The justices also denied review in the underlying challenge to the FDA's 2000 approval of mifepristone — meaning the drug will remain available going forward.
These mifepristone cases are still over a preliminary injunction, right? Meaning that even if FDA/Danco prevail here, they still have to go through a trial on the merits before Kacsmaryk?
Since the 2000 FDA approval is for all intents and purposes locked in, does that foreclose any reliance on the Comstock Act? (Asking for a friend :-).)
Can someone explain how the plaintiffs in the case have standing, since they’ve never had to care for a botched mifepristone abortion? I remember reading that the plaintiffs would also be irreparably harmed because they wouldn’t have the joy of caring for pregnant women and delivering babies. That stance is just creepy and weird. Given that mifepristone is also used to help resolve miscarriages, they want to deny women essential care.
Is there any work Danco and the FDA can do now, in the background, to ensure telehealth/pills by mail and later gestational limits are re-approved as quickly as possible jn the event the 2016 and 2020 approvals are rolled back by the Court?
In my dream of dreams SCOTUS tells the 5th Circuit to stop finding standing based on vibes.
typo: approvaled
isn't this going to boil down to how much deference to give administrative decisions by an agency?
That could bode ill given these Extremes.
These mifepristone cases are still over a preliminary injunction, right? Meaning that even if FDA/Danco prevail here, they still have to go through a trial on the merits before Kacsmaryk?
Since the 2000 FDA approval is for all intents and purposes locked in, does that foreclose any reliance on the Comstock Act? (Asking for a friend :-).)
Can someone explain how the plaintiffs in the case have standing, since they’ve never had to care for a botched mifepristone abortion? I remember reading that the plaintiffs would also be irreparably harmed because they wouldn’t have the joy of caring for pregnant women and delivering babies. That stance is just creepy and weird. Given that mifepristone is also used to help resolve miscarriages, they want to deny women essential care.
This is the case that had that weird jurisdictional dance at the 5th circuit, right? Or was that a different absurd Kacsmaryk opinion?
Is there any work Danco and the FDA can do now, in the background, to ensure telehealth/pills by mail and later gestational limits are re-approved as quickly as possible jn the event the 2016 and 2020 approvals are rolled back by the Court?
I can't imagine this ending horrifically.