Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
A Mifepristone lawsuit Infront of a Texas judge filed by a religious activist group could force the FDA to suspend or withdraw approval of a safe, long-used medication that is approved around the world.
I don’t know much about it but I’ll try.
From what I’ve heard the pill is causing women to be infernal when they actually go and try to have kids. Makes sense since a women is chemically stopping her natural reproductive system.
other side of the case is of course saying the birth control is perfectly safe which of course they would argue that’s position.
personally I think birth control is a good thing. I think abortion should be punishable by death. So since birth control prevents abortion I’m for birth control. But if the pill is having negative affects to a women’s reproduction when she wants kids in the future the pill should be banned.
the best idea is just get married and you don’t have to worry about it. I’m agnostic but the Christian have a point on this one
This isn't about birth control and what you are saying about birth control holds no facts
Your question confused me for a moment because you said "Texas judge" because that's practically meaningless.
He's a Federal judge in Texas, not a Texas state or local judge. Only a Federal judge could take on this case.
The judge in this case is Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas.
Reading the NYT's coverage of arguments regarding a preliminary injunction sought by the plaintiffs, it seemed that the judge was against that. He will also rule if this case should go to a full trial. Honestly, I doubt it will because 1) no judge has ever overruled the FDA's approval of a drug and 2) the plaintiffs don't really have standing to sue in this case because the FDA's approval of the drug doesn't really harm them.
www.nytimes.com/.../...on-pills-texas-lawsuit.html
TITLE: Lawyers Spar Before Judge Over Rescinding of Federal Approval of Abortion Pill
SUBTITLE: The judge said he would decide soon whether to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the F. D. A. to withdraw its approval of the drug or wait for the full trial.
By Pam Belluck and Allison McCann
Pam Belluck, who has been writing about reproductive health for over a decade, traveled to Amarillo, Texas, to cover the hearing. Allison McCann has been tracking every change to state abortion laws.
March 15, 2023
6 MIN READ
AMARILLO, Texas — The judge in a closely watched lawsuit seeking to overturn federal approval of a widely used abortion pill questioned lawyers publicly for the first time on Wednesday. The wide-ranging hearing included discussion about whether the anti-abortion plaintiffs had the legal standing to sue the government and what type of ruling he had the power to issue.
The judge, Matthew J. Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas, said he would decide as soon as possible whether to issue a preliminary injunction that could, at least temporarily, take the pill, mifepristone, off the market. He seemed acutely aware of the unprecedented nature of the case, establishing through his questions that a court had never ordered the federal government to withdraw the approval of a drug that had been legally available for years.
(more)
Toward the end of the court hearing, which lasted more than four hours, Judge Kacsmaryk asked a lawyer for the plaintiffs, a coalition of anti-abortion groups and doctors, if they expected that “the court itself can order a withdrawal or suspension.” When the lawyer, Erik Baptist, said yes, the judge replied, “What gives the court that authority?”
At another point in the session, the judge asked a Justice Department lawyer representing the defendant in the case, the Food and Drug Administration, if the fact that 22 conservative states had written a brief supporting the plaintiffs’ case showed that revoking the abortion pill would be beneficial for public policy. The lawyer, Julie Straus Harris, replied, “An injunction here would interfere with every state in the country” and could make abortion access difficult even in cases of nonviable pregnancies and rape.
That seemed to make an impression on the judge, who noted, “This isn’t a case where we’re comparing 22 versus 28 states, but rather, all 50 states, especially in some of those other circumstances, right?”
...
m It’s Texas. They do a lot of stupid shit. Not sure why people are still being surprised by that.
Opinion
10Opinion
In about 3 minutes on Google, I found multiple leftist news articles admitting that Mifepristone is less reliable and more likely to cause bleeding problems than other methods, while simultaneously claiming it's harmless - you can't have it both ways. States can decide for themselves whether and how to ban abortions, but have no power to regulate what methods the FDA approves. The lawsuit claims that the FDA either skipped or fabricated testing under political pressure to mislead patients and make a profit. That would not be even close to the first time that has happened...
Less reliable? it's over 99% effective... Bleeding is norma..
"States can decide for themselves whether and how to ban abortions"
right just keep on using this lie right up until they actually get power and ban abortions federally. you know thats what they want. and taking this pill away like this is a step in that direction. you cannot deny this.
@Still-alive Of course banning it federally is the goal, but the supreme court ruling effectively makes that impossible to do because they stripped that decision away from the federal government entirely. They would have to get enough people onboard to make an actual constitutional amendment at this point, which stands pretty much no chance at happening.
Yes, "less reliable." The articles didn't give exact numbers, but if hypothetically this is 99.3% effective, but other options are 99.5%, then it's still true. "Increased risk of bleeding" is openly one of the "common" side effects. It doesn't say how common and to what extent, but it's disengenuois to both acknowledge that, and deny it in the same claim. In my opinion, this case is much more about political grandstanding than actually doing anything meaningful, because this could've easily been settled before even going to court if that was the real angle.
I have to agree with BCA's comment that the approval process was definitely sketchy, and that FDA approval is not immune to payoffs for approvals, or keeping competing drugs off the market. On the other hand, the numbers I saw for effectiveness were 97%, but there has not been data available on side effects for 7 years.
All of that said, Texas is clearly one of the states moving towards a no abortion, physical or chemical, for any reason position, even the health of the mother OR the baby! Regardless of my personal feelings, the only way to stop these states is to vote out the people who want these laws in place.
I'm honestly tired of this argument. I'm morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term abortion. The United States just needs to set the cut-off somewhere between 12 weeks (like most of Europe) and 22 weeks (Australia and Japan) and be done with this nonsense. As long as the money isn't coming out of my pocket, and I'm not the father, it's none of my business. Your body, your choice, your wallet.
Sounds like to me that the right-wingers are trying to control women. Plus making the victims of rape feel like its there fault bc they're out in public. In which its not their fault at all. Women should be able to go out in public w/o fear of anything. But if a woman has a one night stand and gets pregnant, she maid her bed and has to lie in it.
Boy its great being an independent.
It is not unheard-of for the FDA to remove approval of a drug. This might be a novel way of going about it; but it wouldn't be the first time medicine is taken off the shelf. I think that the issue should be wether the claims are real and if they can be substantiated or not.
The claims are bullshit essentially
If they get rid of this because it's not safe then they may as well get rid of Tylenol and Viagra because they're at least 8x more deadly
I don't know the facts of the case.
Its bullshit... but if this actually happens... republicans WILL lose in 2024. mark my words. they are fucking things up big time.
USA is very quickly being pushed down the world's freedom index list
yeah it is. but lucky for me im in california and we are passing a ton of progressive legislation lately.
yeah the thing is when they revoked roe v wade last year that pretty much brougth out everyone including Gen Z out to vote against the evil fascist republicans in the midterms last November..
so if republicans REALLY think this is gonna help them at all taking away the abortion pill federally like this they are seriously deluding themselves. First the block the student loan debt relief and now this? there's no way they win next year.
Yeah the issue is mostly if this goes through what else can uneducated activists push
ohhh much more. our nations Supreme court may go after the precedences that guarantees contraceptives, gay marriage and even interracial marriage. Which would be ironic because Clarence Thomas one of the most reviled scotus members we've had ever is black and is married to a white woman so lol. if they actually scrap that it'll be beyond parody.
A lot of state legislatures are already passing some real heinous laws like in Arkansas they made it legal for children under age 16 to work again... just rolling back all the progress people have fought and DIED for for the past 100 years.
We can never let these fascists win another general election ever again. Gen Z better keep showing up en masse to vote everytime to make sure of it
@Still-alive The Democrats had a number of opportunities over the last 5 decades to codify Roe Verses Wade, and failed to do so. Just recently they had control of the House and the Senate during President Biden's first 2 years in office, and had the same opportunity during President Obama's first 2 years in office. It's their own fault.
@NYCQuestions1976 yes dems suck too. Especially corporate dems. I know. Lol
@NYCQuestions1976 sorry what? it's democrats fault that republicans want to take away human rights? Make that make sense.
Obama had supermajority for 75 days that isn't enough time to codify a law. Also nobody could have seen this coming SCOTUS had NEVER revoked a 50 year ruling, there was no reason why anyone would suspect it until it was literally happening.
Yeah dems are bad but Republicans are far farrr and away worse. This is the party of marjorie taylor greene and lauren borbert. Terrible evil party.
@Razp_Sorbet The Democrats in Congress had plenty of time to codify Roe Verses Wade. You don't need a long time or a super majority to codify a law. You only need just over 50% in the House and in the Senate, and a President willing to sign the bill into law. The Democrats had all the above from January 2021 until January 2023, and from January 2009 until January 2011. Instead they wasted their time and our taxpayer dollars on the January 6th hearsay hearings, and wasted their time and our taxpayer dollars on the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), which was largely struck down as unconstitutional, because you can't force people to buy health/medical insurance. Politicians do shit like this all the time because not having any actual solutions to problems in society generates money for the government.
Stating that "nobody could have seen this coming" is a poor and inaccurate defense for anyone, because the potential overturn decision was leaked in February 2022. Just because Roe Verses Wade was in "effect" for over 50 years, it doesn't mean anything beyond precedent. It was never an actual "law". It was a "decision" by the Supreme Court. It's the job of Congress to draft and pass bills, and then the President signs them into law. Roe Verses Wade could've easily been codified after it was overturned in June 2022 (or after the leak in February 2022) and before the midterm elections in November 2022. That's 4 months or 8 months of time. So yes, it's the Democrats fault.
@Still-alive We'll agree to disagree. Socialism and censorship are a festering infection that has influenced and infiltrated the Democrats and their party. As long as those things are going on, the Democrats are far worse.
@NYCQuestions1976 it being in effect for 50 years and the fact that something like this had never happened before is plenty of reason to not consider it a possibility. Everyone was blindsided, there was a lot of "can they actually do that?" Going on. Hindsight is 20/20.
@NYCQuestions1976 ahh i see… you’re one of those…
@Razp_Sorbet Any Supreme Court decision, that hasn't been made into an actual law, can be overturned by the Supreme Court. If it's a "proper channels" law, then the Supreme Court can only rule on whether or not the law is constitutional or unconstitutional. The it's up to Congress (or a state, county, city, jurisdiction X, etcetera, if the law isn't a national/federal law) to make adjustments to the law accordingly.
By the way, it's a two-way street. When the Supreme Court overturned Roe Verses Wade, that decision didn't ban abortions nationally. It left it up to each individual state. So each state can be as unfairly restrictive (Texas) or grotesquely inhumane (New Jersey) as they choose to be.
@Still-alive One of those? Explain.
@NYCQuestions1976 maybe i will.. later. But first what do you mean by ‘socialism’?
@Still-alive Any person, any idea, any theory, any belief, and/or any policy that wastes my tax dollars to financially support and/or rely on big fat stupid bloated grim reaper albatross government, and gaslights the general population into believing that they can't exist and survive without intrusive government intervention in their everyday lives. The federal government should only have three basic financial functions as a nation: Infrastructure, military/national security, and properly applied social safety nets when necessary.
@Still-alive For disclosure and transparency purposes, this was my opinion on this question:
I'm honestly tired of this argument. I'm morally pro-life, legally pro-choice, and anti-late-term abortion. The United States just needs to set the cut-off somewhere between 12 weeks (like most of Europe) and 22 weeks (Australia and Japan) and be done with this nonsense. As long as the money isn't coming out of my pocket, and I'm not the father, it's none of my business. Your body, your choice, your wallet.
@NYCQuestions1976 so as usual with you types basically what 'socialism is' is 'whenever the government does things' which is such a disingenuous way to define it you have to be memeing to say it that way.
And lets be real your way of how the government 'should' work has failed us for a long time now. we waste billions of our tax dollars on an over-bloated military industrial complex that its just beyond parody. They then go on to fund endless wars like in Iraq or Afghanistan, or help corrupt governments like Netanyahu Israel.
I wonder what you would have thought the government should have done after the great Depression happened? just let everyone continue dying and being poor huh.
No the Government can and and should ensure its own citizens have access to affordable healthcare, a good education, affordable housing, and just about everything most of the developed nations of the world have that are ranked much higher in the freedom index then we are: the country that loves to boast about being so 'free'. Yeah free to die when Roe V Wade was taken away.
Your solution of 'it'll just go to the states' only allows people who are not impoverished to go out of state and get the abortions. One state just introduced a bill disallowing people from traveling to another state for one by the way: www.washingtonpost.com/.../
They are NOT going to stop bro. and it is naive of you to think they will. that is unless you're one of those who does want a nation ban and pretending like you don't...
anyways. its clear you've been bit by the far right bug and seem to be quite deep into it. i doubt anyone anywhere can ever change your mind on anything.
My mind was changed. i saw how evil the republicans truly were especially on Jan 6th. I left that party for good right after. I'd suggest you do the same while you still can. you are on a sinking ship at this point.
@Still-alive 1.) I never said anything about funding war.
2.) I'm a moderate centrist libertarian that doesn't want my tax dollars wasted. I'm not a conservative.
3.) If you want the government to dictate your life, when you do your taxes every year, volunteer as much of your own income as you want above and beyond your required annual tax obligations (there's ways to do that on tax forms), and/or start a GoFundMe page and donate the proceeds to the government bloat of your choice. Liberals and socialists always want to use everyone else's hard-earned money to fund their wants, but never want to dig into their own pockets and purses and wallets. It's nonsensical.
@NYCQuestions1976 “ I'm a moderate centrist libertarian that doesn't want my tax dollars wasted. I'm not a conservative.”
Uh huh. Sure you are.
Religion does have the right to dictate it's dogma to everyone under the sun. People are allowed to choose what's best for them. If religion wants to be in the law-making business, take away their tax exemption and declare them a PAC.
More actions by the Control Freaks who want to tell women what to do with their bodies. This is pretty transparent and it clearly ISN'T about concern for women's health.
I tend to just stay out of this sort of thing. But my actual opinion is I don't think something like that should be outlawed. Bodily autonomy is quite important.
Abortion should be mandatory for white women.
Any type of abortion should be criminalized.
That's stupid
Fuck them
You can also add your opinion below!
