Decades of experience and dozens of studies would disagree with the judge, but one suspects it was not really about a scientific weighing of evidence.
I’m confused about whether the conflicting ruling from the state of Washington affects only the 17 states that sued to stop the nut job Texas judge’s ruling or if it would count for the whole country.
I’m just sick about this. It’s disgusting. And on top of that, now some random nut-job judge has more say than the FDA about whether the public can have access to certain medications.
So, out of curiosity, since any random judge can override FDA and similar advice, can we use this same sort of precedent to fully legalize MJ as an example? Speaking of things that were criminalized through the actions of (biased) government fiat rather than a scientific evaluation?
I mean in the sense of just throwing out all those rules, because, well, reasons, as this judge did, rather than local or state wide decriminalization.
Not really serious, but pointing out that we have plenty of posters (and people in general) finding that the emotional damage from having their pot, kratom, or what have you is substantial, and that’s good enough to toss out law and regulation in this judge’s book.
On the Supreme Court we have Thomas and Alito, who are guaranteed to always do the wrong thing, and Amy Coney Barrett, whose views against abortion apparently come from God himself. That’s three anti-abortion nutters right there, and Neil Gorsuch is another religious nutter, making four. Brett Kavanaugh was the fifth vote to overturn Roe v Wade, so if this outfit is corrupt enough to take this case and rule on strictly ideological grounds, it’s not hard to see a 5-4 vote to ban the abortion pill, with Roberts probably taking the high road.
But who knows. Having now done the heavy lifting of demolishing Roe v Wade, they may want to occasionally pretend to have some integrity. Not Thomas, of course, he’s completely mired in the depths of corruption, but even Alito likes to pretend that his rulings are rationally grounded.
Since the FDA would be in charge of enforcing the ban on mifepristone, could they just exercise their prosecutorial discretion and leave it as is?
If that seems absurd, well, it’s absurd that a single judge can ban a medication that has been approved by thousands of scientists and medical professionals of the FDA.
Drug companies think trials cost many millions of dollars and being able to overturn expensive research on a whim is a bit of a dangerous precedent…
That’s a basis to argue for them to hear a case, but it does not require them to hear a case.
Theocracy wins over Science once again.
I wonder when the American Taliban are going to force women into long dresses and scarves on their heads.
Drug companies also spend millions of dollars lobbying government and have many legislators on both sides of the aisles in their pockets. It’s not an accident that the US has more pharma-friendly drug patent and pricing rules than the rest of the industrialized world.
Not necessarily. I belong to a FB group called Secular Pro-Life, and there are currently 44K followers of it (many of whom are women). There are many of us out there who are pro-life for non-religious reasons.
And there’s many of us who are pro-choice for religious reasons.
But anyway, the factual basis for this ruling is very poor.
Sure. And there are many Log Cabin Republicans too. And poor people who vote for politicians who give tax breaks to rich people. What a world!
You don’t have to be religious to want women to be punished for having sex.
Any chance he could face legal trouble for practicing medicine without a license?
I’m not 100% confident, but I’d put my money behind the judge’s decision getting overturned by the supreme court. If the court had as its sole interest, the elimination of abortion, they would have written a Dobbs stating that an unborn child is protected under the constitution, full stop, and be done with it. Instead thy chose the (somewhat) more legally defensible route of rejecting precedent and taking an uber-prescritpivist stance to the constitution as taught by the Federalist Society. Which is why in my opinion they will reject this case.
The legal reasoning behind this case is ludicrous and basically boils down to his believing that he knows better than the scientists and clinicians at the FDA what is safe, and doing so with language that screams “I AM BIASED, AND MADE THIS DECISION SOLELY ON MY PERSONAL PARTISAN BELIEF”.
If this decision were to stand then basically it would mean that any judge with an axe to grind could say given reduction of regulations by a government agency at any time in the past was wrongly decided and instantly reinstate it. The one thing that the Federalist society hates even more than abortion and gay rights is government regulation. There is no way that they would open up such a can of worms.
My hope is that the appeal decision is written in such a way that Kacsmaryk gets personally smacked down hard, similarly to the way that Cannon got smacked down in the appeal of her decision on Trump.
I thought fetal personhood was a part of this judge’s opinion? Could SCOTUS take it up, say that the medical ruling by a judge is wrong, but he’s right on the personhood part and ban all abortions?
And this illustrates what I don’t understand. So can any judge, if an issue is brought in front of him/her, just decide whatever, even if it is factually wrong, and contrary to the science and the truth?
Just imagine the outcry if a random federal judge revoked FDA approval for Viagra.
My thought was to bring this suit if necessary.
What exactly was the legal argument the plaintiff used in this case? Did they claim the FDA committed some procedural violation when they approved the drug? Or did they just claim they didn’t believe the drug is safe, even though the FDA said it was? If it’s the former, could the FDA just go through the approval process again, making sure to do everything by the book this time around?