[ad_1]
(CNN) Friday’s two conflicting federal court rulings are perhaps the most controversial and chaotic legal move since last summer’s Supreme Court ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended abortion rights nationwide. created a flash point.
In less than an hour, two major medical abortion rulings were handed down separately and closely monitored.
In a lawsuit filed by anti-abortion activists in Texas, a judge said the 2000 FDA-approved mifepristone, one of the drugs used for abortion, should be stopped. However, the court has suspended the judgment for a week so he can appeal, and the appeal is already underway.
In a second case in which Democratic-led states sued to expand access to abortion drugs in Washington, a judge ordered the federal government to make the drugs available in the 17 states that sued and the District of Columbia. I ordered you to
Both lawsuits ostensibly deal with administrative law governing how the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates mifepristone. The controversy did not rest directly on the question of whether you have the right to have an abortion — an issue that was at the center of a Supreme Court ruling last June. State rulings included the idea that embryos may have individual rights that courts could consider in their rulings.
Both cases stem from a political environment unleashed by the Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade and its willingness to push the legal boundaries created by the Supreme Court’s ruling. The abortion issue is now on its way back to the Supreme Court as the High Court is asked to sort out the conflicting orders in Friday night’s decision.
A Texas judge has suspended the ruling, so there will be no immediate impact on the availability of abortion pills via medication. But the next few days will be a dramatic and blazing legal battle over the order.
Significant hostility to medical abortion and FDA’s approach in Texas
Besides putting the ruling on hold for a week, Kacsmaryk, former President Donald Trump’s appointee sitting in Amarillo, Texas, has torn up FDA approval of mifepristone and wholeheartedly accepted the challenger’s allegations against mifepristone. So there seemed to be no resistance. Risk was not fully considered.
Kaksmalik, whose anti-abortion allegations before joining federal court were documented by a recent Washington Post profile, has shown marked hostility to medical abortion, the method used for the majority of abortions in the United States. rice field.
Leading medical institutions have already condemned his opinion and refuted a judge’s analysis of the safety of medical abortion.
The judge said the FDA did not consider “the intense psychological trauma and post-traumatic stress women often experience from chemical abortion.” , as well as “abortion doctor” and “unborn human” were used repeatedly by judges in sentencing. Kacsmaryk suggested that the FDA data underestimate the frequency of ectopic pregnancies, or the drugs being mistakenly administered to people with ectopic pregnancies. Repeated accusations of dissenters of being the subject of pressure.
He said the FDA’s refusal to impose specific restrictions on the drug’s use “resulted in many deaths and more severe or life-threatening side effects.”
“Whatever the number is, unless the FDA acquiesces to the pressure to increase access to chemical abortion at the expense of women’s safety, that number is likely to drop considerably.
American Medical Association President Jack Resneck Jr. said in a statement that Kaksmalik’s ruling “contradicts science and evidence and threatens to upend access to safe and effective medicines.”
The AMA’s president said, “If a court ignores well-established scientific facts and supports speculative or ideological claims, it will harm patients and harm the health of the nation.
Kacsmaryk’s opinion is the FDA’s defense that blocking access to medical abortion puts the health of pregnant women at risk and abortion seekers are instead forced to terminate their pregnancies surgically. did not pay attention to their claims.
Instead, the judge wrote that ruling in favor of the petitioners would ensure that “women and girls would be protected from unnecessary harm and that the defendants would not disregard federal law.”
Explaining why the preliminary injunction that had been made before the case went to trial was justified, he said the embryo had its own rights and could be part of the analysis. That claim goes further than what the Supreme Court said in its June ruling, known as Women’s Health, Dobbs v. Jackson.
“In brackets, the analysis of ‘personal justice’ and ‘irreversible injury’ definitely applies to fetuses annihilated by mifepristone, especially in the post-Dobbs era,” Kaksmalik said. said on Friday.
In Washington, an order was issued to keep abortion pills available — at least in parts of the country.
Kacsmaryk has been asked by a Texas challenger to stop medical abortion, but U.S. District Judge Thomas Owen Rice in Spokane, Washington, has questioned whether abortion pills should be made more readily available. I was considering what to do.
Rice, who was nominated by President Obama, conceded to the Democratic Attorney General that he partially won the case.
They asked Rice to remove certain restrictions known as the REMS or Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy.
Rice has so far rejected the bid, but has also complied with the state’s request that the FDA be ordered to keep the drug on the market. However, Rice’s ruling applies only to the plaintiff’s 17 states and the District of Columbia.
His decision maintains the status quo of abortion drug availability in those locations, and he specifically addresses the availability of mifepristone under the January 2023 Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategy now in force. Prevents agents from changing the status quo and rights in connection with
Rice’s opinion was an impressive split screen to Kacmsaryk’s. The Texas judge said the FDA had not given due consideration to the drug’s risks, but Rice expressed sympathy with the allegations that the rules on the use of mifepristone were too stringent, suggesting that the FDA should not regulate abortion drugs. He said a more lenient approach to methods should be taken. .
Ultimately, he said he would not grant the Democratic state’s request to remove some of its drug restrictions in this preparatory stage of the lawsuit. A new FDA rule that would allow it to be revoked would also be revoked, which would reduce its availability and would be “directly contrary to plaintiffs’ demands.”
what happens next
If Kacsmaryk’s decision to suspend approval of mifepristone is allowed to take effect, it would run headlong into Rice’s mandate that mifepristone remains available in several states. The Kacsmaryk judgment is a nationwide injunction.
The Department of Justice and Danko, the manufacturer of mifepristone who intervened in the lawsuit to defend the approval, have both filed notices of appeal. He said he would seek a “suspension” of the judgment.
They appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, sometimes referred to as the most conservative court of appeals in the United States. However, some legal scholars were skeptical that the conservative Fifth Circuit would enforce Kakumusalik’s order.
Washington, where the blue state lawsuit was filed, is under the jurisdiction of the liberal court of appeals, the Ninth Circuit. However, it is unclear whether Rice’s ruling will be appealed. Garland said the Justice Department is still reviewing a decision from Washington. A so-called circuit division would increase the chances of the Supreme Court intervening. However, given that the substantive effects of the two district court decisions contradict each other, the Supreme Court may be compelled to get involved.
Opponents of the Texas lawsuit, the Anti-Abortion Drugs Association, and the doctors’ attorneys said Friday evening that they hadn’t considered Washington’s decision, what impact would it have on Kaksmalik’s order to stop approval of the drug? There was no mention of whether it was given.
“I haven’t read the Washington state decision yet, so I don’t know if there is direct conflict yet, but there may not be,” said Erik Baptist, an attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom. said. He said. “But if there is a direct confrontation, it could go to the Supreme Court, but I don’t see the need to reach that conclusion at this point.”
This story has been updated with additional information.
CNN’s Devan Cole contributed to this report.
[ad_2]
Source link