Mimi Swartz of the Texas Monthly described the federal judge who will decide whether to allow abortion pills to remain legal. He was appointed by Trump, undoubtedly recommended by the Federalist Society, which vetted all of Trump’s judicial picks. This judge was his parting gift to the anti-abortion lobby. Judge Kacsmaryk has the power to declare the abortion pill illegal across the nation; he is taking testimony about whether the drug was wrongly approved by the Federal Drug Administration in 2000. Medically-induced drugs account for more than half of the abortions in the U.S.
Much of the public attention now focused on Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, the Amarillo-based federal judge who is expected to soon outlaw mifepristone, the so-called abortion pill, has focused on the ways in which his political and religious beliefs have shaped his legal career. His fervent opposition to abortion arose as an issue during his confirmation hearings in 2019, as did his staunch opposition to same-sex marriage and his previous statement that transgender Americans were “delusional.” He isn’t a fan of birth control either: in 2015, as deputy general counsel for a Plano-based nonprofit law firm called First Liberty Institute, Kacsmaryk arguedin an amicus brief that pharmacies should be prevented from providing contraception. Kacsmaryk’s time on the bench has only reinforced the view that he is an activist judge who allows his private beliefs to govern his legal opinions—and it seems that the antiabortion activists who venue-shopped to land the mifepristone suit in his courtroom would agree.
The Washington Post wrote:
AMARILLO, Tex. — The federal judge who could upend access to a key abortion medication seemed open on Wednesday to the argument that the drug had not been properly vetted and could be unsafe — claims the Food and Drug Administration and leading health organizations strongly contest.
While the antiabortion group challenging the drug acknowledged there is no precedent for a court to order the suspension of a long-approved medication, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk questioned whether mifepristone has met the rigorous federal standard necessary to be prescribed to patients in the United States.
He asked a lawyer for the group whether the court could unilaterally withdraw FDA approval for a drug, and engaged with attorneys for both sides about whether mailing the pills should be prohibited because of a 19th-century law that bans sending articles “for any indecent or immoral use” through the Postal Service….
During the hearing, lawyers for the antiabortion group argued that the FDA’s decision to allow abortion pills to be distributed by mail violates a 150-year-old law. The Comstock Act, they say, prohibits mailing any drug used “for producing abortion.”
Those arguments appeared to resonate with Kacsmaryk, who asked government lawyers if there was “any dispute” that the law prohibits mailing abortion medication.
The Justice Department argued that the modern-day reading of the law has never prevented the mailing of abortion pills, in part because the medications have other uses and because abortion remains legal in many circumstances.
Judge Kacsmaryk attended a Christian university. He is member of the Red Mass Committee of the Catholic Diocese of Ft. Worth. He co-founded a chapter of the Federalist Society (Leonard Leo’s organization).
In a preceding post, Diane posted about New Hampshire. At the Manchester Archdiocese site in a section about Catholic voting, we learn that Catholics are, “urged to consider before we vote, first of all, abortion…” Since the Republican Party is the party against abortion, it would be clear to me what the direction is.
At the site, Catholics are told, “We have dual heritage both as faithful Catholics and American citizens.” Note which is listed first.
I recommend reading the article at Nebraska Public Media (3-7-2023),”Debate on scholarships to religious schools turns personal.”
The Executive Director of the Nebraska Catholic Conference is quoted about gay families.
I don’t understand how one person can wield so much power in this vast system. It is like McConnell clogging up the Senate because he and he alone had the power to hold up bills.
It is amazing that one judge can block the mailing of a drug. You would think his ruling would be limited to Texas, but it will be national unless overturned by an appellate court. Then it will go to the US Supreme Court. What will the Trump court do?
It doesn’t really matter much which judge hears the case at the trial level—no matter what the trial court rules, it will be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS.
At the center of this issue is the wife of Senator Josh Hawley (MO – rep) (yes, that Josh run-for-your-life Hawley).
Comstock law includes “any drug or medicine or article whatever for the purpose of…”
A quick skim of articles and the possible effects of this case shows using this ancient law could make it illegal to “mail” or transport medical equipment, surgical instruments, and more used in surgery in any state.
Reading “Doctors Without Borders” definitions of “Safe” and “Unsafe” abortion are distinguished. “Unsafe” includes ingesting harmful liquids, blunt trauma and other means. Their data on death (approx. 22,000 per year) from “unsafe” methods are staggering.
If “follow the money” applies (from other blogs today), then let the major manufacturers of any substance that has been used for an (unsafe) abortion that they are subject to this precedent will have to stop transporting their products to grocery stores across the country.
And then history repeats itself? https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2022/06/24/illegal-abortions-before-roe-dc/
The US Postal Service is a federal agency that serves the entire country and tampering with mail is a federal offence. The federal government needs to defend a woman’s right to receive mail. The contents of the mail is personal, not the property of any state. States should not be able to impede the US mail in any state.