This article is part of TPM Cafe, TPM’s home for opinion and news analysis. It was originally published at The Conversation.
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1455221
This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://talkingpointsmemo.com/?p=1455221
A valuable insight into the flaws adjudication introduces into medical decisions. This essay adds dimension to the Mifepristone discussion.
9 Likes
The Texas case illustrates how judges apply their own reading of science to a thorny political question.
Where “apply their own reading” means “completely disregard known facts and substitute a bunch of unsupported bullsh*t from a plaintiff they like.”
I have to say (thinking also of the school prayer coach case) that flat-out lying about the factual record of a case seems to be a disturbing new feature of right-wing jurisprudence, and is apparently not even something that can be addressed within the usual judicial process.
20 Likes
Anti-Mifepristone Court Decisions Rely On Medical Misinformation And Questionable Legal Reasoning
Like most things Republican …
6 Likes
Not just science, also the law and constitution
7 Likes
It would help if journos stopped calling things like this “thorny political questions”…they are no such thing. I can’t speak authoritatively on the legal stuff here but I’m not stupid and K’s ruling does not pass my smell test. I can comment on the medical issues and K’s just full of shit there.
This drug is being withdrawn because K doesn’t like what it’s used for. I’m sure his head is so filled with holy delusion which makes “bearing false witness” OK for him to do. Mixing medical and legal stuff is never a good idea but in this case I think the law guys and the Docs have common ground.
17 Likes
With all due respect, that’s not me, that’s the original article.
3 Likes
There is one fundamental aspect of the abortion discussion that I just do not understand. I am astonished that “conservatives” would want to cede to the government, whether National or State, decisions about bearing children. Once you have acknowledged that the government has that authority, you have crossed a line; there is no difference between “You Can’t” and “You Must” once you have given the government that level of control. Just ask China what an authoritarian government can dictate regarding families. Who is to know what a future government might decide. You cannot un-ring a bell. I am a liberal and I don’t want the government to have that control. You would think true conservatives would understand that.
12 Likes
Understood, was meant to agree with you…
3 Likes
The unspoken issue here, because it’s uncomfortable in the right wing sphere, is that the essence of the argument – life begins at conception, at which point we have a “person” – is fundamentally a religious tenet. This Supreme Court has largely shifted the Constitution’s protection of religious beliefs from the “establishment” clause to the “liberty/freedom” clause. Where previously ordinances prohibiting the sale of beer at baseball games on Sundays, for example, were stricken because they were establishing religious principles, now individuals are allowed to deny service to customers based on the individual’s freedom to follow their religious practices.
What about abortion? Is someone who is not religious, or follows a faith that does not accept the notion that life begins at conception (in many Jewish circles, for example, a baby is not considered a person until it is 30 days old), or that holds the life and health of the mother takes priority over an unborn fetus, required to comply with someone else’s religious principles? Why? We clearly don’t require people to abort a pregnancy, why do we allow the restrictions?
Abortion restrictions in some states have been challenged based on religious freedom. Can’t wait to see how the Court deals with them when the shoe is on the other foot.
12 Likes
It makes perfect sense if you think of the modern “conservative” movement as essentially about privilege. The government serves their interests, but does not bind them in any way. The same way they get to pick and choose the parts of religious doctrine that they use as a weapon against others.
9 Likes
The right wing sphere people that believe that life begins at conception what measures are they going to have to enforce to make sure that all fertilized eggs implant, and stay implanted until such time natural birth is completed?
3 Likes
My point all along has been that restrictions on abortion, at least until the point of viability, are religion based and therefore clearly violate the First Amendment. I have some concerns about the viability level because modern medicine has allowed babies to survive who will be handicapped for life. In the last trimester the life of the mother should take precedence. As a professional scientist (biology), the total disregard for science is troubling as well.
7 Likes
It would also be nice if journalists would call out the organizations bringing these suits. These are 100% being teed up for favorable rulings.
7 Likes
In fact, one of them incorporated in Amarillo after the Dobbs decision was issued specifically so the lawsuit could be filed with Kacsmaryk.
9 Likes
Yup, and he seemed to write the decision with language lifted from the plaintiffs rather than the law. He ignored the science as presented to him by the FDA -evidence- and went whole hog with imagined future injuries to both physicians and patients who may be prescribed mifepristone.
7 Likes
Piers Morgan suggested something interesting last night on Bill Maher. Viagra actually has a higher case mortality rate than mifepristone so, if the FDA is forced to pull mifepristone due to its “dangerous” side effects, maybe they should pull all ED drugs as well. Imagine how quickly that ruling would be thrown out once all of these elderly judges realized they could no longer get Viagra?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9719720/#:~:text=The%20study%20found%20a%20mortality,which%20increased%20with%20sildenafil%20dosage.
https://www.ansirh.org/sites/default/files/publications/files/mifepristone_safety_4-23-2019.pdf
6 Likes
None, because that would involve things like improving prenatal care. Instead, they’ll just punish women for any situation where a pregnancy (real or implied/imagined) didn’t reach term.
6 Likes
How else could they get their message out except for misinformation.
They’ve made it an art form over the last 20 years.
4 Likes
Same thing the BadSupremes do with history. Projecting their own fantasy of ‘the olden days’ to support forcing whatever they want the world to do.
I’d like to say they should stay in their lane. But that is a minimum. To be a judge - moreso a Supreme - you need to broaden your lane. Have some understanding of the scientific method, some anthropological appreciation of other people. Some empathy, some open-mindedness. For FSM’s sake, so goddam humanity!
indeed!
6 Likes