Just released about an hour ago, and I don’t see any thread on it?
The judge hled that the EPA made a mistake 23 years ago and shouldn’t have approved mifepristone as safe for medical abortions.
Same judge who struck down parts of Affordable Care Act several years ago.
But a federal District Court judge in Washington state has upheld the FDA and directed that the pill can still be used:
ISTM the US judicial system has become a process of continually throwing shit at the wall until you find a judge that lets it stick.
Just saw your second post.
Seems a guaranteed trip to the US Supreme Court. Not confident in them at all.
No. Perhaps Thomas will be away on an all expense paid fun trip.
Boy, this federal judge shopping is really ugly shit.
I guess I was silly for feeling good about the failure of conservative school board candidates in my area! 
Oregon Health Authority announced that mifepristone and abortion will remain legal in the state.
For once, the Soviet of Washington is ahead of the curve:
Washington state officials have stocked up on a key abortion drug in preparation for the possibility that it could become much more difficult to access nationwide, pending the outcome of a federal lawsuit brought by anti-abortion-rights groups.
Gov. Jay Inslee, a Democrat, says he ordered the Washington Department of Corrections to use its pharmacy license to buy 30,000 doses of mifepristone, an estimated three-year supply for patients in Washington state. The pills were received on March 31.
Inslee says the University of Washington has obtained an additional 10,000 doses, or about enough for a fourth year.
Noting that Washington is the first state to take such an action, Inslee called the purchase “an insurance policy” in case the drug becomes unavailable.
It’s a thing:
https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/03/politics/justice-department-texas-judge-shopping/index.html
Or…
Or…
But if FDA approval is blocked, can it still be distributed?
I don’t see this surviving a standing challenge. The plaintiff’s assertion is that they have standing to sue on behalf of women who regret having medicinal abortions because they’re too embarrassed to file suit on their own, which is downright patronizing and laughable.
Since we already threw justified snark at Mr. Thomas, I’ll go further and point out that one of the reasons they do judge shopping and @Whack-a-Mole’s throwing shit at a wall, I’ll just go ahead and say it.
As long as there are zero consequences for egregiously tortuous manipulations of law and interpretation for either attorneys or judges, it’s the best game in town. The lawyers get rich, the judges suffer nothing (as long as they have “close personal friends” who are always happy to help them have a good time), and the taxpayers get screwed paying for endless politically motivated litigation.
The number of lawyers that should have gotten disbarred for lawsuits in Trump’s behalf but instead skated by with censure at best is terrifying. The fact that Loose Canon only got a sick burn or three, similarly.
But since a lot of lawyers want to be judges one day, and almost all love some money, they do not WANT to police themselves well. And just like our actual police, since it’s pretty much all internal controls, it’s very likely hopelessly, unrecoverably corrupt.
To the idiot judge in Texas:
I want to see your medical degree.
And I have not selected you to be my personal physician, my healthcare management is none of YOUR Goddamned business.
~VOW
If the Texas judge prevails, at least temporarily, the next step I foresee is for Republicans to make mailing certain drugs illegal, followed by jail time for anyone who advises on how to do that. Shades of Comstock, no?
While that might not stop drugs from being delivered from outside sources, it will undoubtedly slow it down, and make the ordering of it more risky. No good can come of this.
First stop is 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Second stop is the US Supreme Court. Do you really feel confident in either of those?
I’m confident that the Supreme Court isn’t going to throw out the entire concept of standing in order to achieve an ideological win, yes. You’ll note that all of Loser Donald’s various attempts to overthrow the election in the courts were dismissed for lack of standing.
I doubt the right-wing Supremes care whether Donald’s in office or not, now that he’s served his purpose by putting them in office. But I think that a number of them really do care about abortion.
However, we can hope. Wouldn’t upholding this substitute the opinions of any federal judge in the nation, no matter how ignorant of medicine, about any type of medication whatsoever including those having nothing to do with abortion, for the rulings of the FDA?
Depends on how realistic the legal fig leaf the plaintiffs are using is.
An argument that FDA exceeded its authority or committed a procedural violation of it’s own controlling regs in approving medicine X probably has some chance of succeeding at least at the court of first impression, assuming it’s remotely true.
A challenge that simply says “Drug X is playing god and that offends my religious sensibilities” requires a much greater amount of judicial misconduct to find in favor of.
Do we now have a bunch of judges around the USA who will rise (sink?) to that level of judicial misconduct? Probably. We’re certainly going to start finding out.
They can simply refuse to hear the case.
I certainly hope you are right, but I have no confidence in the courts doing the right thing.
I don’t believe they can, as there are now two contradictory rulings from different districts.
But these decisions go on appeal to the Circuit courts. Have to wait and see what happens in those two courts.