Clashing Rules By Federal Judges Over Abortion Medication

Andrew Donaldson

Born and raised in West Virginia, Andrew has been the Managing Editor of Ordinary Times since 2018, is a widely published opinion writer, and appears in media, radio, and occasionally as a talking head on TV. He can usually be found misspelling/misusing words on Twitter@four4thefire. Andrew is the host of Heard Tell podcast. Subscribe to Andrew'sHeard Tell Substack for free here:

Related Post Roulette

49 Responses

  1. Michael Cain says:

    A Texas judge on April 7 blocked FDA approval of…

    This quote seems to me an odd way to paraphrase “A Texas judge revoked long-standing FDA approval of…”. I’m a technocrat at heart — I used to be a nit-picker on the difference between may and shall in standards documents — but “blocked approval of” includes an implicit “before approval was granted” for me.Report

  2. Greg In Ak says:

    I’m dying to see consertives justify Judge K’s ruling. It seems insane and has been torn to shreds by every one i’ve seen on the left and center. The drug has been on the market for 26 years and it’s approval is what now????? Gonna piss a lot of people off and hurt people who need the med.Report

    • InMD in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      It’s another step along the way of conservatives grossly overplaying their hand. The one insight that the pro-life movement has I think is that the broader population is more ambivalent and even squeamish about abortion than the most ardent pro choicers would have it. But that’s where the insight ends, and the idea that there’s any constituency for judges blowing gaping holes in the modern regulatory state which is necessarily federal over what is fairly characterized as a fringe position on the legality of abortion is just dumb.Report

      • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

        Potentially and the Wisconsin election proves that it was possible. The other way of looking at it is that the people like Judge K and others are ideological warriors who do not mind minority rule if it means getting their way. Many/most might already be at the point where they simply don’t care and are calculating that there is too much stasis in the American political system for them to be overturned quickly.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

          Judge K and others are ideological warriors who do not mind minority rule if it means getting their way

          The “assume good intentions” way to look at it is they think a third is in their favor, a third is opposed, and a third will go along with whatever.Report

    • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak says:

      This conservative’s opinion? I can’t find the decision online, or much of anything specific. In general, fewer deaths yay, more deaths boo, but it’s the judge’s job to make the proper ruling based on the law, and I don’t know if that happened here.Report

      • Greg In Ak in reply to Pinky says:

        Lol….The drug he wants taken off the market has been in use for 26 years. Fewer deaths??? Please.Report

        • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak says:

          ahem…the unborn?Report

          • Greg In Ak in reply to Pinky says:

            Great. Then just plainly have candidates run on ending abortion completely. Put it to the people across the country. End abortion for all with no exceptions. Just be honest about it. Cause we have heard the federalism and know it’s bs.

            Also his ruling is at least ostensibly about teh FDA’s approval. Not can he stop abortion but ruling on admin law. Even if he and you are against abortion then this is still far beyond what the case was supposed, or openly, about.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Greg In Ak says:

              Federalism is where we’re going to end up, but figuring out the limits of that is still a thing. Much more importantly, it’s impossible to end abortion at a state level as long as there are legal-in-other-states home abortion drugs.

              Texas (etc) can control WalGreens because WalGreens is in Texas, but that just means “small pharmacy in California” mails stuff in a plain brown box.

              Kacsmaryk is doing what bad Judges have always done, start with where they want to end up and then try to figure out a legal reasoning that gets them there. He needs to get that drug outlawed because if it’s not, State restrictions will quickly become a joke.Report

  3. Jaybird says:

    A compromise:

    Abolish the FDA.Report

    • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

      A new compromise already. The last compromise was gonna be federalism baby….Let each state have their own laws on abortion. No national gubmint telling people what to do. Just glorious Freedom Through Federalism.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

        Well, obviously, what we need is a *NATIONAL* policy!

        NO NO NOT THAT ONEReport

        • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

          From your pixels to the ears anti abortion folks telling us they just wanted some sweet federalism for decades.

          Did you actually believe them? I mean liberals never did and i doubt many conservatives actually believed them.Report

          • Pinky in reply to Greg In Ak says:

            We did talk about this for decades. There were several points of dispute on Roe. I guess I’m glad you remember one of them, but there were others. And not every conservative sees eye to eye on abortion. Many conservatives supported a Human Life Amendment. (That should have been a tip-off that some people wanted a national policy – the whole talking about an amendment for years thing.) And how does this particular judge’s ruling fly in the face of federalism anyway?Report

          • Jaybird in reply to Greg In Ak says:

            “They said that they wanted federalism for decades and we refused! Now that they are in power, they are continuing to act according to the precedent that had been established! SMGDMFH.”Report

            • InMD in reply to Jaybird says:

              From a quick skim of the case the holding isn’t so much a matter of federalism as it is ideologically flavored proceduralism. Essentially Kacsmaryk is saying that the FDA failed to adequately follow statutory required process but he’s also doing it from a perspective of personal opposition to the practice of abortion that suggests he might not ever see any approval procedure as sufficient under the law for a drug which induces one. This is why even taking it purely as an ‘oops the FDA messed up and needs to redo process’ while defensible isn’t IMO the right read.* It’s bad jurisprudence.

              *To be clear the FDA does not concede this at all and among other things actually has what I think is a pretty good statute of limitations argument where Kacsmaryk gives way too much leeway to the plaintiffs.Report

              • Saul Degraw in reply to InMD says:

                He also said that the group Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine* had more standing than Abortionists (he used that word) even though the plaintiff’s did not use the pill and would not prescribe the pill, nor would they. The whole thing is a bad-faith reactionary attack from the forced birthers.

                *The reactionary right is great with the Orwellian names.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                a pretty good statute of limitations argument

                Yes, that. I couldn’t figure out what backflip he used to avoid it. My expectation is the Supremes slap him down here for this.Report

              • InMD in reply to Dark Matter says:

                He says some action they took back in the early to mid 2000s was sufficiently timely for SOL not to be a bar. One of our litigators will need to chime in on the merits of that.Report

              • Dark Matter in reply to InMD says:

                Far as I can tell, he redefined the meaning of “action” here.Report

            • Greg In Ak in reply to Jaybird says:

              They “said” they wanted federalism and they got it. When they got it they didnt’ want that anymore.

              This is just bad faith argumentation. The “we just federalism” was the line the day after Roe was overturned just a few months ago. Now it’s the lie it always was.

              Just team based yaking. There is actual substance around here. See InMD above who is at least talking about case instead of contrarian partisanship. ( Yeah i know the next response is some version of “well you’re being partisan so bsdi”Report

    • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

      Bad-faith suggestion in aisle 4, bad-faith suggestion in aisle 4.Report

      • Jaybird in reply to Saul Degraw says:

        I assure you: I mean every single word.

        Wait… do you use “bad faith” to mean “I cannot understand how someone might hold this view, therefore they don’t”?Report

        • Saul Degraw in reply to Jaybird says:

          It is still a bad faith troll. The purpose of the FDA is to regulate drugs and ensure they are safe for human use. More often than not, they do this very well.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Oldham_Kelsey

          Abolishing the FDA might fit libertarian ideology but it is not going to create a world where drugs flood the market and anyone can get anything they want. Instead you will see 50 different variants of the F.D.A. and/or legislatures approving or not approving drugs and confused pharmaceutical companies.

          Federalism is not a solution to every problem but if all you have is a hammer.Report

          • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            Instead you will see 50 different variants of the F.D.A. and/or legislatures approving or not approving drugs and confused pharmaceutical companies.

            If (replacement FDA #1) only approves one insulin drug and zero abortion drugs, I can shop from (#2).

            For a libertarian, this is a feature, not a flaw.Report

            • Philip J in reply to Dark Matter says:

              Not according the the people backing this ruling. Many of them are also backing state legislation barring sales by mail across state lines. That won’t stop with this drug once it’s a thing.Report

          • Chip Daniels in reply to Saul Degraw says:

            I would love to have the Republicans run on a platform of “Abolish The FDA”.

            But I doubt God loves me that much.Report

  4. Chip Daniels says:

    Iran installs cameras to find women not wearing hijab

    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-65220595

    Judge K says, “Hold my beer…”Report

  5. InMD says:

    For those looking to read the actual decision this article has it at the bottom, no paywall:

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federal-judge-halts-fda-approval-of-abortion-pill-mifepristone/Report

    • Pinky in reply to InMD says:

      Huh. Comstock Act. Interesting. Thanks.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

        How do you figure?Report

        • Pinky in reply to Philip H says:

          I’ll leave it to the lawyers, but it looks to me like the Comstock Act is the whole thing.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Pinky says:

            Let’s see about that:

            The Comstock Act of 1873 made it illegal to send “obscene, lewd or lascivious,” “immoral,” or “indecent” publications through the mail. The law also made it a misdemeanor for anyone to sell, give away, or possess an obscene book, pamphlet, picture, drawing, or advertisement. The breadth of the legislation included writings or instruments pertaining to contraception and abortion, even if written by a physician.

            So I’m left wondering how one uses a law about WRITTEN material, and lewd written material at that, to justify pulling a drug approval. What with all the originalists on the Court this guy can’t be that dumb, can he?Report

  6. Saul Degraw says:

    The decision from the Federal Judge in Washington (brought by 17 Democratic Attorney Generals) is an example of Democratic pushback against years of right-wing tactics. It basically designed to create a circuit split that does not allow the Supreme Court to avoid the issue. Now the trillion dollar question is whether the Guardian Council is extreme enough to side with Judge K or whether they are humble enough to know some things are likely to result in hell to pay. The Supreme Court has struck down Judge K numerous times before for exceeding his bounds but the smug firebrand never seems to learnReport

  7. Chip Daniels says:

    Just so we don’t lapse into dry abstraction, this is life under Republican rule:

    A Texas woman was forced to give birth to a baby missing part of its brain and skull.

    Then – because the state that forced her to give birth doesn’t have public funds for infant funerals – she had to raise money to lay her daughter to rest.

    When NPR asked an anti-abortion group in the state about the case, this was their response: “Texas laws are working as designed.”

    Yeah, it seems like they are.

    https://twitter.com/JessicaValenti/status/164442913587425694Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Chip Daniels says:

      The GOP is the dog which has caught the car on this issue.
      They’re going to have to lose some elections to figure out “pro-life” doesn’t have to mean letting the lunes on the Right set policy on this issue.Report

      • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

        That’s funny. So so funny. They just got shellacked in Wisconsin in no small measure over abortion after their bad lip read in 2022 over Donna and so far they think it’s a good idea to go harder on opposing and banning abortion not less.Report

        • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

          The word “they” is doing a lot of heavy lifting there.

          The GOP as a whole needs to figure out what to do with their lunatic wing that wants no abortions anywhere in the country and who don’t care how unpopular that will be. They haven’t needed to moderate them in a long time.Report

          • Philip H in reply to Dark Matter says:

            The GOP has spent 40 years telling that wing to get ready for this outcome. To believe they would not trod this path is to not have paid attention.Report

            • Dark Matter in reply to Philip H says:

              The GOP is a large coalition. The anti-abortion group is one wing, just like the pro-gun rights is a wing, and the economics types, etc.

              If (when) they start losing elections because of the anti-abortion wing, they’ll have to choose between winning elections and maintaining their anti-abortion purity.

              It used to be there was no conflict, the judges wouldn’t allow the anti-abortion wing to drive the coalition over an electoral cliff. With Roe gone they’ve lost the judicial guiderails.Report

  8. Saul Degraw says:

    If you take Judge K’s decision to its natural conclusion, almost no drug would get approval: https://jill.substack.com/p/the-anti-abortion-movement-will-sacrificeReport

  9. CJColucci says:

    A comprehensive takedown by a former Scalia clerk:

    adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/mifepristone-and-the-rule-of-law-9c4Report

    • Dark Matter in reply to Saul Degraw says:

      The judge’s rules/reasoning, if used in general, blow up the entire pharma industry. They’d instantly get monetized/abused by bad actors with every drug on the market held hostage. That’s not even including what the anti-vaxers would do.Report