Abortion medication by mail confirmed

[jayem]

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) can continue to deliver prescription abortion medication despite a June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a landmark abortion rights decision, the Justice Department said on Tuesday....

USPS said the Justice Department concurred with its "determination that under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, any state laws that may apply to the shipment of those prescription drugs cannot be applied to Postal Service employees who are complying with their duties under federal law."

Non-surgical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol is now the most common early term abortion technique. The DoJ opinion holds that states which prohibit early, 1st trimester abortion can't interfere with mail delivery of these drugs directly to patients. Physician advice and monitoring will still be necessary, but can be done through telemedicine. I'm sure some anti-abortion states will challenge this in federal court. We'll see how it plays out.

U.S. Postal Service can continue to deliver prescription abortion medication, DOJ says

 

[Yttrium]

And the chess match continues. What will be the next move for states like Texas, Alabama and Idaho?

 

[Desk trauma]

And the chess match continues. What will be the next move for states like Texas, Alabama and Idaho?

Restrictions on interstate travel for women.

 

[jayem]

Not to get off topic, but the So. Carolina Supreme Court , by a 3 -2 margin, just struck down the state’s ban on elective abortion after 6 weeks. The court ruled it violates the right to privacy as guarantee by the state constitution.

The chess game truly does go on and on.


South Carolina Supreme Court overturns state abortion ban

 

[Fantine]

A federal law could shut the door completely if we had a Republican Congress and president.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

A federal law could shut the door completely if we had a Republican Congress and president.

It could "legally" shut the door technically speaking, but as we've seen in the past, there are entities of all stripes who've played the game of just not enforcing the laws (coming from the level of government entity above them) that they don't agree with.

Technically speaking, any state that's allowing people to use marijuana are in violation of federal laws. It's not as contentious of an issue as abortion at the current juncture, so neither party seems to really care about it all that much anymore...none the less

But there are other examples.

There have been some blue localities becoming "sanctuary cities" or "sanctuary states" who refuse to abide by federal immigration laws.
There have been some red cities and counties neglecting to enforce the gun control laws of the blue state they reside in.



Not to mention, even if they had the time and resources to try to enforce this, enforcement would be an absolute nightmare with regards to the logistics.

mifepristone, for example, can be used up until 11 weeks. So if a woman orders some (in a state with a ban after 6 weeks), how would a postal employee (or an agent screening the mail) know how far along in a pregnancy a random woman is? Technically speaking, she's legal if she does it at 5 weeks, but a "criminal" if she uses it at 7 weeks, but how is anyone who's in charge of mail handling or screening to know that? Apart from exposing HIPAA data to mail screeners (which is a big no-no), not much they could do there.


It also fails to acknowledge that (with regards to mifepristone), the drug can be (and is) used for other things.

A treatment for endogenous Cushing syndrome | Korlym® (mifepristone) 300 mg Tablets

Learn about a once-daily oral treatment that helps reduce the negative effects of excess cortisol. Please read Important Safety Information and full Prescribing Info, including Boxed Warning.

www.korlym.com

So if a woman is getting this medication via mail in the generic form...how would they know if it's a woman looking to end an early pregnancy? Or one of the 3 million diabetics with Cushing's syndrome?

 

[NxNW]

A federal law could shut the door completely if we had a Republican Congress and president.

If it was put on the ballot nationwide, do you think we should follow the results?

 

[GodLovesCats]

WASHINGTON, Jan 3 (Reuters) - The U.S. Postal Service (USPS) can continue to deliver prescription abortion medication despite a June 2022 Supreme Court ruling that overturned a landmark abortion rights decision, the Justice Department said on Tuesday....

USPS said the Justice Department concurred with its "determination that under the doctrine of intergovernmental immunity, any state laws that may apply to the shipment of those prescription drugs cannot be applied to Postal Service employees who are complying with their duties under federal law."

Non-surgical abortion with mifepristone and misoprostol is now the most common early term abortion technique. The DoJ opinion holds that states which prohibit early, 1st trimester abortion can't interfere with mail delivery of these drugs directly to patients. Physician advice and monitoring will still be necessary, but can be done through telemedicine. I'm sure some anti-abortion states will challenge this in federal court. We'll see how it plays out.

This is all about the fact that federal law supersedes state law in the U.S. Constitution. No state is permitted to prevent people from getting federally available medications in the mail. If doing so was legal, a state would be allowed to prevent all people from getting any kind of FDA-approved drug from mail order pharmacies.

For those abortion opponents wondering why the FDA does not recall the drugs, well, good luck proving they pose more danger than benefit to the expecting mother. Because she is the one taking them, they must be life-threatening to her body with only her DNA for either drug to be pulled from the market.

 

[rambot]

Restrictions on interstate travel for women.

Strange how the "freedom" states...kinda.....ain't.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Not to get off topic, but the So. Carolina Supreme Court , by a 3 -2 margin, just struck down the state’s ban on elective abortion after 6 weeks. The court ruled it violates the right to privacy as guarantee by the state constitution.

South Carolina Supreme Court overturns state abortion ban

The U.S. Constitution protects women's privacy rights, according to one of the best law schools in America, Harvard University. It is about how laws requiring ultrasounds, medical records, and more before having an abortion violate the Fourth Amendment. I totally agree with the writer.

Physically Intrusive Abortion Restrictions as Fourth Amendment Searches and Seizures - Harvard Law Review

Successful challenges to abortion restrictions have typically been brought under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause and considered within a right-to-privacy framework. However, legal...

harvardlawreview.org

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This is all about the fact that federal law supersedes state law in the U.S. Constitution. No state is permitted to prevent people from getting federally available medications in the mail. If doing so was legal a state would be allowed to prevent people from getting any kind of FDA-approved drug from mail order pharmacies.

For those abortion opponents wondering why the FDA does not just stop approving the drugs, well, good luck proving they pose more danger than benefit to the expecting mother. Because she is the one taking them they must be life-threatening to her body with only her DNA for either drug to be pulled from the market.

Well, in a lot of cases, it's no so simple.

There are certain instances where state supersedes fed, and vice versa.

Per the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


On subjects that don't neatly fit into this criteria, there's a lot of ambiguity.

Applied consistently, most people (on either side) wouldn't like the results of strict adherence to this.

The "State vs. Fed" dynamic is one that we're still trying to find the right balance on.

Take the topics of Abortion, Guns, Gay Marriage, and Marijuana.

Ask a lot of people (republican or democrat), they'll likely give conflicting answers on these if you were to ask them on a topic by topic basis. (in terms of whether or not State or Fed should have the final say)...and their answer for fed would likely change conditionally based on whether or not the federal government happened to be ran by their preferred political party at the given time.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Ask a lot of people (Republican or Democrat), they'll likely give conflicting answers on these if you were to ask them on a topic by topic basis. (in terms of whether or not State or Fed should have the final say)...and their answer for fed would likely change conditionally based on whether or not the federal government happened to be ran by their preferred political party at the given time.

Many people want abortion, gambling, homosexual marriage, and recreational marijuana to be legal in their states so they have the right to do it themselves. They do not always care what other states allow because in their minds, only what they are allowed to do matters.

When I discuss all federal laws superseding state laws, I am talking about the actual facts spelled out in our Constitution, which cannot be subject to what specific individuals prefer. One of them is application of the Tenth Amendment does not depend on the topic.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Many people want abortion, gambling, homosexual marriage, and recreational marijuana to be legal in their states so they have the right to do it themselves. They do not always care what other states allow because in their minds, only what they are allowed to do matters.

When I discuss all federal laws superseding state laws, I am talking about the actual facts spelled out in our Constitution, which cannot be subject to what specific individuals prefer. One of them is application of the Tenth Amendment does not depend on the topic.

A strict reading of the 10th amendment would suggest that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government should be left to the states.

Since things like abortion, gambling, marriage criteria, and drug legalization aren't explicitly delegated to the federal government, therefore, should be left to the states.

The supremacy clause (while having been interpreted different ways over the years) still has a very limited scope if read with a strict interpretation

Supremacy Clause

www.law.cornell.edu

What I was referring to in my previous post was that with regards to States' rights under the 10th amendment vs. Federal supremacy under the Supremacy clause, people tend to want to interpret whichever aligns with their viewpoint more broadly (and the other more strictly).

Which is why you had one faction becoming 10th amendment advocates for the pot debate (back when California was legalizing, and the Feds were sending in the DEA to shut down their shops), and that same faction wanting Federal supremacy on the topic of abortion.

An example of both sides conditionally advocating for both (depending on who's in power) would be the Marriage debate.

When it was a few states legalizing gay marriage (and conservatives didn't like it and they were in power), they tried to pass DOMA. A few years later when there was a ruling suggesting that it was a right that had to be applied everywhere, the same folks switched and wanted states to be able to have their own rules.

Under our system of Federalism, there a lot left open to interpretation (which I suspect was largely by design) with regards to a federal v. state power struggle.

 

[GodLovesCats]

A strict reading of the 10th amendment would suggest that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government should be left to the states.

Since things like abortion, gambling, marriage criteria, and drug legalization aren't explicitly delegated to the federal government, therefore, should be left to the states.

The supremacy clause (while having been interpreted different ways over the years) still has a very limited scope if read with a strict interpretation

This one is in the United States Constitution. No state has the right to make laws that unreasonably invade a pregnant woman's privacy, which is clearly spelled out in the Fourth Amendment, or unreasonably put her life and liberty at risk, which is clearly spelled out in two amendments. I also know what the word "born" means and that it has only one biological meaning, so it is impossible to graduate from high school without knowing no unborn human beings ever have any legal rights for any reason nationwide.

I am just telling you the Constitutional facts here. Even if I opposed all abortions except to save the mother's life (which will never happen), I would make exactly the same statements. You can be anti-choice without denying all the constitutional facts that I know will never change.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

This one is in the United States Constitution. No state has the right to make laws that unreasonably invade a pregnant woman's privacy, which is clearly spelled out in the Fourth Amendment, or unreasonably put her life and liberty at risk, which is clearly spelled out in two amendments. I also know what the word "born" means and that it has only one biological meaning, so it is impossible to graduate from high school without knowing no unborn human beings ever have any legal rights for any reason nationwide.

I am just telling you the Constitutional facts here. Even if I opposed all abortions except to save the mother's life (which will never happen), I would make exactly the same statements. You can be anti-choice without denying all the constitutional facts that I know will never change.

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the privacy angle was the wrong one to take (and she was pretty pro-choice) as it was both too broad in some regards, and failed to directly establish the particular right/privilege in question. I don't fit neatly into the pro-choice or pro-life camps, but I agree with her on that aspect.

She stated:
“Legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature,”

...and thus, she thought a better case for the SCOTUS to rule on would've been something pertaining to the equal protection clause.

Lumping it in under medical privacy is a precedent that could apply to just about anything if one wanted to be disingenuous about justification for circumnavigating a law. "It's none of the government's business if I want to take pain killers and drive, my doctor said it was best if I make sure I'm relaxed before driving, and that was a private medical conversation"

Like with Abortion, that scenario wouldn't be getting challenged on privacy grounds, and the objections to it have nothing to do with privacy in a general sense, and have something to do with the specific act itself.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg stated that the privacy angle was the wrong one to take (and she was pretty pro-choice) as it was both too broad in some regards, and failed to directly establish the particular right/privilege in question. I don't fit neatly into the pro-choice or pro-life camps, but I agree with her on that aspect.

She stated:
“Legal challenges to undue restrictions on abortion procedures do not seek to vindicate some generalized notion of privacy; rather, they center on a woman’s autonomy to determine her life’s course, and thus to enjoy equal citizenship stature,”

...and thus, she thought a better case for the SCOTUS to rule on would've been something pertaining to the equal protection clause.

Lumping it in under medical privacy is a precedent that could apply to just about anything if one wanted to be disingenuous about justification for circumnavigating a law. "It's none of the government's business if I want to take pain killers and drive, my doctor said it was best if I make sure I'm relaxed before driving, and that was a private medical conversation"

Like with abortion, that scenario wouldn't be getting challenged on privacy grounds, and the objections to it have nothing to do with privacy in a general sense, and have something to do with the specific act itself.

You are trying to make a comparison that does not exist. Abortion is the only kind of medical procedure that the government requires women to schedule new radiology testing for before they can get one. The sonogram results were not already sitting there in her medical records. The doctor is not who ordered it. The government orders her to get one, usurping the doctor's job with no reasonable cause. That qualifies under any state law as unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly gives all of us the right "to be secure in our persons" (meaning our own bodies), so any law requiring a sonogram is obviously unconstitutional because unlike tests she asked for, it is unreasonably searching a woman's body. Nothing can justify it. If the sonogram benefited society, we could call it reasonable. Howeve3r, it does not provide any kind of benefit to anyone. That makes it totally unreasonable and does nothing but harm expecting mothers who want to get abortion pills.

 

[Pommer]

You are trying to make a comparison that does not exist. Abortion is the only kind of medical procedure that the government requires women to schedule new radiology testing for before they can get one. The sonogram results were not already sitting there in her medical records. The doctor is not who ordered it. The government orders her to get one, usurping the doctor's job with no reasonable cause. That qualifies under any state law as unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Fourth Amendment explicitly gives all of us the right "to be secure in our persons" (meaning our own bodies), so any law requiring a sonogram is obviously unconstitutional because unlike tests she asked for, it is unreasonably searching a woman's body. Nothing can justify it. If the sonogram benefited society, we could call it reasonable. Howeve3r, it does not provide any kind of benefit to anyone. That makes it totally unreasonable and does nothing but harm expecting mothers who want to get abortion pills.

Added to the mix is the fact that our birth rate is falling, (as it is in nearly all post-industrial nations), and to continue to have a functioning economy we would have to increase immigration to make-up the offset, (which is an “unfashionable” option for a certain segment of TPTB).

 

[GodLovesCats]

Added to the mix is the fact that our birth rate is falling, (as it is in nearly all post-industrial nations), and to continue to have a functioning economy we would have to increase immigration to up-make the offset, (which is an “unfashionable” option for a certain segment of TPTB).

There are 8 billion people on Earth. That is not counting all of the unborn human beings who will continue to overpopulate our planet. Only 2.4 billion of them are Christians. If you want more people to exist, you want more people in hell because most of them will never be Christians - guaranteed. The economy is totally irrelevant.

There is absolutely no reason to ever think for one second a low birth rate in America is an excuse for treating people with unwanted pregnancies like they are second-class citizens, which is all anti-choicers are doing when they insist nearly all totally necessary abortions must be illegal while at the same time refusing to do whatever it takes to give people with unwanted pregnancies all the help they need for the rest of their lives and do the same for all of the unwanted children who obviously never should have been conceived.

 

[Pommer]

There are 8 billion people on Earth. That is not counting all the unborn human beings who will continue to overpopulate our planet. Only 2.4 billion of them are Christians. If you want more people overall, you want more people in hell.

Sure thing. Yet, as a deist, I believe in “no afterlife”, so…

 

[GodLovesCats]

Sure thing. Yet, as a deist, I believe in “no afterlife”, so…

Even if you don't believe in hell, it is very easy to understand 8 billion is already too many people on the planet and we need the birth rate to drop.