Louisiana Republicans: Regulate Abortion Pill As Dangerous Substance

 

The Malignant Loser likes to proudly point to the end of Roe v. Wade as a way for States to decide how they want to take reproductive freedom away from women.  Let's see how that's working out in Republican- dominated Louisiana:

Louisiana could become the first state in the country to categorize mifepristone and misoprostol — the drugs used to induce an abortion — as controlled dangerous substances, threatening incarceration and fines if an individual possesses the pills without a valid prescription or outside of professional practice.

Legislators [Republican legislators, dammit] in Baton Rouge added the provision as a last-minute amendment to a Senate bill that would criminalize an abortion if someone gives a pregnant woman the pills without her consent, a scenario of “coerced criminal abortion” that nearly occurred with one senator’s sister.

A pregnant woman obtaining the two drugs “for her own consumption” would not be at risk of prosecution. But, with the exception of a health-care practitioner, a person helping her get the pills would be.

Louisiana already bans both medication and surgical abortions except to save a patient’s life or because a pregnancy is “medically futile.” Lawmakers just rejected adding exceptions for teenagers under 17 who become pregnant through rape or incest.

The amendment would list mifepristone and misoprostol under the state’s Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law, which regulates depressants, opioids and other drugs that can be highly addictive. It elicited a strong reaction from more than 240 Louisiana doctors, who called it “not scientifically based.”

“Adding a safe, medically indicated drug for miscarriage management … creates the false perception that these are dangerous drugs that require additional regulation,” they wrote in a letter sent last week to the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Thomas Pressly. They noted misoprostol’s other critical uses, including to prevent gastrointestinal ulcers and to aid in labor and delivery.

“Given its historically poor maternal health outcomes, Louisiana should prioritize safe and evidence-based care for pregnant women,” they urged...

Here's what Physicians for Human Rights has to say about how Republicans in Louisiana have criminalized care both before and since 6 Republican "justices" (three appointed by the Malignant Loser) overturned 50 years of precedent in 2022:

... Louisiana has been one of the most aggressive in enacting and enforcing legal bans on abortion. Even before the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, it had one of the most restrictive and punitive anti-abortion legal frameworks in the U.S.. The state legislature enacted a trigger ban with very narrow exceptions as early as 2006 to prohibit abortion immediately if Roe were ever to be overturned. The state legislature also increased legal and professional penalties for those providing abortion care just before the Dobbs ruling, with penalties of up to 15 years imprisonment and $200,000 in fines. Just days after Dobbs was decided, the state’s Attorney General (now the state’s Governor) sent a letter to the Louisiana State Medical Society threatening legal action against any clinician who provided abortion care in the state...

Never forget, or let anyone you know forget:  the Malignant Loser did this, and he's proud that he did. When MAGAt Republicans try to whitewash or obfuscate their position on reproductive rights, don't ever believe them.  Just like their cult leader, if their lips are moving, they're lying.

(Photo: Paul Weaver/ SOPA Images/ LightRocket via Getty Images)

 

Republican Judges To Rule On Mifepristone Availability

We already know how this will play out:

A federal appeals court on Wednesday seemed prepared to limit access to a key abortion medication first approved more than two decades ago, expressing deep skepticism that the government followed the proper process when it loosened regulations to make the pill more readily available.

A panel of three judges, all of whom have previously supported other types of abortion restrictions, peppered lawyers for the government and the drug manufacturer with questions about why the Food and Drug Administration has allowed mifepristone to be prescribed by a medical professional other than a doctor and sent directly to patients by mail.

The judges also appeared to embrace the suggestion that restoring prior restrictions on mifepristone would mean fewer women would need emergency care after using medication to terminate a pregnancy. Serious side effects occur in less than 1 percent of such abortions.

Judge James C. Ho rejected the government’s argument that the court should not second-guess the expertise of the FDA, which first approved mifepristone in 2000. The medication is part of a two-drug regimen used in more than half of U.S. abortions, though the second drug — misoprostol — can also be used on its own to terminate a pregnancy.

“I don’t understand this theme that FDA can do no wrong,” Ho said. “We are allowed to look at the FDA just like we’re allowed to look at any agency. That’s the role of the courts.”

Judge Jennifer Elrod took the unusual step of chastising the drug company’s lawyer for pointed language in court filings that criticized an April ruling by U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of Texas that would outright suspend FDA approval of the drug.

Wednesday’s hearing at the conservative U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit was to consider an appeal of that ruling by lawyers for the Justice Department, representing the FDA, and the drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories. Revoking approval of mifepristone, they have said in court filings, would also jeopardize access to non-abortion drugs and more broadly impact medical research and innovation.

The judges randomly assigned to the case are Ho and Judge Cory T. Wilson — both nominated by President Donald Trump — and Elrod, a nominee of President George W. Bush. Regardless of how they rule, mifepristone will remain available under existing regulations until the case is resolved, probably by the Supreme Court...

Three "randomly assigned" judges from an overwhelmingly right- wing circuit court of appeals in a case that was judge-shopped from the beginning when the plaintiffs went to notorious right- wing forced- birth judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, a Malignant Loser appointee.  Who wants to bet that the Republican Supreme Court, with 6 right- wing Republican justices, will uphold any restrictions placed on mifepristone by the lower court? 

The Good, The Bad, And The Ugly

 

The good:

...The decision to maintain the status quo on mifepristone by the same court that struck down Roe v Wade may be a quiet nod to the waning legitimacy of the court, and a concern about further backlash.

But what if the politics of judicial reform are already shifting under the justices’ feet?

The high-profile state Supreme Court race in Wisconsin — and the potential fallout — suggests that may be the case. During the midterms, that quintessential purple state delivered slim victories to a Democratic governor and a Republican senator. Less than five months later, though, a left-leaning candidate, Judge Janet Protasiewicz, ran up a double-digit advantage over her right-of-center opponent. [snip]

But Wisconsin’s judicial election earlier this month suggests that the White House’s assessment of how judicial politics plays among Democratic voters no longer holds water. That election may signal a broader shift in the tectonics of voter mobilization in respect to courts and judges more generally.

The most obvious reason for thinking something has changed is that it was Democrats, and not Republicans, who were galvanized by the judicial election. These voters, moreover, were moved by the issue of judicial power but were not motivated as much by the goal of electing Democrats. In a state Senate race held that same day, the Republican candidate eked out a win. That too was a highly consequential election, giving Republicans a Senate supermajority and the votes to oust officials through impeachment.  [snip]

If the political script on judicial power gets flipped in Wisconsin — if GOP legislators act to rein in a liberal-leaning court — what could this bode for a broader change nationally? Or what happens if conservative federal judges or Supreme Court justices advance a far-right agenda reviled by progressives and even many centrists?

Surely, the next time Democrats have full control of Washington, the push to overhaul the judiciary will be a top priority, if they have the votes.

That the mifepristone case was ever heard, much less advanced to the Supreme Court, is a testament to the extent to which the judicial branch, at least in certain circuits, has been filled with radical right- wing Republicans (i.e., Christofascists).  The Supreme Court's Republican supermajority is, if nothing else, highly partisan and political.  They see the ground shifting against their party on the abortion issue and may be acting to stem the damage.  Elections matter.

The bad:

Fox Corp.’s $787.5 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems over defamation charges is eye-popping, but the ultimate cost to the media company is likely to be much lower. [snip]

How much the lawsuit will actually end up costing Fox is unclear because there are ways it can defray some of the expense, primarily through insurance and the use of tax deductions.

Fox can deduct the Dominion settlement from its income taxes as an expense necessary for the cost of doing business. Fox Chief Communications Officer Brian Nick has confirmed the deductibility of the settlement.

Big companies often deduct large settlements to help offset some of the cost, but since settlement amounts are usually confidential, it’s difficult to pin down exactly how much they benefit. Payments that are seen as restitution or compensation can be deducted, while payments made to the government or at the direction of a government are usually not deductible.

Robert Willens, a tax professor at the Columbia University School of Business, estimates that after the tax write-off, Fox will incur about three-fourths of the settlement amount, about $590 million...

The settlement wasn't going to change the Fox "News" business model, but seeing them get away with this is infuriating.  All the more reason the Smartmatic lawsuit needs to go through the trial process to bring as much pain to these bastards as possible.

The ugly:

Nearly every 2024 GOP presidential contender or likely candidate that spoke at a major evangelical gathering in Iowa over the weekend vowed to fight against “woke” transgender policies.

The fact that not a single person on stage mentioned same-sex marriage, the banning of which was once a top priority for social conservatives, put a punctuation mark on the new rallying cry on the right.

The GOP’s shift on social issues is the result of quickly changing public attitudes ― including within their own party ― toward the acceptance of gay marriage, as well as polls that show some Americans’ unease with the pace of change on trans issues.  [snip]

Former Vice President Mike Pence received a warm reception from the crowd after he framed the fight over trans issues as one based on religious freedom. He also praised Iowa for passing legislation that banned gender-affirming medical care for minors.

“The battle against radial gender ideology is a battle for religious freedom, and it’s a battle we must fight,” Pence said, drawing a round of applause.  [snip]

Targeting trans rights isn’t just campaign fodder, either.

Last week, the GOP-controlled House of Representatives approved legislation on a party-line vote banning transgender athletes whose biological sex assigned at birth was male from competing on girls or women’s sports teams at federally supported schools and colleges. The bill has no chance of passage with a Democratic majority in the Senate and a Democrat in the White House, but it’s yet another sign of how the issue is resonating within the GOP.

Already this year, almost 500 anti-trans bills have been introduced in nearly every state in the country, including some that would require genital inspections. And while national Republicans have sought to target trans healthcare for minors, GOP-led states like Missouri are moving forward with measures that would severely curtail access to transgender healthcare writ large...

It's all part of the GQP's decades- long strategy to search out the most vulnerable, ostracized minority and afflict it for political gain.  If they can give it the veneer of religious "values," all the better.

SCOTUS Preserves Full Access To Mifepristone -- For Now

 

Late today, the Supreme Court put a hold on any restrictions to use of the medical abortion drug mifepristone:

The Supreme Court on Friday preserved full access for now to a key drug that has been taken by millions of women to terminate early pregnancies, its first major abortion-related decision since overturning Roe v. Wade’s constitutional guarantee of abortion rights last year.

It put on hold a lower court’s ruling in favor of antiabortion groups, which said the Food and Drug Administration was wrong to make the drug mifepristone more widely available. A legal battle over whether to permanently reimpose restrictions, and whether the FDA had properly approved use of the drug more than 20 years ago, will continue.

As is typical in emergency actions, the majority did not explain its reasoning for putting the lower court decision on hold. In the only noted dissents, Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they would not have granted the Biden administration’s request for a stay of the decision. Thomas did not explain his reasoning. Alito said the administration and the public would not have been harmed by agreeing with the lower court, which wanted to reimpose restrictions loosened by the FDA in recent years.  (our emphasis)

Not surprising that the two most radical Republican justices wanted to go ahead with the restrictions the appeals court had pasted onto the Trump judge's decision to suspend the FDA's approval of the drug altogether.

As noted above, this is a temporary (but welcome) reprieve.  The fight's far from over.

BONUS:  Here's NARAL's statement on the hold --

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the Department of Justice’s request for a stay in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA, blocking lower courts’  dangerous rulings that would have severely restricted access to mifepristone.

NARAL Pro-Choice America President Mini Timmaraju released the following statement in response:

“Mifepristone will remain available – for now. We cannot overstate how crucial it is that people still have access to this safe, effective medicine. The fight, however, is far from over. Once again, anti-abortion extremists will use the courts to push their deeply unpopular agenda and once again, we will organize the tens of millions of people who believe in safe, legal abortion to fight back.”

 

BONUS II:  A somewhat optimistic view --

Most significant thing is Alito and Thomas were only ones to dissent. Bodes well for the future and the Texas Judge’s restrictions and those of the Court of Appeals not being upheld, should this case ever reach SCOTUS. https://t.co/dfs2OCN964

— Neal Katyal (@neal_katyal) April 21, 2023

 

 

SCOTUS Punts On Mifepristone Decision Until Friday

 

Justice delayed...

The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave itself more time to decide whether a key drug that has been used by millions of women to terminate early pregnancies should remain available nationwide, its first major abortion-related controversy since overturning Roe v. Wade’s constitutional guarantee of abortion rights last year.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., who had earlier put on hold until 11:59 p.m. Wednesday a lower court’s decision that imposed additional restrictions on the use of mifepristone, extended the stay until Friday.

The justices are considering a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that rolled back the FDA’s actions since 2016 — allowing patients to get mifepristone through the mail, authorizing prescriptions by medical professionals other than doctors and approving the drug’s use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy, instead of seven.

The appeals court action followed U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s recent ruling in Texas to undo the FDA’s approval of mifepristone more than two decades ago. More than 5 million women have since used the drug — in combination with a second pill, misoprostol — to end their pregnancies.

The Biden administration, pharmaceutical companies and abortion rights groups called the legal challenges to mifepristone from anti-abortion groups an unprecedented attack on the expertise of the FDA, which relied on data from dozens of clinical trials when it approved the drug. They argued the lower court rulings would create confusion and uncertainty for abortion providers and have devastating consequences for the pharmaceutical industry’s ability to bring new drugs to market...

Given the composition of the extremist Republican court, and the predilections of Alito in particular, we're not sanguine about what the Court will do come Friday.  In a normal country with a normal judiciary, this case would never have been allowed to proceed from the get-go.  

Stay tuned.

(Image:  the six Catholic Republican Justices/ CNN)

QOTD -- The Question Before The Court

 

"The Supreme Court on Wednesday is expected to decide whether to grant a stay of a lower-court ruling that would revoke approval for the abortion medication mifepristone. If it fails to do so, it would betray not only decades of science supporting the safety of the drug but also the broader authority of the Food and Drug Administration.  [snip]

"To me, the question before the Supreme Court hinges on this point: Does it recognize the authority that Congress entrusted the FDA’s scientists and clinicians to represent the public’s interest and approve drugs based on evidence and long-established procedures, or not? Mifepristone must be treated like all other pharmaceutical products reviewed by the FDA, just as reproductive care must be treated like any other aspects of health care." -- Dr. Lena S. Wen, in the Washington Post, on what's at stake today and going forward should the Republican Supreme Court take action that would be injurious to the health of women and to the authority of the FDA to regulate pharmaceuticals.

Appeals Court Issues Abortion Pill Ruling

 

The conservative Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled late last night that access to mifepristone would be preserved but with limitations, temporarily narrowing the ruling by a far-right Trumpist District Court judge in Texas that blocked the FDA's approval of the drug. From the Associated Press' report:

"Just before midnight Wednesday, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone in 2000 could remain in effect.

But in the 2-1 vote, the panel of judges put on hold changes made by the regulator since 2016 that relaxed the rules for prescribing and dispensing mifepristone. Those included extending the period of pregnancy when the drug can be used from seven weeks to 10, and also allowing it to be dispensed by mail, without any need to visit a doctor’s office."

Two of the three judges on the panel were appointed by the Malignant Loser, and the third by President George Bush, and were the ones voting for restrictions. By inserting themselves into a medical and scientific matter, District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk and the appellate court judges potentially opened up the door to any medication approved by the FDA being blocked from use by a court. Pharmaceutical companies have condemned Kacsmaryk's initial ruling. The case is ultimately headed to the Supreme Court.

After the Dobbs decision last summer which brought down Roe v. Wade, Republicans and their Christofascist allies have been on the move in multiple states to ban abortion outright or restrict it severely. It's a move that's backfired on them politically, most recently in the Wisconsin election for a state Supreme Court judge which resulted in a progressive win. According to recent polling, it's even a loser issue among Republicans.