>

Since the jurisdiction is so small and only needing one judge, sounds like it should be consolidated into a larger district.
The article includes a link to the plaintiff's filing, but here is the response from the FDA.
They're effectively saying that everything about the complaint is wrong, from standing, to the scope of their complaint, to failing to meet the standards for relief, and misreporting the facts. >

yes but the judge is just going to make up his own facts first >

He's a Federalist Society Judge, it's his job to make up stuff to justify a predetermined ruling. >


When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, it promised to “return the issue of abortion to the people’s elected representatives.” In virtually every instance in which it’s been returned to the people, which has mostly happened by ballot initiative and referendum, the people have acted to protect reproductive rights. Perhaps that explains why less than a year after the fall of Roe, conservative activists are trying to put the issue of abortion access into the hands of a single man for whom no one ever voted: a federal judge in Texas named Matthew Kacsmaryk. In the coming weeks, there is a very real possibility that Kacsmaryk will single-handedly outlaw medication abortion in all 50 states, massively disrupting access to reproductive health care across the entire country. Worse, there is a substantial likelihood that higher courts—including the Supreme Court—will let him get away with it.
...
The suit was filed in the remote Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas. No, there’s no specific connection between Amarillo and abortion pills. The plaintiffs only filed there because they were guaranteed to draw a single judge: Kacsmaryk, whom Donald Trump placed on the bench in 2019. Before donning his robe, Kacsmaryk served as deputy general counsel at the far-right First Liberty Institute, where he fought LGBTQ equality, abortion, and contraception. (He once said that being transgender is a “delusion” and scorned “secular libertines” who sacrifice children to their “erotic desires.”) Since his confirmation, he has gained a reputation as perhaps the most lawless jurist in the country. >

Republicans want states rights then do stuff like this >

When they say "states rights," it's always just to cover for something else. Always. Because they get livid if a state dares to go any way but their way. >

Or if a practicing Muslim calls for "Religious Freedom"- Everything the GQP says you need to run through "The New Speak" machine- (Patten Pending) >

Don't judgments against existing law just affect that one federal district until the Supreme Court rules on it? >

If the judge rules that the FDA did something wrong in the approval process, that would impact the whole country. >

Hmmm, I guess I haven't seen a case like that. I doubt the judge would know heads from tails on what the FDA did. What could he possibly say in a legal ruling to try to invalidate their procedures and their judgment about the "abortion" pill? Is this the "morning after pill" or something else? >

I have no idea what he could say or do, but he can easily come up with something.  Remember how one random judge struck down the CDC's face mask mandate for airplanes?  It's easy for activist judges to find something that supports what they want to do. 
This is not the "morning after pill".  This is mifepristone, which actually terminates an established pregnancy.  The morning after pill (levonorgestrel) simply blocks ovulation. >

Yes, radicalism needs little logic and that's mostly a veneer for show.
thx on the drug. I had not heard of mifepristone. >

Ah yes, outlawing drugs has always led to them not being available. >

Desantis just said weed should remain illegal because of the obnoxious smell.
Cool bro so what about edibles?
The war on drugs is 100% a war on people, there is no logic being used. >

It is indeed even according to the people who started it:

The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said. "We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."

The war on drugs was only ever an excuse to attack people that challenged conservative rule. >

Over turning Roe vs Wade has so far worked against them. Here’s hoping this has even greater consequences for them.
You simply can’t keep telling the majority your going to take away all of their rights and expect it to go well for you. >

You say that like this is a game without real world consequences.   There are women that still can't get the reproductive care they need,  and you seem happy that the GOP did something that isn't working out for them and will cost them an election. >

Roe v. Wade was also incrementally chipped away, bit by bit, for the last twenty years. Jackson Women's Health Organization was the only abortion clinic in Mississippi (until Roe v. Wade closed them down), and they had to fly their staff from out of state because it's not safe to be a doctor who provides abortions in Mississippi.
Roe v. Wade being overturned means that people are actually aware of the reality on the ground and waking women up that to the fact for half the country, conservative lawmakers have already made it effectively impossible to have an abortion. >

Sounds like a good time to say, "I do not recognize the authority of the courts in this matter."
It's going to happen, and it's going to happen soon. Might as well be with this. >

That’s essentially what happened in the early days of weed legalization.
California just said “fuck you it’s legal here” and the feds would regularly raid dispensaries but never actually manage to shut anything down. >

Anything to keep rapists, wifebeaters and their guns protected under the law and in control. >

I already think of the supremes court as irrelevant. Why would I listen to some random judge? >

I can't imagine the insurance companies would be on board with this and politicians tend to please the big corporations that fund them. My bc pills are free and I've wondered why that is the case in comparison to my husband's blood pressure pills he needs to keep him from dying, but I'm assuming it's because it's a lot more expensive for them for me to have a baby than it is to give me some pills every month to prevent that. >

If the judge rules the process unlawful, then the FDA should take the step to remove approval for ALL DRUGS that followed the same process. make the activist judge feel the pains of their actions. >

They'll gleefully point to that as an example to abolish the FDA. These people want the entire regulatory state gone. They won't feel anything. >

Are these äbortion pills strictly just for abortions?  If I understand correctly, some of these pills are already widely used to handle miscarriages as well... >

It is also used for arthritis pain for a specific type of arthritis, which is devastating if it were to be outlawed for those who use it for pain. >

**Just another reason why allowing district court judges to issue nationwide injunctions is dumb. >

Defiance. >

Isn't the protocol an ulcer medication plus a high dose of the same kinds of hormones in birth control? >

Just ignore the ruling, problem solved.