Rachel M. Cohen writes for VOX about national issues. In this post, she explains the Texas decision banning the sale of anti-abortion pills by mail or any other way. The judge said the pill is unsafe, despite its approval by the FDA and careful review of its use for 23 years. This decision conflicts with one in Washington State, which ruled that the FDA must not restrict access to the same drug. Cohen provides a valuable and concise overview of the issue.
Please open the link and read on.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
The guy is a lunatic.
The Texas judge is passionately opposed to abortion. He is a zealot. The litigants went to him knowing he would rule as he did. There is something outrageous about a judge overruling scientists.
Any time a far-right group wants a favorable decision, they can bring their case to Amarillo, Texas. Judge K is the only federal judge in the district.
Let’s contrast how the so-called liberal media reported on Matthew Kacsmaryk’s understandable and perfectly reasonable decision to ban an abortion bill on the grounds it is unsafe, versus the “unprecedented” and “danger to democracy” decision by Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg to indict a former president for crimes that people are regularly indicted for.
Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision is NOT political. It will NOT tear the country apart. It is NOT a danger to democracy. It is NOT “a country heading down a road it has never traveled before, one fraught with profound consequences for the health of the world’s oldest democracy.”
Judge Kacsmaryk’s decision did NOT break any taboos. It is NOT set a new and very dangerous precedent.
Instead, the NYT thought it far more important for people to understand the “searing, formative experience” that shaped this upright and honorable Texas judge. He had a stillborn child, which apparently makes Republicans but not Democrats immune from criticism that their decisions are politically motivated.
In a fawning profile, we learned from the NYT that “Ms. Statler agreed about Judge Kacsmaryk. “I just know he just has a real tender spot for caring for women,” she told The Times, “and particularly women who are pregnant.”
Contrast the NYT amplifying that this upright and honorable judge is ONLY motivated by his principles and admirable ethical core, with the NYT portrayal of Alvin
Bragg as a politically motivated hack, whose decision to prosecute a former president for a crime that other people are regularly prosecuted for is unprecedented and a danger to democracy.
“a country heading down a road it has never traveled before, one fraught with profound consequences for the health of the world’s oldest democracy.”
“That taboo has been broken. A new precedent has been set. Will it tear the country apart, as some feared about putting a former president on trial after Watergate? Will it be seen by many at home and abroad as victor’s justice akin to developing nations where former leaders are imprisoned by their successors?”
“Whether the indictment is warranted or not, it crosses a huge line in American politics and American legal history,” said Jack L. Goldsmith, a Harvard Law professor and former top Justice Department official under President George W. Bush.”
But no such outrage, no concern for for the health of democracy, no blaming of Judge Kacsmaryk that he is TEARING THE COUNTRY APART like a certain Black Manhattan District Attorney. Nope, the nice white Republican Judge is ONLY standing by his very strong and admirable Christian principles.
Unlike Alvin Bragg, whose specious ties to George Soros are amplified in article after article even as the NYT “fact checks” by legitimizing that Soros does give Bragg money but there is no absolute proof that Soros controls Bragg, and the fact that Bragg is willing to take “unprecedented” action that is a danger to democracy might simply be due to Bragg’s own lack of integrity and untoward political motivations, and not because Bragg is following Soros’ orders (see how “fair and balanced” the NYT is?)
The double standard rules at the NYT. Republican Judges can upend democracy, but that can’t be mentioned because NYT reporters already know their motivations are pure.
To the NYT, Democrats are always motivated by (greed, Wall Street, pleasing left wingers, Socialists, billionaire funders, Trump-hatred, self-promotion, political expediency). Pick the one that the right wing is pushing at the time and the NYT will be legitimizing and amplifying those motives as “fact”.
The POLITICAL motives of Judge Kacsmaryk are NEVER QUESTIONED! The reporters might not agree with a ruling made by right wing Supreme Court Justices or federal judges, but they are always presented as admirable non-political actors motivated only by their very strong Christian values.
^^meant this to be a new comment but it posted under this thread, sorry.
I do not understand how any state can interfere with mail delivery or telehealth. I would think that impeding mail delivery would be a violation of federal and privacy laws. I would think that these services cross state lines and fall under federal jurisdiction, IMO.
Unfortunately, this quack is a federal judge. The conflicting opinions will go to the Supreme Court. Will the 6 reactionaries ban abortion pills or will they leave the decision to the states?
This goes way beyond legal decisions and it exactly analogous to the Covid vaccine issue: should legal authorities decide on medical issues that have broad scientific validity and approval of regulators with expertise? What are the limits?
It is beyond bizarre that a federal judge would invalidate scientific results. Esp given that he has zero expertise.
This is what imbeciles do. They act out of ignorance, and especially out of ignorance of their own ignorance.
This really should be an easy one to overturn. Should. But won’t be. There is a larger issue at stake here. Can legal opinion, not grounded in any, or limited at best, scientific knowledge, override a depoliticized (as much as possible) scientific panel of experts who advise the FDA? Can a system of clinical trials with three phases designed to determine a safe dosage level (phase 1), demonstrate that the safe level has a therapeutic effect (phase 2), and then test it against or in combination with standard therapies to determine if it is better. These decisions take opinion as much out of the process as possible.
What happens when a judge or jury with inadequate knowledge combined with the inability to acquire that knowledge and experience in a short time? What happens if misperceptions, ignorance, or the inability to synthesize complex information leads a lay judge to make an opinion that overrules the clinical trials-based approval process?
Two points I’ve made before. One of the reasons laws intentionally defer to expertise is to apply limited resources to the greatest need and opportunity, not parochial desires or political power. The other is an anecdote that bears repeating. I once asked the top medical researcher in their field who worked at one of to most recognized medical facilities in the world if they could accept an honors biology-related field graduate from Liberty or Regent seriously as a candidate for a prestigious, highly sought after fellowship. Their answer, after much equivocation to avoid answering, was a clear no. Why? “Because they fundamentally do not understand the scientific method.” What do we do when people who interpret laws that require a rigorous understanding of it do not?
Exactly right, Greg.
Drug-hating Trumpers or Christian Scientists could knock out any drug if they go judge shopping
We provide scientist federal support by have tried to limit politicizing decisions. That’s why NIH funding can be divvied up by institute, but not by what they do, only provide recommendations. Of course the level of funding is a political statement itself. But it has become more politicized in other agencies like the FDA, CDC, and EPA. And as one who was present and in the room for the birth of the Congressionally-directed military medical research program and who knows why it came into existence, it was not designed to be the Christmas tree of political connections. In this case it is bipartisan, both parties try to manipulate it every year.
There is a terrible irony in the fact that people like this authoritarian, fundamentalist nutcase were put in place by wannabe playboy and Epstein pal “Grab ’em by the P–y” Jabba the Trump, who worships only money and himself. I wonder how many abortions that POStus has paid throughout the years.
cx: paid for
250 pharmaceutical & biotech companies just wrote a BRUTAL letter condemning the Texas Judge’s ruling banning mifepristone.
“On Friday, April 7, a federal judge with no scientific training fundamentally undermined the bipartisan authority granted by Congress to the Food and Drug Administration to approve and regulate safe, effective medicines for every American.
District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a decision that overturns the FDA’s 23-year old approval of mifepristone, the primary medicine used in abortion and miscarriage care, and which has been proven by decades of data to be safer than Tylenol, nearly all antibiotics and insulin.
The decision ignores decades of scientific evidence and legal precedent.”
https://docsend.com/view/2ahvmwy8djzxax3g
This is such an important point. The safety and efficacy of any drug are certified by scientists. Their expert judgment should not be tried in a courtroom and decided by a biased judge. What next? Courtroom trials for vaccines?
All my hexes live in Texas.