ADVERTISEMENT

Appeals court embraces abortion-pill limits, sets up Supreme Court review

cigaretteman

HR King
May 29, 2001
77,442
58,937
113
A federal appeals court on Wednesday said it would restrict access to a widely used abortion medication after finding that the federal government did not follow the proper process when it loosened regulations in 2016 to make the pill more easily available.

A three-judge panel of the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit said Food and Drug Administration decisions to allow the drug mifepristone to be taken later in pregnancy, be mailed directly to patients and be prescribed by a medical professional other than a doctor were not lawful.

Despite the court’s ruling against the government and the drug manufacturer, mifepristone will remain available for now under existing regulations while the litigation continues, in accordance with a Supreme Court ruling this spring. Wednesday’s decision is likely to be appealed to the Supreme Court.



Skip to end of carousel

How mifepristone is used​


What is mifepristone?
Mifepristone is one of two drugs that work together to terminate a pregnancy, and is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration through 10 weeks gestation. Mifepristone was first approved for use in France in 1988, and approved in the U.S. in 2000.
How a medication abortion works
A patient first takes mifepristone as a single pill, which blocks the hormone progesterone, preventing a pregnancy from progressing. About 24 hours later, the patient typically takes a four-pill dose of misoprostol to prompt contractions that expel the embryo or fetus.
Safety
A large body of research shows mifepristone is safe and effective. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists analyzed hundreds of published studies, and found "serious side effects occur in less than 1% of patients, and major adverse events — significant infection, blood loss, or hospitalization — occur in less than 0.3%.”
Mifepristone and abortion access
Mifepristone is used in more than half of U.S. abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a group that supports abortion rights. If mifepristone is taken off the market, abortion providers will have to provide only surgical abortions, or use a medication abortion regimen that includes only misoprostol.
Misoprostol-only medication abortion
A misoprostol-only abortion requires three doses of four pills each. While misoprostol is widely used on its own to perform abortions around the world, studies show it is less effective than the two-step regimen, and usually causes more cramping and potential side effects, including diarrhea, fever and chills.
1/5
End of carousel
Mifepristone is part of a two-drug regimen used in more than half of U.S. abortions and first approved for use in this country more than 20 years ago. The legal battle over the medication has intensified since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade’s grant of a constitutional right to abortion last June, a decision that spurred multiple states to further limit or ban the procedure.
The challenge to mifepristone was brought by the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, an association of antiabortion doctors and others. The group asserted that the FDA did not sufficiently consider safety concerns when it approved the drug or when it subsequently removed some restrictions — extending the approved use of mifepristone, for instance, through 10 weeks of pregnancy instead of seven.
The lawsuit, was filed in Amarillo, Tex., where U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — a Trump nominee with long-held antiabortion views — is the sole sitting judge. He issued an unprecedented ruling, for the first time suspending FDA approval of a human drug over objections from the agency. Kacsmaryk’s mifepristone opinion embraced language used by antiabortion activists, referring to abortion providers as “abortionists” and to fetuses and embryos as “unborn humans.”

 
So while I have not fully digested all 93 pages of this, I have at least given the majority opinion a quick run through, which is probably more than most will do. High level reactions:
1. As to the standing issue, while my personal view is that standing should be more restrictive both inasmuch as it shouldn't be triggered by 'emotional' harms, and because the injury should be more direct than the one asserted here, the majority's opinion strikes me as perhaps a little less crazy than it might be, given the case law and the declarations in the record. Probably a case of 'you reap what you sow', so thanks a lot 1960s environmental advocates.
2. The court certainly seems to have gotten it right - judge ho's dissent notwithstanding - that the challenge to the original 2000 approval was barred by the statute of limitations.
3. As to the challenges to the 2016 and 2019 actions designed to make it easier to use mifepristone (eg, loosening of physician supervision requirements), which the parties otherwise agreed were timely, there is an outcome-determinative flavor to the court's ruling that the FDA's actions violated the APA. The real 'tell' is that the court bends over backwards, IMO, to couch it in "the agency did not consider an important aspect of the problem' rubric (ie, an APA procedural shortcoming), rather than substantively questioning the agency's policy decision (which is, and even if Chevron gets overturned, will still be, entitled to deference). The former will always be easier for an APA litigator to win than the latter.
 
Last edited:
Interesting to see what the black market will be like for abortion pills in the US.



In a country where one woman dies every two days from a botched abortion, the internet is sometimes the only option.

Under a run-of-the-mill news clip posted on YouTube in 2012 covering Brazil’s online black market of abortion pills, something strange has happened in the comments section. Even though the video is a decade old, the comments—now totaling more than 68,000—continue to pile up every day.

Nearly all the new comments appear to be from female users with phone numbers in their usernames. Although it’s not entirely clear who these users are, they seem to be promoting mysterious individuals with names like Alice and Maísa who can provide “Cyto.”

“I was caught in a very bad time. I had no financial or psychological stability, so I decided that I didn’t want to carry on with this pregnancy, and ALICE helped me ❤️ she was very good to me❤️,” one wrote.
 
  • Sad
Reactions: TheCainer
Check out this legal-ese horseshit.

It’s ****ing Christo-facism in a robe. Don’t @ me with your silly legal mumbo jumbo. Call it for what it is.

qKmKeVC.jpg
 
I don’t think the SCOTUS votes are there to reverse the 5th Circuit’s opinion. The Supreme Court will affirm but the timing of their opinion - probably next summer - will be political dynamite before the November elections.
 
Interesting to see what the black market will be like for abortion pills in the US.



In a country where one woman dies every two days from a botched abortion, the internet is sometimes the only option.

Under a run-of-the-mill news clip posted on YouTube in 2012 covering Brazil’s online black market of abortion pills, something strange has happened in the comments section. Even though the video is a decade old, the comments—now totaling more than 68,000—continue to pile up every day.

Nearly all the new comments appear to be from female users with phone numbers in their usernames. Although it’s not entirely clear who these users are, they seem to be promoting mysterious individuals with names like Alice and Maísa who can provide “Cyto.”

“I was caught in a very bad time. I had no financial or psychological stability, so I decided that I didn’t want to carry on with this pregnancy, and ALICE helped me ❤️ she was very good to me❤️,” one wrote.
One might say the same thing about, say, fentanyl, but who’s counting among friends
 
I don’t think the SCOTUS votes are there to reverse the 5th Circuit’s opinion. The Supreme Court will affirm but the timing of their opinion - probably next summer - will be political dynamite before the November elections.
I think you might underestimate the institutional strain that runs thru the chief and kav. Maybe even Barrett. It is not that hard to say that the 5cir decision was really substantive rather than and those two at least will be a little more circumspect about gutting agency’s policy judgements. Remember, chevron is about agencies’ legal constructions, not their policy choices.
 
Check out this legal-ese horseshit.

It’s ****ing Christo-facism in a robe. Don’t @ me with your silly legal mumbo jumbo. Call it for what it is.

qKmKeVC.jpg
Ok, but don’t blame ho for that, blame the tree huggers
 
Ok, but don’t blame ho for that, blame the tree huggers

Jesus Christ, Aardvark.

Anti-abortion OB/GYNs have standing because of…feelings?

Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients - and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted…

That.

Is.

Horseshit.

If you don’t want to see fetuses die, I would suggest you don’t go through the slog of becoming an OB/GYN.

It’s a ridiculous grounds for standing

You’re going to come back to me and cite all this case law that past environmental judgments provide Judge Ho a legal thread to tug on.

I don’t give a shit. Save it.

Sometimes you just have to say that Judge Ho is a partisan hack and his jurisprudence is ****ing nuts.
 
Jesus Christ, Aardvark.

Anti-abortion OB/GYNs have standing because of…feelings?

Doctors delight in working with their unborn patients - and experience an aesthetic injury when they are aborted…

That.

Is.

Horseshit.

If you don’t want to see fetuses die, I would suggest you don’t go through the slog of becoming an OB/GYN.

It’s a ridiculous grounds for standing

You’re going to come back to me and cite all this case law that past environmental judgments provide Judge Ho a legal thread to tug on.

I don’t give a shit. Save it.

Sometimes you just have to say that Judge Ho is a partisan hack and his jurisprudence is ****ing nuts.
As I said in my original post, I’m not a particular believer in intangible injury as a basis for standing. But the reality is we have plenty of cases, usually involving land use or environmental issues, where standing is premised on precisely that.

Read all the words (not just the Twitter) And, for that matter, the precedent. Ho didn’t just make this up out of thin air.
 
Last edited:
As I said in my original post, I’m not a particular believer in intangible injury as a basis for standing. But the reality is we have plenty of cases, usually involving land use or environmental issues, where standing is premised on precisely that.

Read all the words (not just the Twitter) And, for that matter, the precedent. Ho didn’t just make this up out of thin air.

My non-legal retort: Judge Ho is a Federalist Society hack. He is anti-woman, anti-voting rights, anti-affirmative action, and pro Christian nationalist.

None of your reasoning holds sway with me. I truly don’t give a shit about precedent. He is a hack.
 
My non-legal retort: Judge Ho is a Federalist Society hack. He is anti-woman, anti-voting rights, anti-affirmative action, and pro Christian nationalist.

None of your reasoning holds sway with me. I truly don’t give a shit about precedent. He is a hack.
Sure is non legal. And at least you recognize it as such.

Out of curiosity, did you care about a precedent called roe?
 
Sure is non legal. And at least you recognize it as such.

Out of curiosity, did you care about a precedent called roe?

Dude. I’m not gonna debate this with you.

The 5th circuit ruling threads a legal needle - and crosses the t’s and dots the i’s.

I don’t give a shit about the legal reasoning. I really don’t. It’s all legal gift wrapping to further strip women of their rights and protect the poor evangelicals and far-right Catholics who have been so downtrodden in America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheCainer
One might say the same thing about, say, fentanyl, but who’s counting among friends
Fentanyl is a controlled drug with very limited purpose…. Not so with birth control pills. There is a difference, in my humble opinion. There is an effort to infringe on female reproduction rights by a very small but well financed minority who are in position to make birth control very tightly controlled if not totally illegal. I don’t understand why (white) men feel they know what is best for females. They can’t even throw rapists in jail.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT