Abortion Pill Stays On The Market – SCOTUS Grants Stay of Lower Court Ruling Revoking FDA Approval
7-2. Justices Thomas and Alito dissented.
The Supreme Court has just issued a stay of the ruling revoking FDA Approval Of Abortion Pill Mifepristone by federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas. The Fifth Circuit granted a partial stay, but left part of the revocation in place.
Only Justicez Alito and Thomas dissented.
The applications for stays presented to JUSTICE ALITO and by him referred to the Court are granted. The April 7, 2023 order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, case No. 2:22–cv–223, is stayed pending disposition of the appeal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, if such a writ is timely sought. Should certiorari be denied, this stay shall terminate automatically. In the event certiorari is granted, the stay shall terminate upon the sending down of the judgment of this Court.
JUSTICE THOMAS would deny the applications for stays.
JUSTICE ALITO, dissenting from grant of applications for stays.
… At present, the applicants are not entitled to a stay because they have not shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the interim. The applicants claim that regulatory “chaos” would occur due to an alleged conflict between the relief awarded in these cases and the relief provided by a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. It is not clear that there actually is a conflict because the relief in these cases is a stay, not an injunction, but even if there is a conflict, that should not be given any weight. Our granting of a stay of a lower-court decision is an equitable remedy. It should not be given if the moving party has not acted equitably, and that is the situation here….
Contrary to the impression that may be held by many, that disposition would not express any view on the merits of the question whether the FDA acted lawfully in any of its actions regarding mifepristone. Rather, it would simply refuse to take a step that has not been shown as necessary to avoid the threat of any real harm during the presumably short period at issue.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Intimidation works.
Yep. Hard to argue with that.
So a case with no conflict and quite possibly some winning arguments on behalf of the plaintiffs.
But, abortion. I despised Roberts before this. Not sure how much more I can despise him or his joke of a Court.
I guess the proggies feel that SCOTUS is legit again, for now.
Nothing can be allowed to stop the infanticide.
It appears to me that all the court did is decide to let the process take its course. It’s not as if they’ve all turned RBG.
AOC is Fetterman, only she can speak.
AOC is Fetterman, only she can
speakbray.FIFY
I’ll not lose sleep over this. Let the process play out and also let Democrats continue to signal who they truly are, child killers and woman haters. They will get theirs in the end.
It breaks 60-40 for abortion, with the importance of the issue to voters declining when there’s a time limit around 15 weeks. That is, you avoid losing elections at that time cutoff. Until that you do lose elections.
So in order to win elections, you must approve of infanticide.
Good to know.
The argument that you fail to make is that a fetus is an infant. That’s where, say, pictures come in. Around 15 weeks you tend to get agreement. Before that, you don’t.
Try arguing it’s an infant when it’s a just-fertilized egg, to see that time matters.
Just to be clear — it’s OK to kill it before 15 weeks. Because a fetus isn’t an infant/child/human.
Then why any restrictions at all? A fetus is still a fetus until it is born; why isn’t it OK to kill it up until the moment before birth?
Because at 15 weeks it can be presented as cute. It’s sort of a built-in kind of caring-for.
The argument against abortion is that if a pregnancy is aborted, the end result is one less person. You have no argument against that.
There can be legitimate differences in opinion about the best short and long term strategies to reduce the elimination of persons via abortion. For example, doing things which greatly increase the likelihood of Democrats getting elected is not a good long term strategy.
Spreading the Gospel of Jesus is the best of many long term strategies. It results in better people. Better people do not eliminate their children.
Slavery and diversity before that, which was, in part, the impetus for the 3/5 compromise, today the 1-2 compromise, and the forward-looking fetal-baby ethical religious prescription in the performance of reproductive… human rites.
3/5 was to get the North to agree. The South preferred full counting. The North regarded it to be an artificial inflation of the population numbers.
Good. The process is structural, no rogue judges declaring national policy.
What rogue judges have declared national policy?
Homicide pill. That said, six weeks to baby meets granny in biological and legal state.