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."
What about heart attacks? I thought that heart attacks had been linked to the use of these drugs in some cases. So to prevent future heart attacks in men, this class of drug should be taken off the market.
(Somehow, I don't think that the majority of the court would give a rat's ass about rape.)
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”.
I think sales of hydroxychloroquine went through the roof after the fat, orange, menace said it cured COVID. Instead of scientists just have a bunch of politicians and lobbyists decide what medications people should take--the ones they all have stock in.
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."
My thought is roughly, "Don't lie to me, straight to my face. You're doing so much damage, and lying straight to my face is just intolerable ... you sacks of christo-fascist shit.
(Shall I tell you how I really feel? LOL? If I had any laughter left in me.)
"Women are 85% more likely to have breast cancer if they have an abortion". They gave us their "evidence" at one point. There was a study in China in 1977 of women with breast cancer. 85% of them had had an abortion at some point in their lives.
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.
De nada. I’m a retired litigator with too much time on her hands. I prefer to read court filings and listen to oral arguments, rather than relying on 3rd-party interpretations.
I’m basically the law ‘splaining equivalent of Michael Mora watching the Sunday news shows. 😁
"Breaking news" alert from the Washington Post just now: "Supreme Court seems unlikely to restrict access to the widely used abortion pill mifepristone."
I haven't been following, but why start being sensible now?
Sensible? Big Pharma weighed in behind the scenes. If someone can get an approved drug banned with junk science, they soon won't have enough yachts to bribe Clarence Thomas.
I only listened to the oral arguments, so I haven’t seen what the pundits or so-called “journalists” have to say. But that’s my take as well.
It’s a shitty case, with shitty decisions by the trial judge MattyK, and a slightly less shitty but still legally and factually untenable decision by the 5th Circuit.
SCOTUS might be heavily populated by RWNJs, but even some of them have their limits.
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.
They threw out the principle of "standing" when they took up the case of the person who was thinking about becoming a web designer who might have to work on things they don't like.
Isn't it sad that non-lawyers can now understand our "Supreme Court's" flawed arguments?
I guess "standing" = "conservative" or "christian."
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?
Silly. Of course not! Bullets don’t kill people. People kill people! Sheesh the next thing you know we’d all have to turn in our steak knives and gnaw on meat. Are you an animal!!? /s
They can have my steak knife when they pry it from my warm au-jus covered hands (while I sleep because, you know, I'm full and I probably have the meat-sweats)!
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.
Actually any kind of item determined as porn too wouldn't it? So there goes ball gags, butt plugs, dildoes, magazines and PornHub...?
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."
What about heart attacks? I thought that heart attacks had been linked to the use of these drugs in some cases. So to prevent future heart attacks in men, this class of drug should be taken off the market.
(Somehow, I don't think that the majority of the court would give a rat's ass about rape.)
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.
Next thing we know Coke will have actual cocaine in it like the old days.
We wish.
> 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
Everything the right does is to inflict suffering and/or steal money.
Name one thing that isn't.
I got bupkis
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”.
I think sales of hydroxychloroquine went through the roof after the fat, orange, menace said it cured COVID. Instead of scientists just have a bunch of politicians and lobbyists decide what medications people should take--the ones they all have stock in.
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."
The number of bogus statistics I hear from that side every Saturday ....
My thought is roughly, "Don't lie to me, straight to my face. You're doing so much damage, and lying straight to my face is just intolerable ... you sacks of christo-fascist shit.
(Shall I tell you how I really feel? LOL? If I had any laughter left in me.)
"Women are 85% more likely to have breast cancer if they have an abortion". They gave us their "evidence" at one point. There was a study in China in 1977 of women with breast cancer. 85% of them had had an abortion at some point in their lives.
Back when you were allowed only one child, and most of them wanted a son, so...
isn't this the same argument as pharmacists opposed to birth control not being required to fill a bc prescription?
It's much more disingenuous, and dangerous, than that.
Regardless of one's opinion on the subject, the pharmacist is operating from their own moral perspective in a somewhat limited fashion.
This is just lying about shit, denying science, and trying to overturn basic aspects of modern administrative law.
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.
I love me some SG prelager.
Thanks for listening to it so we don't have to.
De nada. I’m a retired litigator with too much time on her hands. I prefer to read court filings and listen to oral arguments, rather than relying on 3rd-party interpretations.
I’m basically the law ‘splaining equivalent of Michael Mora watching the Sunday news shows. 😁
Well I appreciate not having to watch the Sunday news shows, also too
"Breaking news" alert from the Washington Post just now: "Supreme Court seems unlikely to restrict access to the widely used abortion pill mifepristone."
I haven't been following, but why start being sensible now?
Sensible? Big Pharma weighed in behind the scenes. If someone can get an approved drug banned with junk science, they soon won't have enough yachts to bribe Clarence Thomas.
I only listened to the oral arguments, so I haven’t seen what the pundits or so-called “journalists” have to say. But that’s my take as well.
It’s a shitty case, with shitty decisions by the trial judge MattyK, and a slightly less shitty but still legally and factually untenable decision by the 5th Circuit.
SCOTUS might be heavily populated by RWNJs, but even some of them have their limits.
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.
They threw out the principle of "standing" when they took up the case of the person who was thinking about becoming a web designer who might have to work on things they don't like.
Isn't it sad that non-lawyers can now understand our "Supreme Court's" flawed arguments?
I guess "standing" = "conservative" or "christian."
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?
Silly. Of course not! Bullets don’t kill people. People kill people! Sheesh the next thing you know we’d all have to turn in our steak knives and gnaw on meat. Are you an animal!!? /s
They can have my steak knife when they pry it from my warm au-jus covered hands (while I sleep because, you know, I'm full and I probably have the meat-sweats)!