I am greatly concerned that, while the court has allowed for the continuation of mail-order access and virtual MD appointments to secure prescriptions, in the long run the court will strike down the ability of women across the nation to have mail-order access. This is a conservative court that has shown its true colors regarding women’s access to abortion via past rulings, including striking down Roe. I fear that this is simply a limited-time reprieve.
First, I wanted to respond to "irreparable harm." How can Danco not show they are irreparably harmed when they can no longer send mifrepristone through the mail? The success of the business relies on these sales.
Additionally, I want to comment on "criminal enterprise" as alluded to by Justice Thomas in his partisan dissent. How can they engage in criminal activity when this very court said that it should be left to states to regulate the woman's right to choose? As far as I know, abortion has not be ruled illegal in ALL JURISDICTIONS. The dissents press their own partisan views at the expense of a proper analysis. Wonder what effect money had on their decision?
I don’t understand Justice Thomas: The case is still being adjudicated … so how can there be “a criminal enterprise” … thrice? Do juries no longer have a say with this court who selectively accepts lower court findings?
There are lots of laws like the Comstock law that have been overtaken by events, science, more modern legal thinking and modernity. The fugitive slave act of 1850 comes to mind.
Justice Thomas seems to miss the fact that in a state where abortion is legal the ability to pick up a,prescription at your local pharmacy without a doctor's visit is neither a crime or prohibited by the Comstock Act. Yet, this kind of action would be prohibited if the stay was not granted.
Justice Alito and Justice Thomas seem to be living in a 1950s world that has never really existed.
The emerging pattern continues to solidify: Be reasonable and follow popular opinion on "big" cases that set/affect policy and behavior (e.g., tariffs, mifepristone); Gin up whatever it takes to benefit Republicans/MAGA in BIG cases that impact political and especially electoral *process* (e.g., Shelby, Rucho, Brnovich, Callais).
This divergence is entirely rational and absolutely sensible when viewed through the ultra-partisan lens of the six GOP appointees: Don't piss off the public altogether on "policy" decisions, throw some nice bones; Go to the wall on "power" decisions, which set the processes that determine the tilt of the electoral table.
The two prongs, seemingly politically opposite, actually work together beautifully to bestow maximal political/electoral advantage on the Right.
I am greatly concerned that, while the court has allowed for the continuation of mail-order access and virtual MD appointments to secure prescriptions, in the long run the court will strike down the ability of women across the nation to have mail-order access. This is a conservative court that has shown its true colors regarding women’s access to abortion via past rulings, including striking down Roe. I fear that this is simply a limited-time reprieve.
First, I wanted to respond to "irreparable harm." How can Danco not show they are irreparably harmed when they can no longer send mifrepristone through the mail? The success of the business relies on these sales.
Additionally, I want to comment on "criminal enterprise" as alluded to by Justice Thomas in his partisan dissent. How can they engage in criminal activity when this very court said that it should be left to states to regulate the woman's right to choose? As far as I know, abortion has not be ruled illegal in ALL JURISDICTIONS. The dissents press their own partisan views at the expense of a proper analysis. Wonder what effect money had on their decision?
Blessings now and forever,
Frank D. Tigue
Attorney-inactive, Award-winning Author
I don’t understand Justice Thomas: The case is still being adjudicated … so how can there be “a criminal enterprise” … thrice? Do juries no longer have a say with this court who selectively accepts lower court findings?
He chooses to think the drug manufacturers are violating a 150-year old law. Google comstock act.
There are lots of laws like the Comstock law that have been overtaken by events, science, more modern legal thinking and modernity. The fugitive slave act of 1850 comes to mind.
Justice Thomas seems to miss the fact that in a state where abortion is legal the ability to pick up a,prescription at your local pharmacy without a doctor's visit is neither a crime or prohibited by the Comstock Act. Yet, this kind of action would be prohibited if the stay was not granted.
Justice Alito and Justice Thomas seem to be living in a 1950s world that has never really existed.
Try the 1850's.
Thomas is fulla shit with the Comstock act. Mifepristone is safer than his wife!!
Good opportunity for hangers and crochet hooks sales!
I'm being faciece!
Stay out of our personal lives!
It's none of ANYBODY'S FUCKING Business!
JFC...Women have had their bodily autonomy removed!
We're second class citizens.
They're going to come after our vote next (mark my words)!
The emerging pattern continues to solidify: Be reasonable and follow popular opinion on "big" cases that set/affect policy and behavior (e.g., tariffs, mifepristone); Gin up whatever it takes to benefit Republicans/MAGA in BIG cases that impact political and especially electoral *process* (e.g., Shelby, Rucho, Brnovich, Callais).
This divergence is entirely rational and absolutely sensible when viewed through the ultra-partisan lens of the six GOP appointees: Don't piss off the public altogether on "policy" decisions, throw some nice bones; Go to the wall on "power" decisions, which set the processes that determine the tilt of the electoral table.
The two prongs, seemingly politically opposite, actually work together beautifully to bestow maximal political/electoral advantage on the Right.
Well played, sirs and madam!
Standing? Who needs standing?