Clashing Rules By Federal Judges Over Abortion Medication
Friday saw two separate federal judges take conflicting stands over mifepristone, the medication used in more than half of the abortions in America. Washington Post:
The status of a key abortion medication was cast into uncertainty Friday night when rulings from two federal judges reached contradictory conclusions, with one jurist blocking U.S. government approval of the drug while the other said the pill should remain available in a swath of states.
The dueling opinions — one from Texas and the other from Washington state — concern access to mifepristone, the medication used in more than half of all abortions in the United States and follow the Supreme Court’s elimination of the constitutional right to the procedure last year. It appears inevitable the issue will move to the high court, and the conflicting decisions could make that sooner rather than later.
The highly anticipated and unprecedented ruling from Texas puts on hold the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone, which was cleared for use in the United States in 2000. It was the first time a judge suspended longtime FDA approval of a medication despite opposition from the agency and the drug’s manufacturer. The ruling will not go into effect for seven days to give the government time to appeal.
U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk, a nominee of President Donald Trump with long-held antiabortion views, agreed with the conservative groups seeking to reverse the FDA’s approval of mifepristone as safe and effective, including in states where abortion rights are protected.
“The Court does not second-guess FDA’s decision-making lightly,” Kacsmaryk wrote in the 67-page opinion. “But here, FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns — in violation of its statutory duty — based on plainly unsound reasoning and studies that did not support its conclusions.” He added that the agency had faced “significant political pressure” to “increase ‘access’ to chemical abortion.”
A Texas judge on April 7 blocked FDA approval of a widely used abortion pill. The decision will likely be appealed and could go to the Supreme Court. (Video: Billy Tucker, Zach Purser Brown/The Washington Post)
In a competing opinion late Friday, a federal judge in Washington state ruled in a separate case involving mifepristone that the drug is safe and effective. U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, ordered the FDA to preserve “the status quo” and retain access in the 17 states — along with D.C. — that are behind the second lawsuit, which seeks to protect medication abortion.Within hours of the Texas ruling, the Justice Department and drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories filed their notice of appeal. Attorney General Merrick Garland said the government would ask the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit to allow the FDA to maintain approval of the pill pending the outcome of the case. Garland said in a statement that the department was still reviewing the decision out of Washington state.
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
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
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
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
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
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
Lol….The drug he wants taken off the market has been in use for 26 years. Fewer deaths??? Please.Report
ahem…the unborn?Report
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
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
A compromise:
Abolish the FDA.Report
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
Well, obviously, what we need is a *NATIONAL* policy!
NO NO NOT THAT ONEReport
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
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
“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
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
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
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
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
Far as I can tell, he redefined the meaning of “action” here.Report
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
My last reply was supposed to be put here.
“Federalism is where we’re going to end up, but figuring out the limits of that is still a thingReport
Bad-faith suggestion in aisle 4, bad-faith suggestion in aisle 4.Report
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
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
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
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
I would love to have the Republicans run on a platform of “Abolish The FDA”.
But I doubt God loves me that much.Report
Iran installs cameras to find women not wearing hijab
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-65220595
Judge K says, “Hold my beer…”Report
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
Huh. Comstock Act. Interesting. Thanks.Report
How do you figure?Report
I’ll leave it to the lawyers, but it looks to me like the Comstock Act is the whole thing.Report
Let’s see about that:
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
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
He has no reason to listen what with a life time appointment to the bench.Report
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
A comprehensive takedown by a former Scalia clerk:
adamunikowsky.substack.com/p/mifepristone-and-the-rule-of-law-9c4Report
Very impressive. Thank you.Report
The pharma industry does not like Judge K’s decision: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/10/health/abortion-ruling-pharma-executives.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytimesReport
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
Steve Bannon wants to burn it all down and start over. Seems he has some acolytesReport