CNN Senior Supreme Court analyst Joan Biskupic weighs in on Justice Samuel Alito temporarily extending a hold on a lower court ruling that would have imposed restrictions on access to the abortion drug mifepristone. #CNN #News
Style experts spot a ‘no-no’ inside the Oval Office
Amanpour: Dissent about war in Ukraine in Putin’s circle is ‘silenced’
Cannes Film Festival 2023: The stand-out films and stars this year
Anti-Putin Russians based in Ukraine allegedly stage incursion into Russia
Religion is thought of much differently than say 20 years ago, same with politics, same with technology, and what we believe it is to be human. Things have changed fast. They will most likely change faster over the next 20 years.
If we implement the World Fairess Agreement these changes will happen easily with no conflict or warfare. If we don’t, the world’s life forms could be mostly gone. This would be a tragic event that does not need to happen.
I can’t get Tapper laughing at fox statement out of my mind.
Beautiful.
So no decision yet.
All these justices said they considered Roe v. Wade settled law.
Six Supreme Court Jusitices recommended by the Federalist Society were raised Catholic. Alito, Coney-Barrett, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavenaugh and Roberts. I have a feeling Roberts is trying to somehow temper the other four because it’s becomming very apparent that this Court is shaping our laws around Catholic Religious Dogma and people are noticing. Even though Roberts was raised Catholic he has in the past voted against the others, albeit sometimes his Nay vote didn’t matter because it woud pass anyway. I think he somewhat cares about the Court’s Reputation, expecially after revelations about Thomas’s Scandalous acceptance of Millions of dollars of gifts over the last 25yrs. That may be where the slowdown is occurring. Sotomayor is also raised Catholic but she votes Nonsectarian. Are we ALL Catholic now? because I don’t want to be.
Not just cafeteria Catholic like lost of us, but six zealots.
The potential is not just to undermine the authority and expertise of the drug regulator, but to undermine EVERY expert body in all fields. Could a local judge decide that the illegality of cocaine is unconstitutional because it interferes with the pursuit of happiness? Or that the 2nd Amendment gives the right to possess a gun but does _not_ give a right to possess ammunition?
*Why can’t these judges just be honest and admit their decisions are not based on law but simply on their personal preferences on abortion?*
The primary concern with this case is the lower courts ability to overturn a decision by the Food and Drug Administration. This has the potential to completely undermine an institution which is responsible for determining the safety and efficacy of a variety of pharmaceuticals through rigorous review. If this ruling is able to pass it can create a major problem for providers nation wide. The FDA approval process is quite rigorous and all pharmaceuticals must demonstrate safety and efficacy in populations of thousands in order just to get clearance. This rigorous protocol allows physicians to be confident in the pharmaceuticals which they are prescribing to patients and allows patients to have trust in the pharmaceuticals which their physicians are prescribing to them.
If one judge is able to overrule this ruling it can create a major dilemma for the provision of healthcare throughout the country. The decision would undermine the approval process which could have large downstream effects wide-ranging throughout the health care field. Life-saving drugs may be end up being banned in states because a case of a known adverse reaction to a drug in a patient was brough before a judge, and that judge ruled that the risk of the adverse reaction was too dangerous and it must be banned in the state. Take Epinephrine as a good example. It is known almost globally as a life-saving medication for deadly allergic reactions. If this precedent is set, a judge could decide that the risk posed by the drug for certain adverse reactions in susceptible populations such as arrythmias or severe hypertension is too great and the drug should be banned in the state. Banning of the drug would cause much greater harm to all the patient’s who’s lives could be saved by it than the potential adverse reactions which the drug may cause. When considering this, it would cause a greater harm than good, and this is the potential ethical dilemma we can see developing if we begin to allow the courts to decide which drugs should and should not be provided at the state level.
The authorization of medications has not been an act taken lightly by the FDA which has earned it the seal of approval throughout the country. The cost, time, and rigorous study involved of each pharmaceutical which goes through clearance ensures that everything being prescribed to the population is safe to the highest extent possible. Even the number of individuals taking part in the authorization of these medications nears the hundreds. Which is why it is illogical and unethical for the decision of one to have such an effect on the many. If this precedent is set, the potential removal of many lifesaving drugs based on a lack of understanding of their carried adverse effects may put too man lives at risk.
So the next time some Laura court, federal judge decides that he, or she has superior knowledge of the medical profession, without any background at all, would be able to prevent access to any type of drug no matter what the FDA would say. At that point all new drugs, no matter whom they helped would have to be approved by the Supreme Court and not the FDA. these type of arbitrary decisions, my federal judges, locking all sorts of medical degrees, could affect medical treatments in this country for generations. This decision is appalling.
Welcome to the news where “I dont know” is pretty much all I could get from this.
like other major things on the planet this was likely connected to my family as well, in this case my mom having an abortion.
Hopefully there will be some reasoning that comes with the decision especially if it’s anything other than a full stay. The status quo is always favored if everything else is equal but the FDA has to be consider as more likely to win since this is a case of it’s own kind. The irreparable harm also is in the FDA’s favor
How can that one judge make such far reaching decision and on what legal basis?
The plaintiff judge shopped. They are trying and end round the constitution and the judge is on board.
My money would be on Gorsuch as the swing vote. He’s been a big business guy historically. He knows affirming this decision will put the pharma business in chaos.
Need term limits for the Supreme Court ………..
Robert F Kennedy for President. His campaign, and presidency, would be to “end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”
Wow they talk so calmly about MURDER
When judges override science with dogma, you’re officially back in the dark ages
I can’t get Tapper laughing at fox statement out of my mind. ❤ GOD Bless Everyone