A Texas judge ruled against the FDA's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, putting the drug at risk nationwide.
RELATED: Dueling abortion pill rulings in TX, D.C. draw reaction from VP Harris
A Friday ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Trump appointee in Texas, put a halt on government approval of mifepristone, a key abortion drug, potentially decimating access to medication abortion nationwide.
Minutes later, a federal judge in Washington, Obama appointee U.S. District Judge Thomas O. Rice, ordered the Food and Drug Administration not to make any changes that would restrict access to the drug in 17 states and D.C. that sued to expand access to mifepristone.
For now, access to mifepristone remains unchanged, because Kacsmaryk gave seven days for the federal government to appeal, which the Justice Department has committed to do.
» Subscribe to USA TODAY:
» Watch more on this and other topics from USA TODAY:
» USA TODAY delivers current local and national news, sports, entertainment, finance, technology, and more through award-winning journalism, photos, videos and VR.
#Texas #Abortion #Healthcare
🖕🤣🖕 No, Abortion Actually Isn’t A Constitutional Right
On Jan. 22, 1973, the U.S. Supreme Court (in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton) legalized the procedure of abortion for any reason before “fetal viability,” which is loosely defined.
The Court stipulated that abortion must be permitted for “health reasons” of the woman—up until birth. Yet the Court’s broad definition of “health reasons” essentially allowed for any reason and legalized abortion on demand.
The Court’s ruling actually violated the Constitution on several grounds. The majority opinion expressed by Justice Harry Blackmun reasoned that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protected a woman’s “liberty,” which included a “right of privacy … broad enough to encompass” her right to have an abortion.
Yet, the Court illegally excluded a particular class of people (the unborn) from the Due Process Clause’s protection. It effectually created “a constitutional right of some human beings to kill other human beings,” attests University of St. Thomas law professor Michael Stokes Paulsen.
Likewise, University of Pennsylvania law professor Kermit Roosevelt (who supports legalized abortion) points out: “As a constitutional argument Roe is barely coherent. The Court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether.”
In his dissenting opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote, “To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”
The Court’s ruling violated the Constitution’s most fundamental principle: human equality and the protection of one’s right to live. The Constitution requires that every human life be protected, regardless of age, size, stage of development, or dependency on another human being..
2022 Republicans: “We don’t want to make abortion illegal, trust us.”
2023 Republicans: “OMG you people actually believed us! LMFAO!!”
2010 Gays: “We don’t want to sexualize children we just want to marry who we love”
2023 Gays: “We demand to teach your children about gay sex!”
👍 transgender transgender transgender transgender transgender transgender transgender transgender 👍
Start saving lives
That’s as irrational as saying that if we neither subsidize nor prohibit lynching black people, we’re staying out of racism.