I kept waiting this morning for Erin Hawley to ask what about pore old Yeehaw McWombsniffer, the custodian at a hospital who has to mop the floors outside the treatment room where those jezebelian whores are getting treated for bleeding after a medication abortion which was administered partly in a clinic but then the patient has to go home and complete the drug regimen there because Yeehaw and his womb sniffing pals pushed legislators to make all kinds of restrictions involving facilities that offer abortion services and pass laws outright banning it in some states so that women have to drive hundreds of miles to get one .... Yeah, poor old Yeehaw the custodian is the victim here, right?
Even Justice Barrett, whom I had marked for a traitor all the way, seemed skeptical. The only one who seemed to really have his heart in it when it came to victimizing patients further was Alito (quelle surprise, eh? 😂)
I really, really hope that the Court sends those assholes packing. I know they won't give up, but it would restore my faith, at least a smidgen of it, in the idea of jurisprudence.
When do they start banning vaccines? And birth control?
Was this what Mitch McConnell had in mind when his proudest moment was blocking any chance of a balanced and fair SCOTUS, by filling it with right wing perverts and drunks? Thanks Mitch.
Just a reminder, folks: if they resurrect The Comstock Act to wipe out all means, information, and paraphernalia of abortion, there also go pap tests and pelvic exams, because stirrups and speculums are used for abortions, too. God help us.
"I watched the supreme court oral argument today to stop Mifepristone. Instead of screaming at the stupidity, I would like to offer my oral arguments to the supreme court on something else I find deeply concerning. If the text is in italics, I’m using arguments used before the court to block Mifepristone.
Your honors, as a retired sex crimes and homicide detective, I discovered a truly alarming pattern concerning the use of the rape drug, PDE5 inhibitors. They go by the names Cialis and Viagra and it essentially allows men who rape to gain lasting and harder erections. In 1998, the year PDE5 inhibitors were approved by the FDA, the number of rapes in this country that year was 89,411. In 2018 that number was 146,519, a 48% increase in rapes. A friend of mine knows a doctor who had to treat a man after using a rape drug. He had an erection lasting more than 3 hours. This doctor conscientiously objected to treating him, but his life was in danger and the doctor had to provide services that went against his moral integrity.
As a sex crimes detective, I handled cases made worse by the use of these drugs and sometimes the rape was entirely because of the drugs. Thousands of men and women around the country have suffered the consequences of rape due to PDE5 inhibitors. At the time this drug was approved, 90% of the FDA and those who approved the drug were men. These men had to know that approving a drug of this caliber would existentially raise the rape rate. Even knowing this, the FDA did not keep records on the number of uses of the drug that resulted in rape. It is therefore our standing that these few doctors who conscientiously object to treating these patients, that the drug should be immediately taken off the market so every man can suffer the inability to access it."
Since I was a child in the 70s, the Republicans claimed they were against judicial activism. That judges should avoid putting their personal beliefs ahead of the law.
But starting in the 1990s, the far right said "To hell with that!' and has done everything it can to load judicial activist on to the court who put their personal politics ahead of the law.
For all the whining from the right during the Warren, Burger and Rehnquist (NB: all appointed by Republicans), none of those courts came close to ignoring tens to hundreds of years of precedent at the drop of a hat. Now, the far-right justices just do whatever they and their billionaire patrons want.
If all I have to do to get something banned by SCROTUS is hire some losers to make shit up, then it's going to be a free for all. By allowing mifepristone to be banned, it would hurt women, and it would harm an important government agency. Basically, making the FDA irrelevant. Which is also something that the right can get behind. Win, win.
> the process would have a slightly lower chance of success and an almost guaranteed chance of spending several more hours with cramping, nausea and other side effects. In other words, it would be less safe.
I think the right probably considers this a feature. They probably think that sluts who want abortions should suffer
“If the court does find in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, this will mean, more or less, that people will more or less be able to make up their own “science” and use it to get what they want.”
Only conservatives get to win cases based on “science”.
Bringing cases based on actual science doesn’t get the same white glove treatment as the conservative fanatics “science”.
Anyone else sickened by people making completely disingenuous arguments?
Might upset an individual, so we just happen to have to stop all abortion and convert everybody to our reading of that great fiction work: "The Bibble."
Ok, Wonkers. The parties just completed oral arguments before SCOTUS after about 1 hour and 40 minutes (initially scheduled for 1 hour).
I thought the Solicitor General did an excellent job on the issue of standing. Attorney for the respondent plaintiffs, not so much.
If I had to guess right now, I think it will be a 5-4 or possibly 6-3 decision in favor of the FDA. The 3 liberal justices were highly skeptical on the issue of standing, as was one of the male Justices, whose voice I couldn’t identify (either Roberts, Gorsuch or Kavenaugh).
In addition, Justices Barrett and Gorsuch (know!), along with Justice Jackson, seemed to reject the idea that the proper remedy for the plaintiffs’ highly speculative injuries - potentially having to treat a woman who went to a hospital Emergency Department for complications from a medication abortion - had a concrete injury that would justify the remedies sought by respondent plaintiffs, which is to roll back the use of mifepristone to 2016 regulations. Justice Barrett, in particular, noted that there were already protections in place for doctors to refuse treatment on conscience grounds.
Justice Thomas was absolutely obsessed with the Comstock Act from 1873 (IIRC), which prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs and other stuff deemed morally objectionable, which hasn’t been enforced in forever. He’s a definite no vote, as is Alito.
My feed cut out a few times, so I may have missed it. But, I WISH one of the Justices had asked the attorney for plaintiffs/respondents how treating a woman with complications from a medication abortion is somehow more traumatic than treating a woman with a regular miscarriage, or delivering a stillborn fetus. Seems like that would have been somewhat relevant to the issue of standing based on alleged psychological harm.
Anyway, that’s my take. Let’s see how the Court actually rules.
Mifepristone is also used for treating Cushings disease and uterine leiomyomas. To state that it is only an abortifacient is incorrect and the loss of this drug that can severely curtail symptoms of uterine fibroids which as many know, causes tremendous pain, is not just a tragedy but incredibly cruel. But hey! Men don’t have uteruses so who gives a shit, right?
When this hack judge agreed to hear the case and ignore real medical evidence he knew exactly what he was doing. This was totally a back room deal in the first place. Kacsmaryk was selected for a reason.
This was a kangaroo court. All part of the plan.
Ruling that the FDA was wrong in their approval process will also have far reaching effects on all drugs.
Now. Who is more powerful here? Big pharmaceutical or RWNJ or are they the same? I believe it will actually come down to that.
How many emergency room doctors have had to treat gunshot victims. Including small children with half their abdomen shot away by someone with an AR 15 in a school shooting. I imagine that is traumatic for lots of ER workers. Does that mean we can ban bullets?
I kept waiting this morning for Erin Hawley to ask what about pore old Yeehaw McWombsniffer, the custodian at a hospital who has to mop the floors outside the treatment room where those jezebelian whores are getting treated for bleeding after a medication abortion which was administered partly in a clinic but then the patient has to go home and complete the drug regimen there because Yeehaw and his womb sniffing pals pushed legislators to make all kinds of restrictions involving facilities that offer abortion services and pass laws outright banning it in some states so that women have to drive hundreds of miles to get one .... Yeah, poor old Yeehaw the custodian is the victim here, right?
Even Justice Barrett, whom I had marked for a traitor all the way, seemed skeptical. The only one who seemed to really have his heart in it when it came to victimizing patients further was Alito (quelle surprise, eh? 😂)
I really, really hope that the Court sends those assholes packing. I know they won't give up, but it would restore my faith, at least a smidgen of it, in the idea of jurisprudence.
When do they start banning vaccines? And birth control?
Was this what Mitch McConnell had in mind when his proudest moment was blocking any chance of a balanced and fair SCOTUS, by filling it with right wing perverts and drunks? Thanks Mitch.
Just a reminder, folks: if they resurrect The Comstock Act to wipe out all means, information, and paraphernalia of abortion, there also go pap tests and pelvic exams, because stirrups and speculums are used for abortions, too. God help us.
Comment on Reddit [tw r @ pe]:
"I watched the supreme court oral argument today to stop Mifepristone. Instead of screaming at the stupidity, I would like to offer my oral arguments to the supreme court on something else I find deeply concerning. If the text is in italics, I’m using arguments used before the court to block Mifepristone.
Your honors, as a retired sex crimes and homicide detective, I discovered a truly alarming pattern concerning the use of the rape drug, PDE5 inhibitors. They go by the names Cialis and Viagra and it essentially allows men who rape to gain lasting and harder erections. In 1998, the year PDE5 inhibitors were approved by the FDA, the number of rapes in this country that year was 89,411. In 2018 that number was 146,519, a 48% increase in rapes. A friend of mine knows a doctor who had to treat a man after using a rape drug. He had an erection lasting more than 3 hours. This doctor conscientiously objected to treating him, but his life was in danger and the doctor had to provide services that went against his moral integrity.
As a sex crimes detective, I handled cases made worse by the use of these drugs and sometimes the rape was entirely because of the drugs. Thousands of men and women around the country have suffered the consequences of rape due to PDE5 inhibitors. At the time this drug was approved, 90% of the FDA and those who approved the drug were men. These men had to know that approving a drug of this caliber would existentially raise the rape rate. Even knowing this, the FDA did not keep records on the number of uses of the drug that resulted in rape. It is therefore our standing that these few doctors who conscientiously object to treating these patients, that the drug should be immediately taken off the market so every man can suffer the inability to access it."
Since I was a child in the 70s, the Republicans claimed they were against judicial activism. That judges should avoid putting their personal beliefs ahead of the law.
But starting in the 1990s, the far right said "To hell with that!' and has done everything it can to load judicial activist on to the court who put their personal politics ahead of the law.
For all the whining from the right during the Warren, Burger and Rehnquist (NB: all appointed by Republicans), none of those courts came close to ignoring tens to hundreds of years of precedent at the drop of a hat. Now, the far-right justices just do whatever they and their billionaire patrons want.
Sad.
If all I have to do to get something banned by SCROTUS is hire some losers to make shit up, then it's going to be a free for all. By allowing mifepristone to be banned, it would hurt women, and it would harm an important government agency. Basically, making the FDA irrelevant. Which is also something that the right can get behind. Win, win.
> the process would have a slightly lower chance of success and an almost guaranteed chance of spending several more hours with cramping, nausea and other side effects. In other words, it would be less safe.
I think the right probably considers this a feature. They probably think that sluts who want abortions should suffer
It that reasoning is allowed to stand, I'm pretty sure another group of doctors could sue to ban guns.
“If the court does find in favor of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, this will mean, more or less, that people will more or less be able to make up their own “science” and use it to get what they want.”
Only conservatives get to win cases based on “science”.
Bringing cases based on actual science doesn’t get the same white glove treatment as the conservative fanatics “science”.
Anyone else sickened by people making completely disingenuous arguments?
Might upset an individual, so we just happen to have to stop all abortion and convert everybody to our reading of that great fiction work: "The Bibble."
isn't this the same argument as pharmacists opposed to birth control not being required to fill a bc prescription?
Ok, Wonkers. The parties just completed oral arguments before SCOTUS after about 1 hour and 40 minutes (initially scheduled for 1 hour).
I thought the Solicitor General did an excellent job on the issue of standing. Attorney for the respondent plaintiffs, not so much.
If I had to guess right now, I think it will be a 5-4 or possibly 6-3 decision in favor of the FDA. The 3 liberal justices were highly skeptical on the issue of standing, as was one of the male Justices, whose voice I couldn’t identify (either Roberts, Gorsuch or Kavenaugh).
In addition, Justices Barrett and Gorsuch (know!), along with Justice Jackson, seemed to reject the idea that the proper remedy for the plaintiffs’ highly speculative injuries - potentially having to treat a woman who went to a hospital Emergency Department for complications from a medication abortion - had a concrete injury that would justify the remedies sought by respondent plaintiffs, which is to roll back the use of mifepristone to 2016 regulations. Justice Barrett, in particular, noted that there were already protections in place for doctors to refuse treatment on conscience grounds.
Justice Thomas was absolutely obsessed with the Comstock Act from 1873 (IIRC), which prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs and other stuff deemed morally objectionable, which hasn’t been enforced in forever. He’s a definite no vote, as is Alito.
My feed cut out a few times, so I may have missed it. But, I WISH one of the Justices had asked the attorney for plaintiffs/respondents how treating a woman with complications from a medication abortion is somehow more traumatic than treating a woman with a regular miscarriage, or delivering a stillborn fetus. Seems like that would have been somewhat relevant to the issue of standing based on alleged psychological harm.
Anyway, that’s my take. Let’s see how the Court actually rules.
isn't this the same argument as pharmacists opposed to birth control not being required to fill a bc prescription?
Mifepristone is also used for treating Cushings disease and uterine leiomyomas. To state that it is only an abortifacient is incorrect and the loss of this drug that can severely curtail symptoms of uterine fibroids which as many know, causes tremendous pain, is not just a tragedy but incredibly cruel. But hey! Men don’t have uteruses so who gives a shit, right?
When this hack judge agreed to hear the case and ignore real medical evidence he knew exactly what he was doing. This was totally a back room deal in the first place. Kacsmaryk was selected for a reason.
This was a kangaroo court. All part of the plan.
Ruling that the FDA was wrong in their approval process will also have far reaching effects on all drugs.
Now. Who is more powerful here? Big pharmaceutical or RWNJ or are they the same? I believe it will actually come down to that.
I wonder if SCOTUS now feels so burned by their Dobbs decision that they’ll go the opposite way this time.
I also wonder this: don’t the plaintiffs have to prove some kind of injury to have standing? Asking because I do not know.
How many emergency room doctors have had to treat gunshot victims. Including small children with half their abdomen shot away by someone with an AR 15 in a school shooting. I imagine that is traumatic for lots of ER workers. Does that mean we can ban bullets?