This doesn't just affect the abortion pill.
It basically undermines the FDAs ability to regulate things by stating they can't be trusted to make the decisions they have to make.
this post was submitted on 26 Mar 2024
74 points (91.1% liked)
politics
19556 readers
3959 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
"Conservative" SCOTUS justices aren't the brightest bulbs in the bunch, only the most vicious, but even they know after killing Roe, to kill the mail at home Abortion pill would usher in a Democratic House and Senate with Biden ready and willing sign on to as many additional SCOTUS justices as needed to neuter their authority, so, the safe money (80/20) is it stays status quo for now
I wonder if she can run as fast as Josh.
A piece criticizing this one for meekly accepting Hawley's preferred (and nonsensical) framing of her political motivations.
NYT: Ms. Hawley’s particular background makes her ideal for this moment. Her longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state is well suited to speak to the current court’s conservative supermajority, which has welcomed cases challenging regulations on everything from herring fish to machine guns and, now, abortion.
There’s just so much bullshit here. Banning abortion is not consistent with a “longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state.” The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority isn’t welcoming “cases challenging regulations on … abortion,” it is welcoming cases designed to impose regulations on abortion — like the one Erin Hawley argued today. And note that this bullshit is coming from the New York Times, in its own voice, not from Erin Hawley.
Syphilitic rat fucker. Literally.
A real life Serena Joy.
Literally started watching that because of recent events, it's actually horrifying.
She doesn't have to take it if she doesn't like it
This is the best summary I could come up with:
She argues that federal approval of the abortion pill went forward without enough consideration of possible side effects and dangers, and that subsequent changes to enable greater access have ignored health risks to women.
The government lawyers in this case, led by Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, have argued in court filings that Ms. Hawley and her legal team offered scant evidence of real injury, and that declarations from “seven identified doctors” were “often vague or conclusory.”
Her longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state is well suited to speak to the current court’s conservative supermajority, which has welcomed cases challenging regulations on everything from herring fish to machine guns and, now, abortion.
As he campaigned for the U.S. Senate, she wrote a devotional book for mothers, drawing spiritual lessons from the lives of her children while comfortably weaving in references to modern theologians like Stanley Hauerwas.
She worked on 303 Creative, the case in which the Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of a Colorado web designer who cited the First Amendment in refusing to serve same-sex couples.
She answered a question from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. about determining standing — whether the anti-abortion doctors could show direct harm — by referencing how the court considered the issue in a case about genetically engineered crops.
The original article contains 1,763 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 88%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
She looks like she wants to outlaw a good time.