comment: >
  
  
  SCOTUS can't do shit if enough people just decide to ignore them.
  
  This is absolutely correct.
  Which means that the GOP can use the same logic to ignore previous Supreme Court rulings and ban gay marriage.  Obamacare?  The GOP can just decide that they're not going to offer it in their states.  Watch as states like Wyoming or West Virginia start completely ignoring anything resembling federal regulations on climate change.   And if you think voting rights issues are bad now, imagine what the ultra-right GOP led governments start doing in ruby-red states.  
  
  The GOP is getting what they want and the Dems are being chicken shit and stupid.
  
  So your suggestion to this is for Democrats to just remove what few blockades are left and make their job even easier?  Because that worked so well the last time the Democrats tried pulling that stunt.......oh, wait.  The last time we pulled that stunt, it led to the Supreme Court and federal court system being packed with Trump appointees who created the exact situation we're in now.  
  But hey, let's go for more of that.  What could possibly go wrong?
context: How can one state judge take away access from the whole fn country? This shouldn't be possible. Can we please sell Texas to Mexico now? >
  
  They’re challenging the FDA approval of the drug. Without that, it’s not legal to sell in the US. >
  
  Can someone please explain how in the fuck that is legal? I am getting my PhD in sociology but I have worked for public health departments and I am working on analyzing big hospital databases and examining drug studies. I legitimately don’t understand how someone with out ANY medical understanding can challenge something as complicated as an FDA approval. I think there have been cases where the fda fucked up but it’s nothing like what is being suggested. >
  
  This is America where you can sue anybody for anything.  Reactionary Republican judges is why this approach is successful. >
  
  One judge should not be able to ban an FDA approved medication. >
  
  An FDA approved drug with a couple decades of good efficacy and safety data no less. >
  
  Used for much more than abortions. Helped me shed my miscarriage (empty egg sack) after VASECTOMY... One of my friends almost died from a missed miscarriage, so I was glad to be able to take it. It was terrible, but at least  my husband was caring for our young children. Can't imagine having to have waited for it to happen "naturally". >
  
  What's wild is that all mifepristone does is tell your body to stop maintaining the uterus lining, which is exactly the same thing that happens in a "natural" miscarriage. In fact, it's something that happens to roughly half of all pregnancies anyway. >
  
  I am aware. I still wish I would have gotten a D&C instead.... >
  
  
  But now, a coalition led by the anti-abortion rights group Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas asking a judge to reverse that approval.
  
  Doesn’t it strike anyone how Orwellian it is, that a group with “freedom” in its name seeks to control and dictate medical access to over 50% of the US population? >
  
  It’s done on purpose. Make the name confusingly close to another, well respected org to scam people, or make the name the exact opposite of what they stand for. >
  
  See: National Socialists >
  
  This ruling could pull mifepristone off the market. This is commonly known as the "abortion pill" (though it is also used for treating Cushing's Disease).
  Before the fall of Roe, medication abortions accounted for 54% of all abortions. I can't find data yet for after (as it has only been a little over 6 months), but I feel confident that number is considerably higher now.
  While surgical abortions will still be available in some states, this will increase demand on already overloaded clinics to the point that they will be functionally unavailable. This decision will rapidly accelerate the number of women dying, and we will see an explosion of poverty, crime, child abuse and homelessness as more people unable to afford children are forced to have them. >
  
  Illinois just passed a law protecting doctors for prescribing mifepristone to out of state patients. This will be moot now. That judge is a rabid forced birther. >
  
  This could actually pull mifepristone off the market. They're going after the FDA approval itself. There would be nothing to prescribe. >
  
  If this happens, and it’s no longer medically approved by the FDA, and also not a controlled substance - what’s going to prevent websites selling it/giving it to whoever they want? For example, you can go to any number of websites and buy “research chemicals”, etc. I know for a fact that I’ve seen RU486. Another half baked idea from these donkeys.
  Or what’s going to stop a legal state from shipping to a red state hell hole? Wouldn’t that be protected by the 10th amendment and the Postal Clause? It doesn’t need to be approved by the FDA. Cannabis isn’t approved by the FDA for any medical use, either. >
  
  Texas conservative politicians inflict so much needless pain and suffering, in their own state and beyond.  smh >
  
  It kind of sometimes makes me rethink whether people making decisions like this or legislation designed to target an “out” group should have no accountability besides potentially losing a future election. Lately, a lot of stuff going on are blatant civil rights violations but people are doing them anyway and let the slow wheels of the courts figure it out. >
  
  It's the Trump way.  Keep criming until someone stops you, betting that they won't.  When caught, cry witch hunt and tie things up in the courts. >
  
  Regardless of outcome Biden should tell FDA not to pull it. Make the court' enforce it's decision. Show some fucking balls. >
  
  Be careful of what you wish for.
  Right now, there's at least some semblance of normalcy left as both sides still believe in abiding by the word of the court.  The minute you go down the path of "I see you have made your decision, now let's see you enforce it.", you set a precedent that the GOP are absolutely going to pounce on.   Good luck enforcing things like gay marriage or civil rights when GOP-led state governments start saying "Make me."  
  Going down this route would be absolutely awful for everybody involved.  We'd lose far more than we'd gain, and court rulings in general would become little more than mere suggestions that can be safely ignored. >
  
  
  both sides still believe in abiding by the word of the court.
  
  The GOP is getting what they want and the Dems are being chicken shit and stupid.
  "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." SCOTUS can't do shit if enough people just decide to ignore them. No one's gonna do shit if pharma companies decide to keep making and selling the medication. They make too many other things to shut them down. Or they can go 100% fascist and straight take them over as the government. Fines will only result in other costs to the consumer going up. >
  
  
  SCOTUS can't do shit if enough people just decide to ignore them.
  
  This is absolutely correct.
  Which means that the GOP can use the same logic to ignore previous Supreme Court rulings and ban gay marriage.  Obamacare?  The GOP can just decide that they're not going to offer it in their states.  Watch as states like Wyoming or West Virginia start completely ignoring anything resembling federal regulations on climate change.   And if you think voting rights issues are bad now, imagine what the ultra-right GOP led governments start doing in ruby-red states.  
  
  The GOP is getting what they want and the Dems are being chicken shit and stupid.
  
  So your suggestion to this is for Democrats to just remove what few blockades are left and make their job even easier?  Because that worked so well the last time the Democrats tried pulling that stunt.......oh, wait.  The last time we pulled that stunt, it led to the Supreme Court and federal court system being packed with Trump appointees who created the exact situation we're in now.  
  But hey, let's go for more of that.  What could possibly go wrong? >
  
  
  the last time the Democrats tried pulling that stunt
  
  what stunt? >
  
  Eliminating a rule they don't like in order to pass something.  
  The Dems did that with Supreme Court judges and we ended up with 3 Trump appointees mucking up the works for the next few decades as a result. >
  
  No.  That was Republicans who lowered the threshold for SCOTUS to a simple majority.
  Reid and the democrats lowered the threshold for most presidential appointments in 2013 because Republicans broke precedent and were voting no on every nominee.  McConnell says this is the reason they lowered the threshold for the SCOTUS, but we all know they would have lowered it anyway and cited some other dubious reason.  Remember, they said that 1 year was too close to an election to vote on Obama's nominee, and then four years later did it a couple weeks before an election. >
  
  This is going to make Prohibition look like kindergarten.
  Women will not go back.  The Right can either realize it or they can fight forever against the fact that women have escaped their Iron Age idiocy. >
  
  They will forever fight against women. >
  
  51% of the world.  I really wish they would figure that out.  Even if only 25% of men are human beings, together we can drive these vermin into the sea without breaking a sweat. >
  
  If you or anyone you care about is a woman of childbearing age then stock up now on this potentially life saving medicine. >
  
  No that will make it unavailable to people who need it for other conditions. I went without medication for my lupus when people did that for covid. Obviously this is very different because this actually treats both cushings and can cause abortions. Making people panic isn’t the right choice either. >
  
  Telling people to prepare is the opposite of telling them to panic.
  And I am sorry that this is going to affect you negatively, but I am not going to abandon all of the women I care about.   Direct your anger at the people taking away your health care instead of the people trying to protect those they love. >
  
  Am I missing something with the article? On what grounds is this being challenged? You can disagree (illogically/ideologically) on policy, and a judge can just change the policy? >
  
  I think they're saying the FDA approved it in 2000 when you could only get it after an in-person doctor visit.  But now, with the laws changed since then, women can get it without a doctor's visit, like through telemedicine and the mail.  And that violates Texas' law banning abortions, including chemical ones.  Why that would yank FDA approval is not clear to me, except these reactionary judges will make up a reason. >
  
  
  women can get it without a doctor's visit, like through telemedicine and the mail.
  
  The thing is that telemedicine is a doctor's (or approved provider) visit, just not in person. A patient getting a prescription still has to go through a health provider--that hasn't changed at all. What has changed is that now, like most (all?) other drugs, this one can be prescribed after a virtual consultation.
  It's an inane argument, but a sign of the times that this judge might actually entertain it. >
  
  It will probably get appealed, but the fact that an activist judge can do this is why the system is so broken. >
  
  To the 5th district, which will uphold it, and then to SCOTUS, and we know what happens next. >
  
  So... Anyone got tips on how to start a smuggling network? >
  
  Work with organizations that have been doing things related to abortion for a while now? There's a whole slew that help women. >
  
  How can one state judge take away access from the whole fn country? This shouldn't be possible. Can we please sell Texas to Mexico now? >
  
  They’re challenging the FDA approval of the drug. Without that, it’s not legal to sell in the US. >
  
  Can someone please explain how in the fuck that is legal? I am getting my PhD in sociology but I have worked for public health departments and I am working on analyzing big hospital databases and examining drug studies. I legitimately don’t understand how someone with out ANY medical understanding can challenge something as complicated as an FDA approval. I think there have been cases where the fda fucked up but it’s nothing like what is being suggested. >
  
  This is America where you can sue anybody for anything.  Reactionary Republican judges is why this approach is successful. >
  
  One judge should not be able to ban an FDA approved medication. >
  
  An FDA approved drug with a couple decades of good efficacy and safety data no less. >
  
  Used for much more than abortions. Helped me shed my miscarriage (empty egg sack) after VASECTOMY... One of my friends almost died from a missed miscarriage, so I was glad to be able to take it. It was terrible, but at least  my husband was caring for our young children. Can't imagine having to have waited for it to happen "naturally". >
  
  What's wild is that all mifepristone does is tell your body to stop maintaining the uterus lining, which is exactly the same thing that happens in a "natural" miscarriage. In fact, it's something that happens to roughly half of all pregnancies anyway. >
  
  I am aware. I still wish I would have gotten a D&C instead.... >
  
  
  But now, a coalition led by the anti-abortion rights group Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas asking a judge to reverse that approval.
  
  Doesn’t it strike anyone how Orwellian it is, that a group with “freedom” in its name seeks to control and dictate medical access to over 50% of the US population? >
  
  It’s done on purpose. Make the name confusingly close to another, well respected org to scam people, or make the name the exact opposite of what they stand for. >
  
  See: National Socialists >
  
  This ruling could pull mifepristone off the market. This is commonly known as the "abortion pill" (though it is also used for treating Cushing's Disease).
  Before the fall of Roe, medication abortions accounted for 54% of all abortions. I can't find data yet for after (as it has only been a little over 6 months), but I feel confident that number is considerably higher now.
  While surgical abortions will still be available in some states, this will increase demand on already overloaded clinics to the point that they will be functionally unavailable. This decision will rapidly accelerate the number of women dying, and we will see an explosion of poverty, crime, child abuse and homelessness as more people unable to afford children are forced to have them. >
  
  Illinois just passed a law protecting doctors for prescribing mifepristone to out of state patients. This will be moot now. That judge is a rabid forced birther. >
  
  This could actually pull mifepristone off the market. They're going after the FDA approval itself. There would be nothing to prescribe. >
  
  If this happens, and it’s no longer medically approved by the FDA, and also not a controlled substance - what’s going to prevent websites selling it/giving it to whoever they want? For example, you can go to any number of websites and buy “research chemicals”, etc. I know for a fact that I’ve seen RU486. Another half baked idea from these donkeys.
  Or what’s going to stop a legal state from shipping to a red state hell hole? Wouldn’t that be protected by the 10th amendment and the Postal Clause? It doesn’t need to be approved by the FDA. Cannabis isn’t approved by the FDA for any medical use, either. >
  
  Texas conservative politicians inflict so much needless pain and suffering, in their own state and beyond.  smh >
  
  It kind of sometimes makes me rethink whether people making decisions like this or legislation designed to target an “out” group should have no accountability besides potentially losing a future election. Lately, a lot of stuff going on are blatant civil rights violations but people are doing them anyway and let the slow wheels of the courts figure it out. >
  
  It's the Trump way.  Keep criming until someone stops you, betting that they won't.  When caught, cry witch hunt and tie things up in the courts. >
  
  Regardless of outcome Biden should tell FDA not to pull it. Make the court' enforce it's decision. Show some fucking balls. >
  
  Be careful of what you wish for.
  Right now, there's at least some semblance of normalcy left as both sides still believe in abiding by the word of the court.  The minute you go down the path of "I see you have made your decision, now let's see you enforce it.", you set a precedent that the GOP are absolutely going to pounce on.   Good luck enforcing things like gay marriage or civil rights when GOP-led state governments start saying "Make me."  
  Going down this route would be absolutely awful for everybody involved.  We'd lose far more than we'd gain, and court rulings in general would become little more than mere suggestions that can be safely ignored. >
  
  
  both sides still believe in abiding by the word of the court.
  
  The GOP is getting what they want and the Dems are being chicken shit and stupid.
  "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." SCOTUS can't do shit if enough people just decide to ignore them. No one's gonna do shit if pharma companies decide to keep making and selling the medication. They make too many other things to shut them down. Or they can go 100% fascist and straight take them over as the government. Fines will only result in other costs to the consumer going up.