After a Fifth Circuit ruling Friday that would end mailing of the mifepristone, a drugmaker asked the justices to act immediately to keep the FDA policy allowing mailing in place.
Thank you for providing current info on most vital legal issues. I always know that you’ll have trustworthy & current info. Given what is happening, it’s also frequently infuriating.
They are digging their own grave. Each shovel-full of BS, including Trump's Iran war, tariffs and unadulterated moral turpitude, helps to motivate voters to support Democrats. Hopefully, a Blue Tidal Wave is developing that will eventually demolish Project 2025 and land a big-fat tombstone on their heads.
If a state's "sovereign interest in its laws" always is more important than harm to those the laws damage, doesn't that mean that any claim that the laws are hurtful--or even unconstitutional--will never be able to be adjudicated, or at least that any lower court decision deciding the law is hurtful based on the facts it finds will always be stayed to let the state keep on hurting?
That strikes me as a total off the cuff reason for finding a state's interest is greater than plaintiffs, without citing Fact One to support it--even supposing an appeals court can just brush off a lower court finding of fact without finding it clearly erroneous.
That they're banning mifeprestone based on "Louisiana’s sovereign interest in its laws protecting the unborn and the public’s interest in not exposing women to unsafe medical procedures" is hellishly twisted logic, especially since Louisiana has by far the highest rate of maternal mortality in the country, period.
It is far, far safer to have a medication abortion than it is to give birth in Louisiana. In fact, if we don't want to expose women to unsafe medical procedures in Louisiana, we should get to the seed of the problem start giving mandatory vasectomies to men in Louisiana. That would be the absolute safest way to keep women from the deeply unsafe medical procedure that is giving birth in Louisiana.
Protect “the unborn “ at any cost to those who bear them. Then let the parents also bear the cost of poor public health, poor education, and unwanted offspring. Put it to a vote instead of acting as a theocracy.
Excellent summation. And the pharmacy companies have put forth excellent arguments.
With this SCOTUS, though? Their past decisions should support what the pharmacy companies want, including SCOTUS' own decision regarding nationwide injunctions. However, there's something completely indifferent to a valid legal system ongoing with today's SCOTUS. The hubris, the arrogance—they are bloated with their own power and their own views that in this land, only they matter.
They, the pious right, keep dangling glittering prizes before SCOTUS, don’t they? Here’s abortion, here’s gerrymandering, here’s …
Thank you for providing current info on most vital legal issues. I always know that you’ll have trustworthy & current info. Given what is happening, it’s also frequently infuriating.
They are digging their own grave. Each shovel-full of BS, including Trump's Iran war, tariffs and unadulterated moral turpitude, helps to motivate voters to support Democrats. Hopefully, a Blue Tidal Wave is developing that will eventually demolish Project 2025 and land a big-fat tombstone on their heads.
If a state's "sovereign interest in its laws" always is more important than harm to those the laws damage, doesn't that mean that any claim that the laws are hurtful--or even unconstitutional--will never be able to be adjudicated, or at least that any lower court decision deciding the law is hurtful based on the facts it finds will always be stayed to let the state keep on hurting?
That strikes me as a total off the cuff reason for finding a state's interest is greater than plaintiffs, without citing Fact One to support it--even supposing an appeals court can just brush off a lower court finding of fact without finding it clearly erroneous.
Thank you so much for your concise and articulate explanation!!!
Thank you for providing a full picture of this case. It is very hard to keep up with the individual components of the back and forth.
Any reason they don't mention SCOTUS banned nationwide injunctions?
My first thought, too.
God protect us from the religious zealots.
That they're banning mifeprestone based on "Louisiana’s sovereign interest in its laws protecting the unborn and the public’s interest in not exposing women to unsafe medical procedures" is hellishly twisted logic, especially since Louisiana has by far the highest rate of maternal mortality in the country, period.
https://www.axios.com/2025/10/30/louisiana-maternal-mortality-map
It is far, far safer to have a medication abortion than it is to give birth in Louisiana. In fact, if we don't want to expose women to unsafe medical procedures in Louisiana, we should get to the seed of the problem start giving mandatory vasectomies to men in Louisiana. That would be the absolute safest way to keep women from the deeply unsafe medical procedure that is giving birth in Louisiana.
Oh please, logic? That had no place in crusades.
Louisiana wants to preserve its right to “protect” the unborn … but then to prevent his right to vote if of color ?
Shadow docket or real docket?
Protect “the unborn “ at any cost to those who bear them. Then let the parents also bear the cost of poor public health, poor education, and unwanted offspring. Put it to a vote instead of acting as a theocracy.
I thought the Supremes had previously determined that circuit court opinions could not be applied nationally. What am I overlooking?
Excellent summation. And the pharmacy companies have put forth excellent arguments.
With this SCOTUS, though? Their past decisions should support what the pharmacy companies want, including SCOTUS' own decision regarding nationwide injunctions. However, there's something completely indifferent to a valid legal system ongoing with today's SCOTUS. The hubris, the arrogance—they are bloated with their own power and their own views that in this land, only they matter.