(Friday PO)

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

A case before a federal judge in Texas could dramatically alter abortion access in the United States – at least as much, some experts say, as the U.S. Supreme Court's Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization decision last year, which overturned decades of abortion-rights precedent.

A decision is expected soon in the case challenging the Food and Drug Administration's approval more than 20 years ago of the abortion drug mifepristone, which a growing number of patients use to terminate pregnancies.
As medication abortion becomes dominant, red states restrict pills
Politics
As medication abortion becomes dominant, red states restrict pills

Jenny Ma, senior counsel with the Center for Reproductive Rights, says the outcome of the suit brought by a coalition of individuals and groups opposed to abortion - could amount to a "nationwide ban on medication abortion" with a greater impact than Dobbs.

"That decision left the decision about abortion up to the states," Ma says, "but this would be one court in Texas deciding whether or not medication abortion could be allowed across this country, even in states that have protected abortion since the Dobbs decision."
Tiny pill, big impact

Medication abortion — as opposed to a surgical procedure — is now the most common way that people terminate pregnancies. That's especially true in the first trimester when the vast majority of abortions occur. Abortion pills are increasingly relied on by people who live in places where access to clinics is limited by state laws or geography.
Indiana doctor says she has been harassed for giving an abortion to a 10-year-old
Reproductive rights in America
Indiana doctor says she has been harassed for giving an abortion to a 10-year-old

While various regimens exist for terminating pregnancies with pills, the gold standard for medication abortion in the United States is a two-drug protocol that includes mifepristone and another, less-regulated drug, misoprostol.

But now, a coalition led by the anti-abortion rights group Alliance Defending Freedom has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Texas asking a judge to reverse that approval.
Revisiting a decades-old drug approval

The anti-abortion group is raising questions about the FDA's approval process in 2000 and some of the rule changes that have been made since then. They note that under President Biden, the FDA now allows mifepristone to be mailed or dispensed by retail pharmacies, while it used to be subject to more layers of restriction.

"They've loosened the requirements again, and again, and again," says Denise Harle, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom. "So now, mifepristone is being given to women who have never even seen a physician in person."

Under the recent rule changes, it's now possible for patients to receive a prescription through telehealth in states where that's legal, an option that major medical groups support.
One judge, national implications

Normally, as the FDA has noted in its defense of its approval process, it would be unusual to pull a drug from the market after more than two decades of widespread safe and effective use.


That decision is now up to a federal judge in Texas, Matthew Kacsmaryk — a Trump appointee with longstanding affiliations with the religious right, including work as an attorney with a conservative Christian legal group based in the state.
National
Meeting abortion patients where they are: providers turn to mobile units

"It's no accident that the complaint was filed in Amarillo, says Elizabeth Sepper, a University of Texas at Austin law professor.

"The way the district courts in Texas dole out cases makes it so that there are a few places where you pretty much know which judge you're going to get," Sepper says. "So they know they have a very sympathetic ear."

Any appeals in the case would go to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit – widely known as a conservative jurisdiction – and then to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Not just red states


Jenny Ma stresses that because this is a federal case, the impact could be felt nationwide, not only in states with abortion bans.

"After Dobbs, it almost seemed like there were two Americas – where abortion access was allowed in some states and not in others," Ma says. "This would amount to a nationwide ban on medication abortion, and patients who seek this care would not be able to get this care from any pharmacy, or any prescriber or any provider."

Both sides face a Feb. 10 deadline to finish filing briefs in the case.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

It sounds like this is headed to the supreme court either way. I think this would be a real test for this court. Are they truly following the Constitutions or just trying to vote politically? There is no Constitutional grounds to outlaw the use of this pill nation wide.

[Tarmaque]

It sounds like this is headed to the supreme court either way. I think this would be a real test for this court. Are they truly following the Constitutions or just trying to vote politically? There is no Constitutional grounds to outlaw the use of this pill nation wide.

You are correct, and because this is a case of selling a product over state lines it falls under the commerce clause. Hence Federal law, not State law. An honest Supreme Court would throw this out so hard the bin broke.

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

You are correct, and because this is a case of selling a product over state lines it falls under the commerce clause. Hence Federal law, not State law. An honest Supreme Court would throw this out so hard the bin broke.

One could make an argument that a state would have a right to disallow the selling of a given product within its borders. In fact, it's a bedrock of modern states' rights. It's why I pay 3X what any of you do for a catalytic converter. I have to be the California version. But there is no right of a state to deny the sale of a product in another state.

[Tarmaque]

One could make an argument that a state would have a right to disallow the selling of a given product within its borders.

Except that by federal law the purchase didn't happen within that state's borders, but within the state where the seller is. Now in California you have rules about installing non-compliant auto parts like catalytic converters, but nobody is stopping you from buying one from out of state and having it shipped to you.

On the other hand a lot of companies have specific policies about shipping certain items to certain states, but this isn't because federal law prohibits it. For instance, New Jersey has a 10-round limit for firearms magazines, and possession of one is actually a crime. In New Jersey. California has a similar law. That's why most reputable companies won't ship 20-round magazines to New Jersey. But the reason for this is that they don't want to be held liable as an accessory in New Jersey for any crimes committed with that magazine, which they could be.

And don't ask me why because when did laws ever make sense? Medical cannabis is legal in the State of Washington and other places. However it's still illegal federally, so if an FBI agent came across you smoking a joint they could still arrest you. Owners of establishments that sell or manufacture cannabis products can't get bank accounts so they deal almost entirely in cash. This is due to federal laws. None of this makes any sense. (And I was very much opposed to the legalization law!)

[GuideToACrazyWorld]

Except that by federal law the purchase didn't happen within that state's borders, but within the state where the seller is.

There are lots of things that aren't treated this way. I can't have a catalytic convert shipped to me from another state. I can't import a Farret into Ca regardless of where I bought it. If this argument were to hold true for abortion pills it would mean a major change to how we sell things. In fact, I have to pay Ca state sales tax on items I buy on line no matter what state the seller is in.

ow in California you have rules about installing non-compliant auto parts like catalytic converters, but nobody is stopping you from buying one from out of state and having it shipped to you.

No. You can not. I've actually tried. When I say 3X the cost I'm not kidding. Another example, its illegal to carry out of state produce into California. In fact, they stop you at the board specifically for that.

or instance, New Jersey has a 10-round limit for firearms magazines, and possession of one is actually a crime. In New Jersey. California has a similar law.

Guns are another great example. In California you can't have a gun shipped to you from out of state. In order to purchase an out of state fire arm the deal has to be brokered through a California licensed gun dealer. Certain fireworks, Plants, Shark fin, foie gras (for awhile but now they have allowed it again) and products made out of animal fur are all banned for sale in Ca. In fact, Fur and foie gras are two case where positions is 100% legal, but buying them is not. Below is a human socity relase about California's fur law passed last year.

https://www.humanesociety.org/news/cali ... kes-effect

The law bans only the sale of new fur products and does not apply to the sale of used fur products sold at nonprofit thrift stores, secondhand stores and pawn shops. It does not apply to other animal products used for clothing such as leather or shearling.
The law does not impact ownership of fur products and it remains legal to wear fur.
The law applies to brick-and-mortar stores selling fur products in California as well as online sales of fur products into California.
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Attorney General’s office, and local law enforcement all share enforcement authority under the law. Californians can contact any of these offices with information about new fur being sold. First time penalties are $500, second time penalties are $750, and any further violations are $1,000.
Nearly 20 countries throughout Europe have already banned fur farming, and there is currently an effort by Humane Society International and other groups to gather signatures in support of a “Fur-Free Europe” European Citizens’ Initiative asking for a ban on fur farming and placing fur farmed products on the European marketplace. Although the petition has already gathered the necessary 1 million signatures needed by May 2023 for the European Commission to issue a formal response, it remains open to collect additional signatures and citizens of the European Union are encouraged to sign it here.

This is also part of the reason that it took an amendment to abolish slavery. Some states outlawing the practice and others keeping legal is a big part of what lead to the civil war. As free states began to argue they were under no obligation to honer the ownership laws of other states.

What a state can't do is legalize a product from their own state while outlawing a similar process from another state. There was a case involving New York trying to keep California wine out in the 1930's.

Owners of establishments that sell or manufacture cannabis products can't get bank accounts so they deal almost entirely in cash.

Dispensaries in California have take credit card for a while. Not that I'd ever use one due to federal law. Also I can't take pot, it helps with my anxiety in the short term while making it worse long term.

Anyway back to outlawing sells of items. Ca does it a lot. I know other states do as well, although I don't follow the details of their laws. If the commerce clause were used to make abortion pills universally legal to sell, it would have a huge backlash on the sales of other items. And I could get a cat for less then $3,000