AOC, Dem senator call on Biden administration to ignore abortion pill ruling
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., called for the Biden administration to ignore a Texas judge who on Friday issued an injunction against the Food and Drug Administration's approval of the abortion pill mifepristone .
Trump-appointed U.S. District Judge Matthew J. Kacsmaryk on Friday directed the FDA to halt the approval of mifepristone while a lawsuit challenging its safety and approval works its way through court. Kacsmaryk stayed the FDA's approval of the abortion drug, but gave the federal government seven days to "seek emergency relief from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit."
The Biden administration has announced it will appeal Kacsmaryk's decision.
Democrats are furious with the ruling, and at least two lawmakers including Ocasio-Cortez have urged President Biden against enforcing the injunction as the lawsuit proceeds in court.
"I believe that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling," AOC declared on CNN. She said "deeply partisan" judges have "engaged in unprecedented and dramatic erosion of the legitimacy of the courts," calling the abortion pill ruling "unfounded."
"The interesting thing when it comes to a ruling is that it relies on enforcement," she elaborated. "And it is up to the Biden administration to enforce, to choose whether or not to enforce a ruling."
Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon issued a similar statement after the ruling came down.
"There is no way this decision has a basis in law. It is instead rooted in conservatives' dangerous and undemocratic takeover of our country's institutions," Wyden said. "No matter what happens in seven days, I believe the Food and Drug Administration has the authority to ignore this ruling, which is why I'm again calling on President Biden and the FDA to do just that."
He suggests that the FDA, doctors and pharmacies "go about their jobs like nothing has changed and keep mifepristone accessible to women across America."
Doctors and pharmacies currently prescribing and dispensing mifepristone must get a special certification to do so.
The FDA places special restrictions on mifepristone under a safety program that's intended to minimize the risk of drugs that could be dangerous, but has relaxed restrictions on the drug several times.
In January, the FDA allowed certified retail pharmacies to dispense the abortion pill mifepristone.
Tags
Who is online
421 visitors
As the last few days have made clear, all that talk about democratic norms, rule of law, defending democracy from progressives was pure bullshit.
They only care about doing what they want, when they want. Courts, laws, elected legislatures are all means to an end, to be used or condemned as needed. They've returned to their roots and gone full George Wallace.
Follow the rule of law only when you agree with it is their working credo.
what did you think was going to happen after the supreme court took away rights to abortion? that people would just take it?
That's how democracy works. You follow the law or a Court ruling , even if you don't agree with them.
But no, I'm not surprised that some Democrats would pull a George Wallace and advocate defying Federal Courts. As I said, they have no principles other than imposing their will by any means necessary.
For all the whining about the Trump admin being a threat to democracy, it never entertained this blatant an attack on the Constitution.
The only law I see playing out here is the "Law Of Unintended Consequences" enforced by a group of short-sighted control freaks that will cry and scream when it comes around and bites them in the A$$!
This is nonsensical. .
The only thing I see "nonsensical" here is some woman denied a reproductive option when she might die or a 10 year old rape victim having to go out of state because she is 5 days past a "legal limit".
I'll wait until some legislator's wife or a woman legislator needs an abortion and have them say, "Why did I do this! Why did YOU make me do this!"
Do you know what you are talking about? All the SCOTUS said was that abortion is not in the Constitution. Each state's citizens have every right to vote on abortion. If you are living in PA as your screen name implies, you really have no complaint.
"Reproductive health care services, including abortion, remain safe, accessible, and legal in Pennsylvania. The U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision on abortion Opens In A New Window does not impact the ability to access abortion services in Pennsylvania. Abortion is an available reproductive health option through the 23rd week of pregnancy, and after that time, in certain cases when the health of the pregnant person is in danger. Both medication and in-clinic procedure abortions continue to be legal and available in Pennsylvania."
Do you know what you're talking about?
They never had a "right" to an abortion
Abortions were not outlawed. Some states have chosen to place some common sense restrictions on abortion
If Biden ignores a court order, wouldn't that amount to treason?
Obviously he does.
Which is the same as saying that state governments have the right to force a woman to go through an unwanted, dangerous, medical procedure.
Can you name any woman in the last 10 years forced to give birth, and how that was accomplished?
Abortions have been legal for the last 10 years in America. I thought you were aware of that.
Hey, YOU made the claim that "state governments have the right to force a woman to go through an unwanted, dangerous, medical procedure."
Perhaps that was just another inaccurate, false claim, as you have no evidence of such happenings, despite being asked for it.
Cool--no one is being forced to give birth OR have abortions in America today!
Not to many of us comprehending standard English.
It is illegal to hold a person hostage and force a woman to give birth. In all 50 states. For far longer than 10 years.
Which once again shows your inability to understand the English language.
I quoted your exact words. No need to try and walk them back now just because I called you out on them and you had no rebuttal worth more than a warm bucket of spit.
Never questioned your ability to copy and paste. It is the reading comprehension part you seem to be lacking in.
I have ceased to care about your opinion since you seemingly have ceased to comprehend much of what is written here.
Simple fact is, despite histrionics, is that no woman in the US is forced to give birth, and no amount of spin will change that fact.
If that wasn't what you meant in your comment, explain what you 'really' meant.
And yet you keep replying and jumping into to my other conversations not with you. So you say one thing, and act a different way.
Yet. If republicans get their way and all abortions are illegalized nation-wide, women will be forced to give birth.
It wasn't, and I've tried to explain to you numerous times about numerous subjects. Each time you have shown that you are either unable to understand or unwilling to. There is no indication that you have changed, so why should I bother? Your arguments are made in bad faith and not worth my effort.
Your speculation about what future laws may look like are amusing fantasies.
I enjoy reading the endless litany of wrong, left-wing, dire predictions.
So, liberals must defend against an intrusive government? The irony is palpable.
Yes. I live it Pennsylvania. 20 miles north of the Mason Dixon Line, in the area of the Commonwealth known as "Pennsyltuky." And I'm damn glad dirt doesn't vote.
How can you do this, when a Federal Judge is trying to tell the FDA what to do?
I think that is why few repubs have issued a statement about this as it contradicts the states rights narrative.
How can you stand to live among such horrid people?
I would have to agree.
President Biden is not going to defy a court ruling. AOC may want him to but he won't do it. He may ignore it though.
You think ignoring a Court order is different then defying it?
He's gonna make a statement saying he opposes the ruling and then ignore this whole thing and let the courts work it out. Ignoring something is not the same as defying it.
Of course it is. If the Court says stop doing something, and you ignore it and continue doing what the Court prohibited, it's the same thing as defying the Court.
Did the court specifically say that Biden had to do anything? If it didn't, he doesn't have to do anything. He can ignore it. The justice department has to comply.
Then Biden isn't ignoring it.
If Biden does nothing the justice Dept. will comply. Duh. You think they will refuse knowing that Congress seems to really love investigating stuff these days?
No? Remember what the Court told him on the Remain-in-Mexico policy?
Did he obey the Court order then?
To be fair, this is the extreme wing of the party speaking.
Note those most against abortion rights are also opposed to birth control and morning after pills.
Two thirds of all Americans support reproductive freedom. So, the gop is going to lose this fight!
I'll put you down with the "it's okay to defy a Court ruling because I don't like it crowd"
It's dictator approved!
So, which judge is supposed to be followed, the one in Texas who based his ruling on "feelings" or the one in Washington who based his ruling on "facts"?
Two competing rulings at once? My vote is everything stays as it was until they get it figured out. Of course it will probably go to the scotus, so bye bye abortions rights.
Dems just HAD to nominate Hillary…
Two competing rulings at once? My vote is everything stays as it was until they get it figured out. Of course it will probably go to the scotus, so bye bye abortions rights.
Dems just HAD to nominate Hillary…
Well, of course they did. It was her turn, after all.
Doesn't really matter what you believe the opinions are based on, they have to be respected and followed. In this case, I don't think there is a conflict.
Fucking idiots.
I said it then and am still saying it. Bernie Sanders would have destroyed Trump.
But it was Hillary's turn, And now women are being corralled into second classcitizenship.
A populist versus a populist would have been interesting.
A populist who isnt a rapist? Pretty easy choice back then. And what would Trump do, attack bernie for being a jew? Yeah, THAT would go over well.
Dems just had to put forward Hillary.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Abortion is a state issue. The people of each state get to decide.
When did the citizens of Texas decide? The decision came from an unelected radical 'pro-lifer'.
Only by trans activists backed by their white liberal partners.
The judge did not make a ruling on abortion. It was a ruling on a pill involving a lawsuit by doctors and medical associations that provide health care to pregnant women and girls vs the FDA's administrative actions related to the approval of a drug which starves the unborn.
Then let each state decide if they want to use abortion pills.
No, it was based on a group of activist doctors who don't want any kind of abortion. The drug in question stops the process of cells turning into unborn children.
It was never intended to be an "abortion" pill. There are already medications for that purpose. This pill we are talking about was designed for serious illness. A pregnancy is not a serious illness. Even the biased to the bone New York Times admitted as much this morning.
Irrelevant.
I'm sure it will be. Let us not forget that an Obama judge ruled the other way at the same time.
It is outrageous, isn't it?
The DC judge's ruling only applies to states where abortion is legal. The Texas judge's ruling applies to whole country superseding the other. The dual ruling is only intended to get this looked at by the SCOTUS for a stay until it can be argued and ruled.
These are issues that rile up and energize voters. Judging only by current polling and recent election results - it's not a issue Republicans can win on nationally.
Should we allow state judges to make rulings that impact the entire country?
These are issues that rile up and energize voters.
Single issue voters. It is bad for the nation when people vote in every election over something like guns or abortion.
Yes, but we should be hiring smarter less partisan ones. This Texas judge's ruling was laugh out loud, legally wrong (the legal logic of his rulings) on multiple points.
Possibly, but for the most part probably not.
It is bad for the nation when Congress refuses to work bipartisanly on the issues they run on and raise money on.
Hiring?
It is bad for the nation when Congress refuses to work bipartisanly on the issues they run on and raise money on.
Congress is reflecting the current American divide: the indoctrinated & elites vs the working class.
You're starting to sound like Trotsky.
I think it's bullshit making it a state issue. It should be allowed in every state.
That can be, through the will of the people. It can't just be what you want.
"Abortion has been legal under New York State law since 1970 – three years before the Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion throughout the country. Because the right is codified in New York State law, federal decisions to limit access to abortion will not impact New York State."
But without this medicine, women will be forced into an unnecessary medical procedures.
Was this particular medicine for abortion?
Women already have medications that do that. In the end this will simply come down to whether this pill is safe for the woman who wants to end her pregnancy and nothing more, so I'm sure this decision will eventually be overturned on the merits and most likely by Conservative justices.
This medication has been on the market and used for 37 years with results documenting it's safer than Tylenol.
The Texas judge should also be removed from the bench for his ridiculous ruling.
I'm sure that is true, but if you looked at what else the judge said, he raised an interestin question.
What question?
Post 2.2.2
That question is irrelevant. There are several medications being proscribed for uses other than it's initial use and some for dual use. Should we take those off the market as well? Should we deprive those that would use the medication(s) for it's original intention too?
You mean like chloroquine, which was used for Malaria, but showed great results when used against covid if used right away?
And how did that go?
Chloroquine's side effects are much, much worse and more common than mifepristone, especially in those in high COVID risk groups. I'm talking about drugs like Ozempic which is supposed to be proscribed for diabetics, but because it suppresses appetite is also being used to treat obesity. Because of a shortage it's most often now proscribed for obese diabetics.
They don't care.
What does that mean anyway 'starve the unborn'???????????????????????????
So many questions, so little time.
Citation?
Is he still searching?
Two days is a long time.
Why do you need a citation for a commonly known fact?
Why is it a challenge to site cite this commonly known fact?
His ruling is 100% wrong in every conceivable way, is not based in any way on evidence, and is purely a personal ideological ruling, but it needs to be respected while the appeals process works out.
Of course we also have the judge in Washington who ruled the opposite direction, so this will be interesting. IMO since we have two competing rulings at the same time, nothing changes.
Regardless judicial rulings cannot be ignored, the. We are no longer a nation of laws.
Regardless judicial rulings cannot be ignored, the. We are no longer a nation of laws.
Well said.
What about the other 85% of my comment?
Well, well, well,looky there.
AOC opened her mouth again and stupid fell out.
MTG needs the competition.
True enough, they both are idiots.
Yep, they are. How about everyone just ignore AOC and MTG?
Put em both in a room, lock the door, then check back on them an hour or two later and see which one is still standing...
if the gas was effective.
If the Biden administration ignored this ruling it would not be the first time an administration ignored a court ruling. Other admins have done it as well.
Rather than doubling down on her progressive rhetoric why doesn't she look for a Republican partner to try to come up with a compromise bill on abortion to try to codify it at the national level? Seems to me that might do more to show her leadership qualities than demanding that one branch of the federal government ignore judicial rulings. Seems simple to me, she can either try to exhibit some leadership and try to find a compromise bill or she can continue to shout her partisan bias to the sky.
Yeah, yeah, I know. Trying to build a compromise bill is the harder thing, but just what did she expect once elected to office? It's not all giggles and ice cream at that level...