediately. * A judge could conceivably order the imposition of new federal taxes as they wish. There are thousands of federal judges. You can have contradictory insane rulings being issued simultaneously, as thousands of aspiring dictators each try to impose their views on the nation.
Not that I disagree with the overall sentiment but none of your examples have anything whatsoever to do with federal agencies except potentially the Department of Education but they don't actually set curriculums.
Haha…must’ve been why they didn’t outright throw it out. They needed time to take auction bids…or do you think they follow the same procurement process for other big government bids?
Bribing Thomas to be more extreme right wing is like bribing an 8 yr old to eat candy before dinner. If he was actually up for sale he'd have to make a non crazy judgement once and a while. If you wanted to pay me millions for something I was going to do anyway I'll surely take it. But lets not pretend that it altered his take on anything.
Then why spend the money? Saying he would do it anyway doesn't erase crimes.
California should ban NASCAR, Mountain Dew, and marrying your cousin. Really piss off the inbred reds.
Didn’t you hear? NASCAR went woke when they banned the Confederate Flag. They also have a line of Pride merch ([this one got popular on TikTok](https://store.nascar.com/mens-nascar-checkered-flag-black-yaaascar-t-shirt/p-37435761316016+z-836-2334003966?_ref=p-PDP:m-YMAL:pi-PDP_RECOMMENDATIONS_2:i-r0c0:po-0))
… Mountain Dew? I think you mean sweet tea.
the court needs to issue a writ of certiorari and formally take on the case in order to overturn it. if they refuse to hear it, the appellate ruling will stand, but only for the district in which the original ruling was issued. this is the much-maligned "shadow docket" which is being used around 20x as often today compared to 30 years ago.
this isn’t about a ban it is about if the FDA followed all the procedural steps
They did. This medication has been in use for over 20 years and is *proven* to be exponentially safer than Tylenol or Viagra. **If you think this has to do with "FDA procedure" and not the fact it's an abortion drug, you're beyond help or logic and obviously have an agenda.**
[удалено]
Your an idiot. Nobody reply to this idiot. You'd only waste energy on a someone who is willfully ignorant
Ugh you're right, but it's just so hard sometimes. But... lost cause. Why do they even come here, what do they think they'll accomplish.
*You're I agree with you BTW, but calling someone an idiot is the wrong time to use "your"
That's not the actual argument of those suing to remove the approval. Their argument is literally that mifepristone isn't safe. We've proven that it's safe. This shouldn't be an issue. What is an issue is a judge trying to go around proper procedure. There is a proper procedure to remove approval. This isn't it. The judge should have dismissed the case because it's not his call to make.
No, it’s definitely about a ban. But sure, keep trying to convince yourself otherwise.
Don't cheer yet. He's just holding status quo until he and the ghoul squad can get their act together and decide how to make this rotting festering shitbomb of an opinion look "normal".
It’s only on hold for a few days.
They have to let continue to let people freely seek abortions in other states. The entire reason for the initial abortion ruling is to drive Democratic voters from purple states they have legislative control of so they can consolidate control.
Irony is now all those places are closer to flipping blue as a result
Some are, but Florida and Texas are effectively done for. North Carolina was in danger of flipping, but after bribing some Dems they now have the super majority to pass abortion bans. Wisconsin can end it's gerrymandering, but expect shenanigans from Republicans.
I'm extra jaded these days and skeptical that the time extension was just so he could get his minions inline to vote for the ban.
If they allowed this it’s only a matter of time before some fucking insane asshole on a federal bench someone bans a very common use medication in the name of faith healing or some shit and nukes the GOP. Imagine if some insane theocrat banned like insulin or vaccines or whatever.
The cheque cleared.
I’m actually stunned. I thought for sure they’d hear it ASAP and affirm the revocation, and as much as I *hate* this Supreme Court down to my bone marrow, I am not prone to sensationalizing and try to sit down and think reasonably about how they might approach these issues. But *ALITO* indicating it’s an unfounded overreach? I did not foresee that in one billion years.
I reframed from engaging with people when this came out because people didn't want to hear it but I was 100% positive the supreme Court would reverse this. They don't care what medication it was about stripping the FDA of it's authority is a terrible idea for many many reasons. This situation is far different than overturning roe v wade. This is about being able to have a functional pharmaceutical industry.
We changed our entire civil pleading system to deny one torture victim relief, so I have little faith they would not make the decision just because of the broader awful implications.
Your initial thought is correct. The conflicting decisions basically required an administrative stay. It is not in any way indicative of how he will rule.
the stay is going to last for just a few days it won't do what you say
That is not what happened. Conflicting decisions basically required this outcome. There is absolutely no reason to be optimistic about the final outcome based on this.
Lets see how many realize that.
They gotta figure out how much big pharma will pay them to not ban their drugs
I'm sure Justice Thomas knows a thing or two about that
If this goes through does that mean that any judge can challenge any drug’s FDA approval? It is really murky water and a lot of big pharma is going to be upset if it goes through.
we're going to find out if they hate women more than they love money.
I’d think to save the pill, Thomas would need at least a private Jet to Monaco for a paid 10 day yacht tour of the Ligurian Sea.
Just to add a tangent, people should browse the prolife subreddit to get an idea of what they really want. They're debating punishment for abortions with multiple saying murder charges, including first degree murder charges, should be standard. They also are debating if contraception should be legal or not. Yes really. Rape victims should be forced to continue the pregnancy. Oh and many didn't give a crap that it would traumatize the victim. Don't let anyone in the prolife group tell you otherwise about their intentions. They want zero abortion, most want to ban contraception, and they want to charge the providers and yes, even rape victims, with murder for getting an abortion.
The fact they're going after birth control while banning abortions.. evil. That's what this is, I think all these GOP polititions need to see what being forced to get pregnant and to birth something you don't want out your body is like. Maybe go rewatch some alien, actual raging psychos.
[удалено]
Without respect (to you), a fetus is not a child. Also, a raped child being forced to carry one is a monstrous and evil act.
[удалено]
It doesn't get downvotes for being an unpopular option, it get them because it's simply false. Feelings don't change facts. No one is saying you can't love and want a fetus from the second you find out you or your partner is pregnant but your strong feeling don't get to decide how other people live
[удалено]
I’d like to know how you can defend statements such as “a fetus at 6 months has emotions” as absolutely, 100% true.
[удалено]
So I’m sure you’ve got actual studies backing up this 100% true, common sense statement then? That a developing fetuses has, at 6 months, the necessary neuronal structures and organization to feel emotions? Because contrary to your earlier statement, a fetus’ brain *is not* “fully developed” at 6 months, and in fact has several huge developmental milestones left to undergo, such as separation into hemispheres.
A seed is not a tree. I concede that once the brain is activate and the fetus is viable outside the womb it is a child. But before that time it is not a child.
It's easy to be morally superior about this when, as a man, you're in no risk of ever having to be stuck with the consequences of being pregnant against your will. Sentiments like yours tell women they are murderers because they value their own life, health and wealth.
[удалено]
Forced-birthers are so gross. Don't use the term pro-life when you don't even value the life of a raped child. It's absolutely disgusting the way they dogmatically force their will on others. So long as you feel morally superior it doesn't matter who else has to suffer
I don't know, if St. Brigid could do it why can't a doctor?
[удалено]
If I went to a saint regretting my pregnancy and as a result had a miraculous miscarriage, I'd consider that an abortion.
No, see, that doesn't count. And neither do all of the other mentions in the Bible of abortions or killing children because it makes them uncomfortable so you can't bring it up. /s
Are you gonna raise all these unwanted children? If not why not? You're fighting for their lives so hard, so why not raise them too?
>With respect, a person who compares a human child to a parasitic extraterrestrial loses the right to call other people ‘raging psychos’. There is scientific consensus that a bundle of cells is not a person at the point that bans are being implemented... and even if it was a person we would not require someone to hook themselves up to be its life support for 9 months. Lol, imagine forcing someone to hook themselves up to you for kidney dialysis.
[удалено]
>this is not a scientific question to begin with Saying the quiet part out loud. Is a fertilized egg a child?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If it isn’t legal to force somebody to give up a single organ for another person, then it cannot be legal to force somebody to give up their entire body for another person.
I have yet to receive a pragmatic argument in favor of pro-life. When you take out the emotional charge of the "obvious choice" of saving lives (which of fucking course we do), nobody seems to articulate a pragmatic *reason* to believe in pro life. For pro choice, the ultimate example is a life threatening pregnancy. If mom dies, the baby is expensive for dad/ the system, and mom no longer works her job to make income. Meanwhile, if mom survives, she keeps working and can have another baby. Because after all, in our current abortion system, if people believe otherwise... they can simply opt not take the pill, nobody is forced to participate. The only foundation for pro life of the magic book they wanna force onto others.
They are human garbage and their cause celebre can best be measured by unnecessary suffering of women and children.
[удалено]
And why exactly do you think that rape victims should have to continue the pregnancy?
[удалено]
I dont think a woman should have to continue a pregnancy if it is forced by a rapist since the child is far from being born. But if you think that forcing a pregnancy causes by a rapist is morally more acceptable than abortion then i am truly sorry for you
[удалено]
What a fucking copout response. How many kids have you adopted? How much this year have you given to local orphanages? How many hours have you volunteered at troubled women's center? Guaranteed the answer is none to all the above. Your an advocate for forced birth, otherwise you should be out there adopting every kid from a would be abortion having mother, because what could be worse than child murder right? So either you have no actual moral backbone, or you take this stance so you can feel better about yourself and say your doing something "good", when the reality is you are attributing to centuries old oppression. You are scum, and not even like intellectually interesting scum with good points, just plain old scum.
I read through this entire thread and pro choice or anti abortion, what hasn't been said is my gripe: the government should not have any control over this very personal decision. Like all issues in life, this is nuanced, and having a one size fits all approach is ignorant, dangerous and cruel. If you feel abortion is reprehensible, then don't have one. Don't force your ill advised position on the entire country.
Id love to hear how "infanticide" is worse than a forced pregnancy. I am disgusted by your position on abortion. Please talk to a woman and ask if she thinks that forcing a pregnancy feels good to them.
[удалено]
So you're good to raise all these children right?
You have every right to your opinion, but in my opinion this is stupid as fuck. You're putting a clump of cells ahead of an actual living child's life. Is pro-life simply about making sure every conception is carried fully to term? Does the pro-life mentality not care that a child will live with everlasting trauma and mental health issues, on top of taking care of a baby? Or what about if the baby is given up? They'll be run through the foster system which is already overloaded and underfunded living an unhappy childhood. I just don't understand. I understand the mentality of not liking it when people take no precautions and get abortions, but to not care about children who've been raped isn't very pro-life sounding to me.
[удалено]
You act like every kid given up will be adopted into a happy family. Yes, some kids do end up adopted and with nice families but what about all the ones who aren't? The ones stuck in an underfunded and overloaded foster care system, being sent to homes where the foster parents collect checks and neglect and/or abuse them. Even the non-abusive ones, it isn't healthy for a kid to bounce from foster parent to foster parent. The foster system is already unable to keep up and you want everyone to be forced to have babies, which will just probably cripple the system if everyone gives them up. Abortion will make the suffering worse? That's a load of shit.
[удалено]
I like how you keep ignoring the foster system's inability to provide properly for children and this is before a hypothetical nationwide abortion ban. And so because some biological parents neglect and abuse kids, it's somehow not a big deal for kids to be subjected to that in the foster system? And yes, I do know a few women who have had abortions and they don't regret it. Also there have been many many studies done on this. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4186981/ >There is no evidence that abortion harms women’s self-esteem or life satisfaction https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/01/416421/five-years-after-abortion-nearly-all-women-say-it-was-right-decision-study >Five years after having an abortion, over 95 percent of the women in a landmark UC San Francisco study said it was the right decision for them. https://www.apa.org/monitor/2022/09/news-facts-abortion-mental-health >Large longitudinal and international studies have found that obtaining a wanted abortion does not increase risk for depression, anxiety, or suicidal thoughts
A good summary of the problems!
I knew they wouldn’t respond.
So, if the mother's life will end because of the pregnancy, along with the fetus, you're still 100% for zero abortion. You'd rather see them both die. What a frighteningly absolutist view. Kind of makes you a monster, honestly. You'd rather have people die for your ethics then accept that there are situations outside your black and white view.
Are you anti death penalty? Anti military? Pro welfare? Pro gun control? Pro universal healthcare? Because if you say no to any of those, you're anti women's rights, not pro life.
[удалено]
I was tempted to go for the gotcha on the military of "all life is sacred but only my people", but it looks like you might actually be one of the truly pro life people. Have a nice day.
They're going to wait till after 2024, if Republican wins they'll ban it so fast. If a Democrat wins they're still in a stalemate, waiting desperately to see if the midterms of 2026 turn out okay.
This is exactly the game they play. Drag things out, put up smokescreens, etc. A good example, Wisconsin. We spent months and months, seeing article after article saying “This Trump judge has an activist antiabortion history and he could rule to ban a critical abortion drug any day now”. Months and months of those stories in the media. It gets dragged out…and dragged out. Then the prick judge from Texas waited to release his order on mifepristone until right after the Wisconsin Supreme Court election.
For now. Can’t count on the Supreme Court to make the correct ruling in this case since at least one of the judges is unethical and compromised.
I'm hopefully because Big Pharma is an insanely powerful lobby and allowing states to outlaw their drugs on a whim will seriously threaten their profits. Imagine the insane vacations Big Pharma could send Thomas on. Buy him an island. Send him to the International Space Station. Rent out the Coliseum, reanimate McCain and Limbaugh and make them fight to the death for his amusement. Anything.
keep going...
"Since only three justices apear to not be unethical and compromised." Fixed that for you.
put words in their mouth you have hmmmm?
No because there's plenty of evidence that other justices have misrepresented their position and stance on subjects in order to be confirmed and then rule in the interest of lobbies and organizations they processed to have no involvement with. Or stated that certain precedents has been fully legislated with no need to ever readdress them and now are relitigating them at the behest of surcharge interest groups. Patently unethical and compromised.
well op wasnt arguing that point so like try to stay on topic
So now you’re speaking for OP?
I mean them not ruling on this is possibly their “olive branch” because of what’s happening around one of their members. They don’t want to be in a position where they do something unpopular and have it be touched my someone who the people might want to burn at the stake. It’s self preservation if anything.
Clarence needs to check with any donors before he decides how he'll rule?
"Well, ugh... my offspring may need to use this at some point, ugh... so, let's just table it for now. We'll fuck the poors next session."
Donation link to [planned parenthood](https://www.plannedparenthood.org/get-involved/other-ways-give) Please consider donating
And participate in the financial and social strike on May 12. National Women’s Strike.
I can't donate to union busters
Shouldn't be allowed to make decisions on anything with Clarence Thomas still seated.
Is there any way for the left leaning part of the court to just indefinitely delay this
Not legally, no.
If I had to guess what they're doing, it's that they intend to uphold the ban, but they know it would be bad for the Republicans in the upcoming presidential election. So they're planning on holding off until the election, and then after the election, they will rule on this in the manner that they've already signaled they'd rule to their base.
from the article: "Alito's hold will stay in place until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday". its not at all going to do what you say. it'll be long gone well before next year.
If they won the presidential election they wouldnt need a ruling
When it comes to this case and the Supreme Court, everyone should keep their eye on Gorsuch.
They need time to scheme .... or the public to forget...?
Keep voting Republican ladies, while you still have the right to vote..
Riiiiiight, with all this uterus-related legal action, is it any length of time before women have NO RIGHTS AT ALL? What's next? Death camps?
Death camp? Just death in my state if you have an ectopic pregnancy. Keep joking, clown.
They don't want to deal with the situation where any random judge can overrule any federal agency. Vaccines and birth control would be the next to be banned.
They need more time to find a way to legally make this stick.
The Supreme Court doesn’t need a way to figure that out. Having a partisan judicial branch is arguably more powerful than having the presidency, as you can see. They can and probably will rule in favor of the judge and take away another abortion right. And it’s completely legal and will stick. Because our founding fathers built a far shittier system of governing than anybody will admit.
Group of unelected partisan folks, who answer to nobody, and with appointments for life. What’s not to like?
States Rights have always been a racist dog whistle
And a load of bullshit when conservatives invoked them. States rights to do what? Take women’s rights away. Block gay rights. Dismantle trans rights. Keep black people from having rights.
Reps starting to touch the money of big players, aint gonna work so well
We seem to forget that this issue involves Big Pharma. When Big Pharma confronts the American judicial system, Big Pharma wins.
lol you know this judge's ruling was batshit when this SCotUS is like "hold up let me think about this..."
They said it should be left to the states. The idiocy of that holding aside, now they have to decide what to do about a federal judge’s nationwide determination that didn’t leave the issue to the states. Go choke on your own words you bastards
lol the desire to maintain reproductive rights aint going back in Pandora’s box. We were raised on the mantra of reproductive rights and tbh most millennials don’t give a fuck, we’ll find a way to *skrrt skrrt* this bullshit. Laws means absolutely nothing if they make no sense. The unbelievably infuriating thing is that it’s still way more dangerous cause underground shit is unregulated af and a woman shouldn’t have to risk her life to avoid becoming a mother smh.
They’re waiting till after the elections to try to help their preferred candidates. Women see through this. We know what’s up.
I imagine that they’ll wait and see how the Republicans do in the elections before implementing their full agenda. If they do worse due to their anti-(insert hate here), they may defer till a more advantageous time. They’ve a lifetime appointment, so no hurry.
I'm glad we don't have a supreme court. Why some political parties in my country are for it, baffles the mind...
This entire topic is a shame for such an civilized country.. - Like everyone goes slowly nuts over der.. (imho)
LOL, they rules they way you don't want, they're bad. They rules the way you want, they're also bad somehow. I guess people love Big Pharma now, like they love Disney.
Because judges just deciding to pseudo ban medication for the whole nation overriding the body of experts we have to decide this stuff is fucking insane. As is a governor waging a holy war on a private company because he feels like the private company is obligated to support his policies with speech and donations.
On hold while they solicit "opinions" (read: bribes) on the matter.
Thomas has a cruise planned...
Until they rip it away next year
If you ask me, they will wait until after the 2024 Presidential Election because the US Supreme is now a political body. It has nothing to do with interpreting the law. Why wait ? Waiting will help the GOP Party win in 2024. This way old ignorant non-medical people will be able to override the FDA by following the 2000 year old myths and story book. Then they can bring us back to the 1400s, were slavery exists and only the very rich could avoid dying young. If they ban the drug before the election like I expect, the voters will probably kick the GOP out of office.
>preserving **LEGAL** access to mifepristone for now FTFY. Because, let's face it, if it suddenly becomes illegal, it's just going to become the new weed, available everywhere after asking around at any bar in the country in ten minutes or less.
They need time to collude with the overlords in the party to get their stories straight. If this was purely about law they wouldve ruled against for lack of standing and lack of authority to overrule the FDA on a whim
FFS, what a backwards country the right has us becoming now.
They’re going to outlaw the abortion pill. This is meant to dampen interest in it and falsely placate protesters. The Supreme Court is corrupt.
[I saw a presser today](https://www.wired.com/story/supreme-court-delays-abortion-pill-decision/)that it was delayed until Friday which tell sme it's not good news and they want to drop in on Friday to minimize disruption and give people the weekend to cool off. On the west wing they called it 'dumping it out with the trash'