The district court's order will remain on hold through 11:59 p.m. ET Wednesday, April 19, under Alito’s order. Expect another Supreme Court ruling in the mifepristone case before then.
I have a question: The Kacsmaryk order also clearly creates fetal personhood, referring specifically throughout to fetuses as humans and communicating specifically that a person's age begins at conception: "The drugs were limited to women and girls with unborn children aged seven-weeks gestation or younger."
Are we all now 9 months older than it says on our drivers' licenses? Even if there is a stay or reversal on the FDA language, doesn't this order completely change what it means to be a person?
Brilliantly written brief by the DOJ. Makes me proud of my profession, despite the clowns in the courts below.
I'm hopeful SCOTUS will put a stop to this farce, despite it being about abortion, because they won't stand for the totally-unlimited standing nonsense.
In any sane world, after briefing by the Alliance for Hypocritical Physicians, the Supremes would decide sua sponte on the merits of the standing issue and send the case back for dismissal till a woman actually hurt by mifepristone can be found to bring the suit. How many of those are to be found in that little corner of Texas, I wonder. I can see the ads in the local papers now: Wanted....
But at least I hope whatever comes down gives a HINT about what the court thinks on the standing issue.
As a resident of Washington (though the only family members with a remote interest in mifepristone are my grandchildren) I'm much interested in use by judge Katzenjamer of a nationwide injunction. I know they have been used, but at least in the 9th Circuit they are limited to "emergency" situations. Can the 9th Circuit simply rule that a nationwide injunction is void as to the 17 states covered by the Washington decision. This seems to me to be more than just a "conflict between the circuits" on the validity or non-validity of the FDA approval. Does the FDA have the POWER to stop the distribution per the latest FDA approvals in those 17 states? Can the manufacturer simply ship the drug to the states under the already enjoined complete ban on them, and if so, who exactly can stop the sale by pharmacies of the drugs without the original rules?
I've heard that several states have already ordered a supply of mifepristone. What exactly will happen if SCROTUS declines to lift the injunction fully and a pharmacy in WA choses to sell it with just a prescription? Who will go after the pharmacy? Does Texas have jurisdiction over a purely local pharmacy? Can the FDA go after the pharmacy when it has been ordered to use the current rules?
Under Dobbs a state itself can ban the use of mifepristone and probably already has. Interestingly a lot of those laws are only against the provider, not the woman herself. But what happens if a local WA doctor writes a prescription for Texas Woman X, she give me her best friend a power of attorney to fill that prescription, and I then mail Texas Woman the pills. If the only impediment to this is the Comstock Act, can state prosecutors come after me, who was last in Texas decades ago? And won't the US Attorneys in Texas have to a) find Texas woman and prove she took it b) find me (Texas Woman has a 5th Amendment Right to refuse to name me, right?) and then do what? Prosecute a 79 year old grandma? Do you think the DOJ in Texas will spend much time investigating the issue?
I am aware that the Comstock act has been interpreted to cover illegal abortion drugs. Some of the anti-abortion laws that exempt the woman herself from prosecution seem to me to make PROVIDING an abortion illegal but not actually HAVING one. So how is legally sending a drug to such a woman come under the heading of providing something that as to HER isn't illegal? (Gotta admit I've only noticed this "woman is exempt" rule in a few places).
I guess we'll know in the next few days. Per Alito, till Wednesday.
I am not optimistic that the Supreme Court, given its current makeup, will do the right thing and completely stay Judge Kacsmaryk's legally-ridiculous decision.
The filing, aside from its brilliant BS-dissolving argument, is remarkable for being set in Courier 10 font. Don’t see that often.
I have a question: The Kacsmaryk order also clearly creates fetal personhood, referring specifically throughout to fetuses as humans and communicating specifically that a person's age begins at conception: "The drugs were limited to women and girls with unborn children aged seven-weeks gestation or younger."
Are we all now 9 months older than it says on our drivers' licenses? Even if there is a stay or reversal on the FDA language, doesn't this order completely change what it means to be a person?
Brilliantly written brief by the DOJ. Makes me proud of my profession, despite the clowns in the courts below.
I'm hopeful SCOTUS will put a stop to this farce, despite it being about abortion, because they won't stand for the totally-unlimited standing nonsense.
In any sane world, after briefing by the Alliance for Hypocritical Physicians, the Supremes would decide sua sponte on the merits of the standing issue and send the case back for dismissal till a woman actually hurt by mifepristone can be found to bring the suit. How many of those are to be found in that little corner of Texas, I wonder. I can see the ads in the local papers now: Wanted....
But at least I hope whatever comes down gives a HINT about what the court thinks on the standing issue.
As a resident of Washington (though the only family members with a remote interest in mifepristone are my grandchildren) I'm much interested in use by judge Katzenjamer of a nationwide injunction. I know they have been used, but at least in the 9th Circuit they are limited to "emergency" situations. Can the 9th Circuit simply rule that a nationwide injunction is void as to the 17 states covered by the Washington decision. This seems to me to be more than just a "conflict between the circuits" on the validity or non-validity of the FDA approval. Does the FDA have the POWER to stop the distribution per the latest FDA approvals in those 17 states? Can the manufacturer simply ship the drug to the states under the already enjoined complete ban on them, and if so, who exactly can stop the sale by pharmacies of the drugs without the original rules?
I've heard that several states have already ordered a supply of mifepristone. What exactly will happen if SCROTUS declines to lift the injunction fully and a pharmacy in WA choses to sell it with just a prescription? Who will go after the pharmacy? Does Texas have jurisdiction over a purely local pharmacy? Can the FDA go after the pharmacy when it has been ordered to use the current rules?
Under Dobbs a state itself can ban the use of mifepristone and probably already has. Interestingly a lot of those laws are only against the provider, not the woman herself. But what happens if a local WA doctor writes a prescription for Texas Woman X, she give me her best friend a power of attorney to fill that prescription, and I then mail Texas Woman the pills. If the only impediment to this is the Comstock Act, can state prosecutors come after me, who was last in Texas decades ago? And won't the US Attorneys in Texas have to a) find Texas woman and prove she took it b) find me (Texas Woman has a 5th Amendment Right to refuse to name me, right?) and then do what? Prosecute a 79 year old grandma? Do you think the DOJ in Texas will spend much time investigating the issue?
I am aware that the Comstock act has been interpreted to cover illegal abortion drugs. Some of the anti-abortion laws that exempt the woman herself from prosecution seem to me to make PROVIDING an abortion illegal but not actually HAVING one. So how is legally sending a drug to such a woman come under the heading of providing something that as to HER isn't illegal? (Gotta admit I've only noticed this "woman is exempt" rule in a few places).
I guess we'll know in the next few days. Per Alito, till Wednesday.
I am not optimistic that the Supreme Court, given its current makeup, will do the right thing and completely stay Judge Kacsmaryk's legally-ridiculous decision.