Federal judge suspends FDA's approval of abortion pill

Fantine · Apr 7, 2023

I found this article: A federal judge suspends FDA's longtime approval of an abortion pill, but gives the government 7 days to appeal
fascinating on legal (not ideological) grounds.

The judge suspended FDA approval:

The FDA approved mifepristone more than 20 years ago to be used in combination with a second drug, misoprostol, to terminate pregnancies at up to 10 weeks. Over half of U.S. abortions are done by medication abortion, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. The pills have become increasingly significant in the fights over abortion access that have ensued since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

A coalition of anti-abortion groups, collectively called the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, sued in November challenging the process through which the FDA evaluated and approved mifepristone. They argue that the government did not adequately assess the drug’s safety and should not have made it accessible via telehealth during the pandemic.

What fascinates me is they are saying that the FDA did not adequately investigate mifepristone before approving it twenty years ago. Since then there has been twenty years of evidence worldwide as to the drug's safety to the pregnant woman ingesting it. I am pretty sure that telehealth has also been used in its prescribing it over some of those twenty years.

And so to say that there is insufficient evidence to have approved it--on those grounds--is dishonest and idiotic.

I am completely supportive of those who want to end abortion because they they believe that life begins at conception. They are fighting a moral issue on their deeply felt religious beliefs.

But all this nonsense about a drug that's been used worldwide for 20 years being insufficiently investigated is a huge heap of baloney.

Yttrium · Apr 7, 2023

But just to make things interesting, a Washington State judge ruled that the drug has to be provided to 17 blue states.

Judge in Washington orders feds to keep abortion pill access

A federal judge in Washington state on Friday ordered U.S. authorities not to make any changes that would restrict access to the abortion medication mifepristone in 17 Democratic-led states that sued over the issue, countering a ruling by a judge in Texas on the same day that ordered a hold on...

apnews.com

We're gonna need the Supreme Court to chime in on the Texas decision soon.

Fantine · Apr 7, 2023

The argument that it hasn't been tested enough just doesn't hold water. It's been widely prescribed for 20 years throughout the world in person and by telemedicine.

I get they want to end abortion, but frivolous lawsuits with no basis just waste time and money that could be used, for example, to maintain or increase SNAP benefits for hungry children.

If you want to file a lawsuit use a legal argument that people can respect.

Should it work--fat chance--the FDA could gather twenty years of evidence on the drug in a week, enough to bury the plaintiffs for decades.

FireDragon76 · Apr 8, 2023

You are right, it's dumb and misguided. If you want fewer abortions, fund women's reproductive health and public benefits to pregnant women.

Say it aint so · Apr 8, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
You are right, it's dumb and misguided. If you want fewer abortions, fund women's reproductive health and public benefits to pregnant women.

Bingo, but a segment of the country has a view of society that just doesn't exist. I am quite sure the judge shopped decision will be overturned, yet keep in mind these same groups have the banning of contraceptives themselves in their sights as well.

Pommer · Apr 8, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
You are right, it's dumb and misguided. If you want fewer abortions, fund women's reproductive health and public benefits to pregnant women.

There are some who would like to end the practice of abortion in such a way that won’t cost themselves any more in taxes (or taxpayer expenditures).
“Ban it!”
It won’t work for guns, but will work for abortions because [reasons].

Yttrium · Apr 14, 2023

Well, I did not expect Alito to temporarily block the decision. I guess we'll find out next week what the Supreme Court wants to do with this case.

High court temporarily blocks restrictions on abortion pill

The Supreme Court is temporarily keeping in place federal rules for use of an abortion drug, while it takes time to more fully consider the issues raised in a court challenge. In an order signed Friday by Justice Samuel Alito, the court put a five-day pause on the fast-moving case so the...

apnews.com

Diamond72 · Apr 29, 2023

Fantine said:
But all this nonsense

Infanticide is anything but nonsense. Of course for a war-monger government., life does not seem to be a concern for them. The Bible says choose life and life is always the right choice.

Desk trauma · Apr 29, 2023

FireDragon76 said:
You are right, it's dumb and misguided. If you want fewer abortions, fund women's reproductive health and public benefits to pregnant women.

Except reducing abortion is secondary to enforcing their sexual ethics.

KCfromNC · Apr 29, 2023

Diamond7 said:
Infanticide is anything but nonsense.

It's also off topic for this thread, which is about a legal decision on a drug which causes abortions.

jayem · Apr 29, 2023

Diamond7 said:
Infanticide is anything but nonsense. Of course for a war-monger government., life does not seem to be a concern for them. The Bible says choose life and life is always the right choice.

The Bible also says that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but is not otherwise hurt. then he pays a fine to her husband. Until the 19th century, the unborn were’t even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn’t usually occur before 4 months. The supreme law of our nation isn’t the Bible. It’s the Constitution. Which doesn’t state, or even imply, that the unborn are “persons” with Constitutional rights. If that’s an error, then the proper and most secure way to correct it is with a constitutional amendment.

Diamond72 · Apr 29, 2023

jayem said:
The Bible also says that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but is not otherwise hurt. then he pays a fine to her husband.

Are you suggesting we should hold abortionists accountable for their crimes and that they should pay restitution?

First of all, we have to look at whom the Bible was written for. Then we look at how this applies to us today. At the time a man could sell his daughter, so putting a monetary value was not unheard of. In the Bible, the story of Jacob and his marriage to Rachel and Leah is told in Genesis chapter 29. According to the story, Jacob worked for his uncle Laban for seven years in order to marry Rachel, whom he loved. At the end of the seven years, Laban deceived Jacob by giving him Leah instead of Rachel, and Jacob was forced to work an additional seven years in order to marry Rachel as well.

jayem · Apr 29, 2023

Diamond7 said:
Are you suggesting we should hold abortionists accountable for their crimes and that they should pay restitution?

If a pregnant woman’s physician, or her husband, boyfriend, girlfriend, brother, sister, parent, or whoever forces her to undergo a medical or surgical abortion WITHOUT HER CONSENT, then of course that person(s) should be prosecuted. But when it’s HER CHOICE to terminate her pregnancy, then it’s nobody else’s business. And it’s definitely no business of local, state, or federal government.

RileyG · Apr 29, 2023

jayem said:
The Bible also says that if a man strikes a pregnant woman and she miscarries, but is not otherwise hurt. then he pays a fine to her husband. Until the 19th century, the unborn were’t even thought to be alive until quickening. Which doesn’t usually occur before 4 months. The supreme law of our nation isn’t the Bible. It’s the Constitution. Which doesn’t state, or even imply, that the unborn are “persons” with Constitutional rights. If that’s an error, then the proper and most secure way to correct it is with a constitutional amendment.

We now know that a unborn child has it's own individual DNA that is unique. Science changes when more evidence is discovered. Our constitution hasn't always been perfect. Remember slavery?

KCfromNC · Apr 30, 2023

RileyG said:
We now know that a unborn child has it's own individual DNA that is unique. Science changes when more evidence is discovered.

Is the argument here that the Bible is wrong about abortion?

RileyG · Apr 30, 2023

KCfromNC said:
Is the argument here that the Bible is wrong about abortion?

No. Human life.

NxNW · Apr 30, 2023

RileyG said:
We now know that a unborn child has it's own individual DNA that is unique.

A drop of blood has DNA, but it's not a human being.

RileyG · Apr 30, 2023

NxNW said:
A drop of blood has DNA, but it's not a human being.

An unborn child is a human being. If it's not a human being what is it? A goat? An elephant? It HAS to be something.

comana · Apr 30, 2023

RileyG said:
An unborn child is a human being. If it's not a human being what is it? A goat? An elephant? It HAS to be something.

It is human but not yet a person.

RileyG · Apr 30, 2023

comana said:
It is human but not yet a person.

....then getting an abortion kills a human?

Federal judge suspends FDA's approval of abortion pill

Dona Quixote

Mad Scientist

Dona Quixote

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

Mad Scientist

Dispensationalist 72

[redacted]

Regular Member

Naturalist

Dispensationalist 72

Naturalist

Veteran

Regular Member

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Senior Veteran

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency