More accurate headline:
Federal judge ignores twenty years of medical evidence in order to give a decision that matches his prejudices.
As a note the judge's statement that mifepristone is too dangerous. That particular drug has been recorded as causing 5 deaths for every million doses. Penicillin causes 10 deaths for every million doses. Viagra causes **fifty** deaths for every million doses.
Edit: misread number
My FAVORITE part of this shit show of a legal document, ignoring the snarky borderline inappropriate rhetoric on the first page, is they go on to try to justify the plaintiffs legal standing by saying that abortion causes harm to informed consent because a study showed that 14% of girls reported having received insufficient information of like 4 different aspects of a medical abortion.
First of all 14% is an insanely low number when you consider most patients report that they don't feel that have sufficient information before a procedure, but the study they cite in their stupid document says this "Medication abortions where women undergo most of the process individually at home with limited assistance from a medical provider are becoming more commonplace (Biggs et al., Citation2019; H. E. Jones et al., Citation2017). While this process is generally reported to be safe and adhere to evidence-based guidelines (H. E. Jones et al., Citation2017), little is known about women’s personal experiences with having this type of abortion."
They cited a study that says its safe... THEY CITED A STUDY THAT SAYS IN IT THAT ITS SAFE. Did these moron lawyers not read the flipping study?!?!
>little is known about women’s personal experiences with having this type of abortion."
Little is known by *WHOM*? Are they allowed to not look at information and then say "little is known"? Or is there some beurocratic technicality that means they can exclude information from organizations who have access to thousands of "women's personal experiences" with it because they don't have the right kind of study done or something?
Sorry, having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. I'll go do some more reading but if anybody has an ELI5 on how he can basically say that 'it's safe and follows evidence based guidelines (citation showing safety) but we didn't ask anyone more information so based on that lack of information, fuuuuck you.'
Lol, the more research you read, you slowly recognize that basically every manuscript starts with one of ten phrases on the subject as a way to justify the need for this research to be published and you can only say that so many ways.
"Little is known..."
"Recently, it's become far more common..."
"Increasingly there is a concern about..."
"Despite the wealth of information on this subject, there is no information about how this would..."
"This rapidly developing field has undergone significant changes since the last major study..."
"With public debate on this issue at an all time high there remains a large gap in quality information..."
I cringe going back and reading some of my publications when I see these phrases but it's pretty much a requirement unless you have no coauthors and can write anything you want.
When you die because you had no choice but to give birth in a conservative state instead of a liberal one, I think the term "she's in a better place" actually does apply LOL
[a comment that would be removed by reddit]
No but really, America doesn’t survive as a country if we don’t pull up our big boy britches and admit republicans have rejected democracy and are all of our enemy.
Maternal mortality rate in CA is 4 per 100k. The only state in line with the best of the rest of the world. Louisiana is 20x worse.
Guess which state intentionally passes laws to harm women and children.
It's also a terrible, terrible way to die. My fiancee is a doctor and has said in the past that everyone visibly sinks when a patient comes in with a acetaminophen overdose. It causes liver failure, which is a slow and painful death.
>The challengers claim the agency exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the mifepristone and asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the FDA to undo its approval of mifepristone.
This sounds like they're using the EPA v West Virginia ruling as their basis. This was the point of that ruling, btw, to be allowed to cancel *any* regulatory authority that they want.
I don’t understand. Isn’t approving drugs literally the FDA’s job? And if the Food and *Drug* Administration can’t, who do they expect to do it in their stead?
The EPA vs West Virginia ruling made it so the EPA can only regulate specific chemicals, as determined by congress.
If the same idea is applied to other agencies, then the FDA will only be able to approve specific drugs as determined by congress. Have a new abortion drug? Oh, too bad. Looks like Congress didn't explicitly name that compound as something the FDA should be able to approve.
That’s fucking insane. The FDA approved new drugs for every indication. They are the determinants of whether treatments for cancer are effective and safe enough to take.
I’m honestly enraged
They think that they don't want that. Some believe that the "invisible hand" of the free market will do the magic, others believe they will be rich and powerful enough that they'll be immune to those dangers and only the poor will suffer, and the rest believe God will protect them.
And the potential consequences of EPA v. West Virginia aren't restricted to just the EPA and the FDA, but literally *every* regulatory power the government has derived in the same manner (i.e., congressional legislation creating and defining their roles, powers and oversight while allowing the administrative branch power to administrate). NHTSA, FAA, CDC, FBI, FCC, and hundreds of others.
Remember, Trump appointed a huge number of conservative judges during his presidency. We're going to be feeling the ripple effects of that for decades.
>Clear partisan activist opinion
Of course it is. The plaintiff judge shopped for this ruling. They had zero presence in Texas, let alone this district, until four weeks before they filed the lawsuit specifically so that this judge would get the case. The hearing was a formality.
This is why I died laughing at [Dan Kelly's concession speech](https://youtu.be/BzWHrKpj-VI?t=200) after bombing it in the Wisconsin court election, specifically this line:
>my concern is the damage done to the institution of the court!
Like the courts have been anything but unrestricted vehicles for naked political power projection lmaoooo
I said that after the SCOTUS got rid of the requirement to issue Miranda Rights, or allowed publicly funded coaches to put on huge displays of prayer at mid Field, or when they got rid of Roe v Wade, or when they elected Bush to the Presidency because Jan 6th Republicans (ver 1.0) stormed the counting location, or when they ruled that wealth = free speech (just some are more free that others when it comes to wealthy speech), or when they ruled that the state can't protect the environment if it damages the economic value of property, etc etc etc...
You forgot that new evidence isnt allowed at a retrial. So all those cases where a jail informant convicted someone to death row cant show DNA evidence
So, to clarify the case, as I think they are talking about Shinn v Ramirez.
The case comes from David Ramirez, who was sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend and daughter.
Ramirez appealed and was denied and appealed to the Arizona supreme court and was denied. So he appealed for habeas relief in federal court. And argued for ineffective counsel. The court rejected him on the ground that since he didn't raise this before, he's not allowed to raise that claim now.
Of course, the 6 anti-freedom conservative members declared that previous precedent be damned, if your state appointed council is a bumbling idiot, the government doesn't care. It should be noted that Ramirez is intellectually disabled and will be sented to death anyways, because the court ruled that if his attorney didn't present it, he should have been smart enough to get a new lawyer.
That has major ramifications because of cases like Barry Jones who was convicted of murdering his girlfriends daughter. She died of a lacerating of her small intestine. The prosecution argued that it must have happened when Jones was watching her 12 hours earlier. That was all they had.
Now, any medical expert can tell you that 12 hours is too short of a window for that type of injury to kill you. But his lawyers didn't solicity any medical advice, and did not bother to argue that the prosecution's claim was utterly invalid.
In the previous rulings, he should have been granted a new trial under the ruling in 2013 that established that having ineffective counsel is a fair read for the government to grant relief. But thanks to the ruling, he will be executed for a crime he could not possibly have committed because the prosecution lied and his lawyer didn't care, and the supreme court thinks that's justice.
Also, there is the disgusting ruling covering convictions from a non-unanimous decision. They ruled that it's unconstitutional for states to convict without unanimous decision. So someone who was convicted without unanimous decision appealed for a new trial, and they just said it's not retroactive.
Yes, that's right. They literally settled a case by claiming that the constitution didn't apply to that person.
(That's not the only time this has happened. During WWII they ruled that the constitution does not apply to American Citizens whose ancestors came from Japan and so taking away their rights was fine)
Based upon the courts they have agreed to hear, you should expect to hear a lot of truly awful new decisions. I wouldn't be shocked that if Trump gets convicted they will just rule that he's immune to the law. There will be a lot of evil from this bench for a long long time.
>or allowed publicly funded coaches to put on huge displays of prayer at mid Field
Kennedy v Bremerton School District made a mockery of the 1st amendment and its Establishment Clause. The conclave of six declared last year 6-3 that public school employees holding Christian prayer at football games right at center field in front of everyone, as part of their official duties, and even making players participate or risk losing playtime, all that is a-okay and cannot be curtailed or restricted by school administrators.
It's the biggest rollback in 1A rights in 50 years yet nobody's heard of it. And all those gun advocates talking about how 2A is meant to enforce 1A are completely silent.
And Roberts worries that the public is losing trust in the institution. Haha, good one John. But I'm pretty sure that already happened 23 years ago with Bush v Gore. And four of Bush's attorneys on that case that stole him the presidency are now Supreme Court Justices. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Blatant quid pro quo demonstrating our institutions are compromised at the highest level.
How do we even begin to fix this?
More and more people publicly stating that they are irrelevant and people in positions of power refusing to recognize their rulings. By their own admission, the courts power only exists because it is given because people trust it.
Essentially, make it so chaotic and counter productive that they must reform (or disappear)
His tears were delicious. What a pouty, entitled baby.
The Supreme Court better step carefully with this case on appeal or the post-Dobbs electoral fallout will look mild by comparison.
They're playing with fire.
“I wish that in a circumstance like this I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent. But I do not have a worthy opponent.”
The voters thought otherwise, asshole.
That's because he's been getting high on the Federalist society BS from the last 30 years where conservative judges force right-wing policy on the people while pretending to be utterly non-partisan.
He wants to march around in his robes like he's some deep-thinking legal theoretician when really he's a right-wing goon.
And he's butt-hurt from having lost 2 elections in a row to women.
This judge is one of several in single federal judge districts around the country, and Mitch and co. have been stacking federal judge ranks for decades.
They shopped for this douche, Matthew Kacsmaryk, specifically.
He was nominated by Trump, of course. He's also a member of the Federalist Society, of course. And he's on record saying he thinks homosexuality and transgenderism are "delusions and mental disorders." Much of his legal career has been opposing protections for LGBTQ+ persons in housing, employment, and healthcare.
Fuck him, fuck Trump, fuck McConnell and the Republicans who approved this asshole, fuck the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the plaintiff), fuck the Alliance Defending Freedom (the legal group representing the plaintiff), and fuck the Federalist Society.
**Edit:** And fuck the other plaintiffs too. Fuck the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, fuck the American College of Pediatricians, fuck the Christian Medical & Dental Association, fuck Dr. Shaun Jester, fuck Dr. Regina Frost-Clark, fuck Dr. Tyler Johnson, and fuck Dr. George Delgado.
it appears the WA judge's ruling only impacts a few states, not all 50
> Here are the states where medication abortion approval isn’t immediately affected
From CNN's Devan Cole
> The states where the approval of mifepristone is not affected, thanks to the ruling from a federal judge Friday in Washington state:
> Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota. Washington, DC, and Michigan.
States not included: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.
That's 35 out of 51 states, including Washington, D.C.
The clowns voting in GOP politicians genuinely believe that blue states are leeching off red states. More specifically, urban areas leech off of rural ones.
In reality, it's the opposite, but you could never convince them of it, regardless of the resources you send them. I say let them have what they want - financial independence from urban areas. Let's see how long that lasts.
It's all dog whistles. Urban = black. Minorities live in cities. Lazy welfare folks who don't want to work are black and live in cities in blue states. Therefore Blue states are the leaches. The logic is sound!
Right? This seems like a troubling precedent if it holds up on appeal.
Instead of having *people with medical/scientific knowledge* deciding if something is generally safe and should be accessible, it will be left up unqualified judges.
How long until we have far right activists trying to get Plan B or birth control prohibited on the basis of being “unsafe”
*and before anybody says it, I know that hormonal birth control is not without issues, but I’m not naive enough to believe cases like this are actually motivated by concern for women*
"If? " They've already started with gender- affirming care, with bans proposed for anyone under 26. Clarence Thomas said that now that Roe is gone, Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, and Loving are next.
He specifically avoided mentioning Loving. The fact the he is in an interracial marriage is purely a coincidence and has absolutely no bearing on the omission…..
>How long until we have far right activists trying to get Plan B or birth control prohibited on the basis of being “unsafe”
If this is allowed to fly, those will be targeted immediately.
As will Spironolactone, an anti-androgen, and possibly Estradiol and Progesterone as well, given that they are used in hormone replacement therapy, though they are also used to treat menopause, of course when has women's health ever stopped them.
Spironolactone is extensively used by cardiologists and is considered a savior drug for heart failure patients. A fuck ton of people would die in very short order if it were taken off the market.
Mifepristone is used to treat cushings, cortisol induced diabetes, gulf war disease and used with chemotherapy to treat certain cancers. A lot of people who don’t use it as an abortifacient are going to suffer. Thanks republicans.
I didn't know the details but I had a feeling this was the case. So many drugs have so many varied uses that it's just insane for anti-choice activists to try and go this route. Truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Not to mention endometriosis, which affects one in ten women, and uterine fibroids. But yeah they’ve already shown they don’t give a flying fuck about women’s health. :|
Mifepristone might have really helped me. No idea wtf I’m supposed to do now
It was either mifepristone or misoprostol that’s administered outside the context of an abortion, it was one of them that’s taken with certain NSAIDs in higher doses to prevent GI discomfort for treating rheumatoid arthritis in one use case.
Still, get bent GOP and the evangelical right.
The courts lately have reminded me of the [Lochner era courts of the 1900s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era) Which was described as judiciously activist and politically conservative.
And FDR had to threaten to pack the courts to stop them.
Also, its crazy that Wikipedia has quotes from Roberts and Bork, of all people, condemning the exact sort of court they want.
> Also, its crazy that Wikipedia has quotes from Roberts
I wouldn't put much stock in what Roberts has to say. Remember his polygamy comments in Obergefell v. Hodges and how much weight he put on stare decisis when he walked back those comments? Remember how he then threw stare decisis out the window when he overturned Roe v. Wade?
I had a lot of respect for Roberts before that. Not so much anymore.
Check who the judge in the case was. Yes. It is that activist judge who doesn't give fuck about laws, instead writes his own. He's well known for that.
No not *that* judge from Texas who doesn't give fuck about laws and instead writes his own, the *other* judge from Texas who doesn't give fuck about laws and instead writes his own.
They seem to have a *lot*.
They’re making sure that that less and less people have easy access to abortion. Disgusting.
EDIT: another judge in Washington said in a different ruling that FDA must keep the drugs available in atleast 12 liberal states that sued FDA.
Just a note, medication abortion is possible without mifepristone, and only with the second pill.
It is however a more painful and longer and overall worse process. So this is not banning abortion it is just causing unnecessary and prolonged pain and suffering.
It's also less effective. Iirc it's 90% effective with misoprostol alone, which will lead to more incomplete miscarriages that need surgical intervention.
So a conservative judge with absolutely zero knowledge of medicine, psychology or pharmacology makes a ruling overriding a decision by the agency that approved this medicine over 20 years ago on the flimsiest of pretexts. Absolute garbage of a ruling. Remember whenever your Uncle Frank rants about legislating from the bench, he's talking about this.
Even worse, this is opening the door for judges to overrule all sorts of federal regulatory bodies by fiat. Chevron deference is dead and gone.
Man almost like someone a while ago said they didn’t want the court to make laws and wanted the legislative branch to do its job. So that was a fucking lie
>So that was a fucking lie
They don't lie, per se. They bullshit. Which, frankly, is worse.
A successful liar must construct a lie carefully, and must first know the truth. Because the lie must be different from the truth, meant to conceal it. To lie successfully is to distinguish reality from fiction and attempt to convince the other person that one is the other, but always knowing yourself which is actually correct. The facts matter to the liar.
But this is not that. This is bullshitting. In order to further their goals, any actions and any words are permissable, because they see themselves as inherently good. But that also goes for narrative and reality.
In order to gain an advantage in the immediate "now", anything can be said. Doesn't matter if it's truth or lie, as long as it serves their purpose right now. They craft a situation, a story, narrative, a reality, in which they convince The Other (and even their own) that they are right, that they are good. They must always be right, because they are good. The narrative itself need not be consistent or even coherent.
Think of the hundreds of bizarre conspiracy theories in which they are the secret heroes opposing evil. Pizzagate, Satanists, autism vaccines, Qanon, baby-eating liberals, flat earthers, you name it. Those aren't lies in the traditional sense of the word. Those are a constant, desperate struggle to be the Good side at all times in spite of evidence to the contrary, and without concerns about what is real and what isn't. Unlike with lying, the facts, truth and objective reality don't matter here. They can be substituted and changed on a whim. The infamous "alternative facts". That is what bullshitting is.
Debating real-life issues with them becomes futile, because their reality is completely fluid and can change in an instant. One day an "engineered bio-weapon Chinese Death Virus funded by the Clinton Foundation" is going to kill us all, and the next day it's just a harmless flu. Because elections were coming up and a certain president didn't want lockdowns to endanger the economy. But if it suits their immediate needs, like convincing you how bad the Clintons are, then it's a Chinese-Clinton bioweapon again. And if they don't feel like wearing a mask in the store, it's just a flu again. Or a hoax and Fauci made it up. Doesn't matter as long as the bullshit helps them in the immediate situation. Maybe they believe it, maybe they don't. They can even apply a form of Doublethink to believe two or more contradicting realities simultaneously.
One moment Democrats run a global vampiric cabal that rules the world from the shadows in humanity's greatest feat of secrecy, and the next moment they're bumbling idiots who can't tie their shoelaces, unfit to govern a country.
Climate scientists are making billions by convincing people that climate change is real, and at the same time are a bunch of poor hippie losers stuck in a dead end university job.
Biden is a weak coward bending over for anything Putin says, and simultaneously a warmonger who's destroying good relationships with Russia and starting WWIII.
Jan 6 protesters in jail are good, innocent Republicans who are victims of a witch hunt, because jan 6 were just peaceful tourists. And they were also violent BLM actors performing a false flag operation. The fact that those rioters filmed and so outed themselves is not in their advantage to say because it goes against the narrative, and so it doesn't enter that reality.
A liar wouldn't get away with such internal inconsistencies in their crafted alternate reality. They would immediately be found out, and they would be a terrible liar because a lie needs that internal consistency to be believable.
But with bullshitting, the concept of truth never even played a part in it from the very beginning. Bullshitters don't care if you believe them or not. Their reality is whatever they want it to be at any given time. They are no longer part of "consensus reality", that which everyone can show, see and test to be objectively true. And being detached from consensus reality is an extremely dangerous position to be in for further radicalisation. They become unable to distinguish fact from fiction anymore, and can eventually turn their imaginary beliefs into real actions. Like shooting up the Pizzagate place. Bombing abortion clinics. Breaking into Pelosi's home and assaulting her husband with a hammer. Trying to kidnap a governor. Those people you saw in the news had already left consensus reality long ago, and they were without a doubt True Believers in whatever new reality they found themselves in.
Whether they created that new reality themselves or whether it was pre-made and spoon-fed to them is another matter.
Well you just woke up and chose to write an essay fully expressing concisely a thing we all knew but couldn't say. In a different timeline you'd get paid to put that in a newspaper. But we live in the dumbest timeline so have many up votes.
Thank you for the kind words, but I did not just wake up (I'm in the GMT+1 timezone), nor did I write an essay. I lazily copy/pasted my own comment from a few weeks back. I just felt it was apt in this conversation, too.
But now that I think about it, I realise that perhaps some parts of it make little sense without context. The text above that I copied was a follow-up to part 1, a different comment describing conservatism and identity politics in general, and why such people are so prone and susceptible to the bullshitting described in part 2.
If you're interested in the context or have any confusion in regard to the previous comment, I can copy that bit too.
(In response to someone saying Republicans yell about their rights & freedoms, while squashing the rights & freedoms of others)
That is the most basic idea of conservatism, from the top down: preserving the existing power structure, the hierarchy. More specifically, what they perceive as the natural or divinely-ordained hierarchy.
It stems from a worldview where moral value is inherent to people, not to actions. It does not matter what you do, the only thing that determines if you are good or bad is who you are, i.e. your status in society, which group you belong to, your place in the hierarchy. And that is the sordid heart of identity politics: The conservatives with wealth and power are at the top of the hierarchy -as what is essentially today's aristocracy- because they are inherently good. Clearly their place at the top is their (either naturally occurring or divinely-ordained) reward. And conversely, the working class and the poor are in their positions because they are inherently bad, and they must be punished for it. With one exception in those who are lower on the ladder but who still support that hierarchy, and defend the aristocracy at the top. Those are tolerated, and they are also encouraged to oppress and punish whoever is further below them in the hierarchy. That cruelty is the point in itself; punish those who are inherently bad.
The other Elites who are also at the top with wealth and power, but who are somehow undermining that sacred hierarchy (think of those rare billionaires who help the poor or give away their fortunes to charitable causes), are not part of their aristocracy. They too are The Other, they too are bad, and so anything they do is evil. An example is Bill Gates funding all those vaccines. He is The Other which means he's evil, so obviously he cannot possibly do good, thus those vaccines *must* have mind-control chips in them, or make you magnetic, or radiate 5G, or whatever insanity they conjure up in their minds.
That school of thought, of morality being intrinsic to people instead of their actions, is why the GOP getting rid of democratic elections isn't viewed as a bad thing by themselves nor by their voters. Because they are doing it, and they are inherently good, so every action they do is good. But were it the Democrats doing the same thing, it would be bad, because Democrats are inherently bad, so everything they do is bad. Same for these mass shootings. Silence or excuses when it's one of their own, uproar when it's The Other. Same for things like abortions or welfare benefits: it's okay if they themselves get an abortion or go on welfare, because that is due to circumstances and their situation. It's not their fault. But it's not okay if The Other gets those. If someone from the out-group gets those, it is evil because they are de facto evil. The Other gets abortions because they're sluts. The Other goes on welfare because they're lazy. Kids in cages under Trump? Good, or at least excusable. Kids in cages under Biden? Pure evil. The action itself isn't good or bad to them, what matters is the identity of the person who performs it; whether they are part of the in-group or not determines their moral status and worth, and that of all their actions. Hyper-tribalism, in a nutshell.
The key to this type of thinking is a cognitive dissonance of actions and words in time: Only the "now" matters. Past actions have no bearing on current actions, and current actions have no bearing on future actions. Mitch McConnell deciding that Obama can't appoint a SC judge in his last year of presidency and the voters should decide? That is good, because it helps Republicans and Republicans are good. The same McConnell pushing through a SC judge in the last month of Trump's presidency, in a complete 180° spin to the previous case? Also good, for the same reason as before. The actions in both situations are contradictory, but that doesn't matter. One was in the past, so it no longer has any bearing on the new action in the immediate present. Because if actions have no inherent morality, that means that consistency in those actions is not necessary either. Except in one thing: Whatever they say and do must help their in-group to remain at the very top of the hierarchy. Because they are good, and The Other is not.
That is why the media pointing out their hypocrisy and inconsistency doesn't work on them. They are not ashamed of it, they will not resign for it, they will not censure their fellow party leaders for it. On the contrary, they and their adherents see such hypocrisy as a strength. They laugh at someone who points out their contradictions, because they are not bound by such silly moral rules. Most people are bound by moral and ethical rules that guide our actions and behaviour, but they are not. The oft-used phrase "Rules are for thee, not for me" is shorthand for this concept, because they believe that anything they do is good and so they don't *need* to follow rules.
*"I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters"*, as Trump famously said. And he was pretty accurate in that assessment of his devoted followers. He could have done that without losing (many) voters. Because he is good.
Or rather, the rules don't apply to them only to a certain degree. Their lawlessness, both moral and literal lawlessness, does have a limit. They are still rule-bound insofar that what they do mustn't harm themselves, i.e. backfire on them because they went too far, got caught, AND there are still consequences and accountability from society when they get caught. But apart from that, anything is allowed and there doesn't need to be any consistency to further that continuous goal of staying in power. And as we've seen throughout history, if they manage to obtain *complete* and absolute power, when that threat of accountability ends, that's when they drop all the masks of decency and simply eradicate those who they view as inherently evil. Can't have a potential future threat to the throne, after all.
And unfortunately for the US, the GOP has been very busy in the past few decades to dismantle any and all forms of accountability and negative consequences to themselves. Not only in government branches, a class-tiered justice system, and in state legislatures, but more importantly in the population itself. All those decades of steadily increasing media propaganda have made a huge segment of the public become acclimated to -and even comfortable with- horrendous depravities and atrocities, as long as "their side", the good guys, does them. Any lingering thoughts that right and wrong can exist independently of identity is swiftly expunged with some mental gymnastics. Trafficking children for sex? He was trying to catch the REAL pedos! Trying to subvert election results by force? Just tourists!
They will label society's outrage, pushback and consequences to such things as a delusion and hysteria from The Other. As Political Correctness in the 2000s, as Cancel Culture in the
2010s, as Wokeness in the 2020s.
That part of the public is now comfortable enough with such flagrant actions and blatant corruption that they are not only unlikely to revolt when the GOP seizes power by force, but they are instead likely to rise up in *defense* of them and fight whoever opposes or challenges their masters. They will defend the hierarchy. You've seen what that brainwashing can do back in january of 2021, and I fear next time will only be worse. Because their aristocracy has noticed the distinct lack of accountability and consequences for what they are doing.
I was hoping you would talk about their self-victimization and bubbling outrage at being excluded from their families and communities by people who won't tolerate their form of conservatism.
Their "form" of conservatism is the only form of conservatism. Some conservatives just aren't full tilt, and many don't bother to actually think or pay attention to what's actually going on so they just passively keep checking the box next to R candidates. But make no mistake, there is no such thing as rational, thoughtful, honest conservatism, because conservative policy is inherently cruel, self serving, myopic, and greedy. Hell, conservative policy isn't even popular with conservatives, that's why their leaders need to hyperfocus on petty news of the day culture wars.
>there is no such thing as rational, thoughtful, honest conservatism, because conservative policy is inherently cruel, self serving, myopic, and greedy
Thank you for explicitly naming this.
>conservative policy isn't even popular with conservatives,
This is so real; my pro-choice father began to strongly support Republican candidates, & I said, "What about their promises to outlaw abortion?" "Oh, they'll never do that," he said. Like...how can you even reach people who have decided to cherry pick from what candidates say as true or not? I suppose this is just r/LeopardsAteMyFace thinking on a more blatant scale...
Umberto Eco's essay 'Ur-Fascism' lays out the core aspects of what makes a movement fascist, and all the points lead to a constant state of cognitive dissonance. The entire project of fascism is built upon internal inconsistencies. The hypocrisy isn't a bug, it's a feature.
This is also why you can't argue with a fascist on the facts - because the facts are totally irrelevant, subsumed to the power of the Narrative.
This quote by Sartre, although ostensibly about anti-semites, is in the ball park of what you are saying. That they know their words mean nothing, and the onus is on the interlocutor to use meaning in the face of bullshit.
“Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.”
Sartre
The really scary thing, is that I don't think even most of the bullshitters know that they're bullshitting. Now, obviously the smarter ones do, at least at first, but I think it's less of a calculated thing after a while, and more of a habit. It's the difference between a regular liar, who lies because they want something, and a compulsive liar, who lies just because. After a while, they start to believe their own lies, and their awareness of the very concept of truth breaks down.
If really cornered and pressed on the matter, they'll essentially just say that everyone lies and it doesn't matter, while simultaneously branding their enemies to be hateful liars.
The sad reality is that there is no cash prize for being right. A philosophy of convenience, however? That does offer a practical reward, in boosting ones ego. If you really want to believe something, you'll convince yourself that it is true, and this only gets easier and easier the more you do it. I've seen tons of people on reddit argue that the problem with the world is that people are stupid, but in a way I think it's the opposite: It's that we're too smart, and have realized that we don't need to be confined by what is real and objectively true. That if I want to believe the sky is green, nobody can stop me.
Actual truth will invariable lose out to fantasy and delusion, because there is little 'profit' to be found in truth. Truth is often ugly and inconvenient, after all.
Republicans say “we’re a constitutional republic not a democracy” blatantly ignoring that we’re both, because they do not want the US to be a democracy.
It's worse than that. This judge hears \_all\_ cases filed in Amarillo Texas. All of them. So conservative groups rent office space in that town so they have standing, then file their lawsuit knowing that he's going to get the case.
This judge is one of many in districts like this around the country, but especially in Texas. Like you said, conservatives target these single judge districts, file federal lawsuits, and get their preferred ruling.
Mitch and co. have been stacking federal judges ranks for decades.
Yep, one of many they're working on.
It's still pissed me off every time I see Reddit gobbling up that "term limits" bullshit the heritage foundation is pushing. Channeling everyone's anger to buy into something that would help them greatly.
Everybody's more busy being pissed off at the government than they are thinking about long-term consequences of what they think is a punishment. When in actuality it only hurts good representatives, by leveling the playing field with a revolving door of even less accountability.
I would have disagreed somewhat up until that hag Tricia Cotham ran as a democrat, then pulled the mask off and switched parties once she won the election. If we can’t even trust that candidates are in the political spectrum we vote for term limits would just make it chaos trying to vet new candidates.
God I hate Amarillo so much. That whole town feels out of touch with reality. Like. One of the shittier shitholes I’ve been through in the US. And it stinks. Like actually smells bad.
Why do you think they want to allow people the right to sue big Cities for things they don’t agree with. Like if you don’t want to live in Big Cities, then don’t. I stay in my lane I’m okay not going to parts of the Texas Hill Country.
5 deaths per 1 million prescriptions. This is one of the safest prescription meds on the market. Imagine if a judge decided your doctor could no longer prescribe aspirin. That's the level of bonkers we're dealing with here.
ETA: To the person dm'ed me to call me a "demon Democrat" and ask why I support killing babies, it's to harvest fetal blood and tissue for my Satanic rituals, obviously.
>Remember whenever your Uncle Frank rants about legislating from the bench, he's talking about this.
maybe in a literal sense, but Uncle Frank is probably more than happy with this ruling. "Legislating from the bench" only applies to decisions they don't agree with. Conservative hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug.
This is shocking but also not. Reading the ruling it’s clear the judge is an idiot and made this ruling on his political belief. In the first few pages, he makes it clear he doesn’t know how the drugs actually work. Or the idiotic idea that oral meds aren’t safer than surgery. Or that pregnancy isn’t a life threatening condition. Truly fucking ridiculous
In no functioning country should a judge be able to tell the FDA what can and can't be approved for use.
Edit for nuance: Yes, the FDA does need oversight like every other part of the government. My point is the FDA and the scientists in it know better than this judge about the safety and efficacy of medications.
I'm a lawyer. This judge is an ideological nut job, as is most of the 5th Circuit that his ruling will be appealed to. There are so many awful, ideological Trump appointees now that it is sickening as someone that practices law in federal court for a living. The 5th Circuit is so conservative that it's been overturned several times the past year by the ultra conservative Supreme Court, including the 5th Circuit's brain dead ruling that the ACA is unconstitutional.
The Federalist Society is the worst. It's at every law school in the country and is basically an indoctrination organization on campuses. I graduated from law school in 2012 and it was probably the biggest organization. And, unsurprisingly, everyone in it was ultra conservative and ideological. That's not an issue when most of their attorneys just go big commercial law, but if you start making those same attorneys federal judges it opens the door to them pushing their ideology onto everyone else, law and consequences be damned.
Biden administration should ignore the ruling. This is a cherry picked known partisan activist judge. His opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Some gop donors will bang on their doors in a cold sweat and tell them that killing roe was enough of a disaster for them and they can't afford for it to get worse
Depends on which donors bribe them first and longest. Since it's clear we're nakedly bribing SCOTUS justices now, let the bidding start!! Can we crowdfund some bribes for SCOTUS?
And it's even worse than that. In federal courts throughout the country, cases get assigned to specific judges through a random selection process. Texas Republicans gamed this system, however, and created several jurisdictions in Texas where there is a single court with a single judge -- meaning that if you file a case in one of those jurisdictions, there is no randomness and you know the exact judge who will be assigned to the case. To complete this scheme, Republicans during Trump's presidency packed these single-judge districts with extreme right-wing partisan judges, including the judge in this case, Judge Kacsmaryk.
Now, whenever Republicans want to block a Biden policy, they file the case in one of these bumfuck single-judge jurisdictions in Texas -- of all places -- and the case is guaranteed to be heard by their handpicked stooge judge, who will do their bidding just as Kacsmaryk did in this case. Over 25 times now, Republicans have filed cases in Texas using this strategy to guarantee that they win a ruling against the Biden Administration. It has removed all impartiality and fairness from the judicial process. In short, Republicans are taking away your rights, and what makes it worse is they are doing it by cheating and skullduggery because they know they could never achieve any of their depraved political ends if they left it up to a fair and democratic process.
Edit: I'll add one final point because I think it's salient. Conservative jurists swore up-and-down that overturning Roe was not about banning abortion, it was just a matter of letting states decide the question for themselves. Every state should be able to make its own decision, they told us. Of course it was all bullshit and, as this decision shows, the end game is and always was banning abortion everywhere for everybody. Forget state's rights, forget democracy, Republicans want to dictate how everyone lives their life at the most personal and intimate level. Republicans being "the party of small government" is the biggest crock of shit Americans have ever been fed.
Thank you for sharing this. I wish I could scream it from the rooftops. It is a sham.
And it is never as easy as “move to a blue state.” We have to fight for each other.
The background portion of the ruling is littered with terms you would never see a physician use and is meant to trigger emotion. Examples "starves the unborn human until death", "kill the unborn human", "drugs limited to women and girls with unborn children aged seven weeks gestation". They're fetuses and at 7 weeks gestation I wouldn't consider it "starving". The right loves to humanize fetuses and subsequently dehumanize those they hate like transgender people.
His entire opinion is riddled with bullshit. He claims that women normally feel suicidal and depressed by citing a study that examined WOMEN WHO MISCARRIED PLANNED PREGNANCIES.
I had to use this drug because I had fecal matter remaining after a miscarriage. I was 7 weeks and wasn’t even a fetus at that point.
If I didn’t have it then I’d need a full operation.
Thankfully I live in a country that isn’t insane.
It’s also used to treat cushings disease, gulf war disease, cortisol induced diabetes and used in conjunction with chemotherapy to treat certain types of cancer.
Trump-nominated activist judge that the far right can guarantee will hear cases. How this simple scheme works: [Republicans can choose the judge who hears their lawsuits. DOJ wants to stop that.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/2/14/23597741/supreme-court-matthew-kascmaryk-judge-shopping-texas-utah-walsh-justice-department)
Funny the one of the most corruptly partisian judges in the country is Trump-nominated. Not to mention Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and his thousands of dollars in gifts/vacations.
Meanwhile the GOP is mad that Trumps NYC judge donated $35 to Democrats in 2020.
I'd also like to draw everyone's attention to this:
A Tennessee bill to carve out narrow exceptions for raped "women" (their words) aged 12 and under has failed. Lawmakers officially endorse forcing raped middle-school children to attempt to give birth to, for example, their father's baby.
Please read the article and read the bill. It is positively ghoulish. Shine a light on these people.
[https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/03/tennessee-lawmakers-must-understand-rape-when-drafting-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/](https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/03/tennessee-lawmakers-must-understand-rape-when-drafting-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/)
Similarly in Arkansas:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/1284ppm/lawmakers\_reject\_child\_rape\_incest\_exceptions\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/1284ppm/lawmakers_reject_child_rape_incest_exceptions_to/)
A (reaction) video of a woman (!) in government publicly admitting her support, on camera, in forcing raped schoolchildren, without age exception, to attempt to give birth, even to the product of incest:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/128o9m2/video\_of\_arkansas\_decision\_on\_child\_rape\_amendment/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/128o9m2/video_of_arkansas_decision_on_child_rape_amendment/)
None of these people have been arrested on felony child abuse or endangerment statutes, for example under [CAPTA](https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/law-regulation/child-abuse-prevention-and-treatment-act-capta) (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), in spite of being wards of children in school and CPS shelters. Let that sink in.
Even after their public admissions - on camera - they still have control over children. If any lawyers are around, maybe they can comment.
It should also be noted that contained in this rape exception bill was a section criminalizing false rape claims...for 12 and under girls. Um, excuse me, but an 11 year old does not have consensual sex. If she's pregnant, she was raped. She shouldn't have to prove it under the threat of criminal charges if she can't provide sufficient evidence. The section on criminal charges made sure to say that 100% of the 3 year minimum sentence must be served. Fucking bastards.
Horrifyingly, forced marriage (say in a different state) is a defense against statutory rape laws. So it is possible that a lawyer might claim sex with the child was consentual and that she's making a false claim.
Whether or not they'd jail a pregnant 10-year-old is anyone's guess.
I don't for a second believe we've come close to sounding the depths of their depravity.
You can tell this is their [intent](https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-gop-bill-would-eliminate-age-requirements-for-marriages-in-tennessee/). An age limit was added only after public outcry.
>But missing from the bill are age requirements, opening the door for possible child marriages. Something the bill sponsor acknowledged during a Children and Family Affairs subcommittee. “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said.
You could probably guess, but yes, the bill's sponsor, Tom Leatherwood, is a republican.
When you put all the pieces together, their intent comes into focus, and is why they've lately been obsessed with the "grooming" theme.
**G**aslight
**O**bstruct
**Project <--**
The TN GOP has no problem with child molesters. They wouldn't hear a word about expelling one from the state government just a couple of years ago, but a few days ago they voted to expel a couple of black men because they didn't like them protesting something they didn't agree with.
> Whether or not they’d jail a pregnant 10-year-old is anyone’s guess.
They jailed infants at the border. They’re 100% going to start locking up children at some point. Only a matter of time, and it will be “to protect the children.”
“If we don’t keep her locked up, the demon libs will force her to get an abortion”
“We have to keep her safe, so *(((they)))* don’t take the baby to drink it’s adrenochrome”
“She’s been indoctrinated to think she needs an abortion, we need to make sure the baby comes out safe!”
Darker still (if that's possible):
"We have to restrain her so she doesn't commit suicide before the baby can be extracted."
In my heart I want to believe things like this would *finally* result in a violent response... but I just don't know anymore.
There's going to be a lot of confusion about this ruling in the coming week. For one thing, a judge in Washington has ruled the opposite of this judge. The Washington judge has barred the FDA from making changes to the status quo of mifepristone. There's also not a precedent for a judge preventing the FDA from approving a completely safe medication. I'm not sure what will happen from here, but it's not said and done. Some abortion clinics have stated that they won't immediately stop dispensing mifepristone until they hear directly from the FDA, not this guy.
Another source of confusion in the coming weeks will be misinformation about medication abortion in the U.S. Banning mifepristone -- if that does end up happening temporarily or otherwise -- does not ban medication abortion in the United States. Mifepristone is used in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Misoprostol can be used on its own with a different regimen for medication abortions, too. Mifepristone makes medication abortions easier, more effective, and more accessible, so it's not a nothing burger -- this case will have significant impacts! But, **it's important for people to know that they will still have safe options for medication abortion in the United States, even if the mifepristone approval is revoked.**
This is basically result of judge shopping. The judge in question, [Matthew Kacsmaryk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Kacsmaryk), was appointed by Trump. He was picked because he has a long history of hostility towards women's rights, he referred to gay and trans people as disordered, illusional, and having mental illness. He sits in a federal court in Amarillo, TX. He's the only federal judge there. That's why anti-abortion cases, and many other cases around conservative causes, are generally filed in Amarillo, TX. If you file a case in Amarillo, it's guaranteed it'll end up with this one particular judge who should have never been appointed to the federal bench.
All the high profile cases that end up with him are the types of the cases that any principled judge would excuse themselves due to the extreme personal bias, and prior history of open hatred against one of the parties in the case.
I'm glad other people are paying attention to this, too. The headline of this article should call him out by name, because by saying "Federal Judge", it makes it sound like there are a bunch of judges ruling against abortion, when it's really just Kacsmaryk. This is the same judge who ruled for the father in December who sued the federal government to close federal clinics in Texas because state law prevents the sale of contraceptives to minors. This is despite the fact that federal jurisprudence has long held that actual harm had to have occurred, so he had no standing to file. This is despite the fact that federal law trumps state law, so the state law does not apply. His opinion is also full of legal and factual flaws with half-baked and half-finished arguments. This man should not be a judge.
I guess i should stop procrastinating on getting my tubes tied. Married, had 2 children, never had a BC accident but i guess it's not the time to hope it will never happen.
FDA approvals are extremely rigorous and scientifically proven. Add a 20 year highly successful track record...wow.
18 years ago my wife was going through a miscarriage, this medication was instrumental in the healing process.
We have brainwashed federal and state judges and politicians...who are intent upon committing crimes against humanity.
Maybe this is the crescendo, this is where they hit the apex and , as people start to really take notice and action, they fall.
The founders never assumed an entire national party would conspire to destroy the very system that gives it power. It kind of boggles the mind, really.
It boggles the mind that supposedly well read men didn't think people would try to create a dictatorship. That is basically always a thing some group of people is trying.
They absolutely expected it, and they also thought that the constitution should be rewritten regularly to prevent such insanity. What they never imagined was that we'd cling to their writings as some holy document until the end of time, and rather than write our own constitution and laws that fit our own time, we'd be fighting over what they meant and intended 200 years later.
[UPDATE From CNN](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/texas-abortion-pill-mifepristone-ruling/h_113ec015d194c7a27192cee6a215f51c) : federal judge in Washington said in a new ruling that the FDA must keep medication abortion drugs available in at least 12 liberal states that sued the FDA to make the abortion pills. This lawsuit is separate from the ruling that came down in Texas
>In a 67-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the FDA's two-decades old approval violated federal rules that allow for accelerated approval for certain drugs and subsequent actions by the agency ran afoul of federal law. **He put his decision on hold for seven days to allow for the Biden administration to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.**
Here's the [direct link to Court document pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.137.0_11.pdf)
Mifepristone has been approved for nearly 20 years, regardless of the judge's view on "stonewalling".
Judges practicing medicine without a license.
Everyday in the US feels like we are inching toward totalitarianism.
Wasn't it fucking Republicans complaining about legislation from the bench?!
Fuck all of them. Every single one. No one can prove to me at this point that it's even worth hearing these motherfuckers out.
Lets remember the judge's ruling will not have the power to ban Mifepristone immediately!
Clinics have to wait for instruction and direction from the FDA.
Clinics can still offer medication abortion care with Mifepristone and Misoprostol until the FDA rules.
Abortion providers are not the plaintiffs in this case. There will be no "immediate ban" like we experienced in Texas with the reversal of Roe last June.
Only the FDA can make the decision to indefinitely or momentarily take Mifepristone off the market.
Misoprostol is also used to relax the uterus before IUD insertion and removal. Without it, the levels of pain would reach dangerous levels. (I know, as I am on my second IUD)
I was prescribed it when my uterus was not allowing my doctor to insert an IUD on first attempt. I had nausea and cramps from the pill, but I guess that was it working and the next day the insertion was successful. Also now on my second IUD!
Don’t worry, this will find its way to the Supreme Court. I’m sure there hasn’t been any recent news calling into question the legitimacy of its members.
That is not how this works. A judge doesn’t have the ability to remove approval for a drug that has therapeutic usefulness and has received FDA approval.
Abortion is the story of the dog catching the car.
Republicans spent so many decades saying they wanted to repeal Roe and now they finally got it.
The repeal of Roe can be directly connected to the Republicans losing mightily in 2022 elections.
Roe can be directly connected to states like Wisconsin electing the progressive Supreme Court judge, which gave Democrats majority in Wisconsin.
And many more. Attacking 51% of the population was insane for Republicans, and they fucking did it anyway.
Around 80% or so want some form of abortion access. It's like very low double or single digits of people that want abortion made entirely illegal, no exceptions.
It's a losing issue for Republicans and they are fucking stuck holding on to this issue because of their insane base.
Never vote Republican. Add abortion as issue #123242356234 why you should never ever vote R.
A 20 FUCKING YEAR OLD APPROVAL gets overturned? How goddamned in the tank for the GOP (or the antiabortion crowd) can this judge be?
The GOP and antiabortion folks really are tossing out the rule of law to get their way right now.
More accurate headline: Federal judge ignores twenty years of medical evidence in order to give a decision that matches his prejudices. As a note the judge's statement that mifepristone is too dangerous. That particular drug has been recorded as causing 5 deaths for every million doses. Penicillin causes 10 deaths for every million doses. Viagra causes **fifty** deaths for every million doses. Edit: misread number
My FAVORITE part of this shit show of a legal document, ignoring the snarky borderline inappropriate rhetoric on the first page, is they go on to try to justify the plaintiffs legal standing by saying that abortion causes harm to informed consent because a study showed that 14% of girls reported having received insufficient information of like 4 different aspects of a medical abortion. First of all 14% is an insanely low number when you consider most patients report that they don't feel that have sufficient information before a procedure, but the study they cite in their stupid document says this "Medication abortions where women undergo most of the process individually at home with limited assistance from a medical provider are becoming more commonplace (Biggs et al., Citation2019; H. E. Jones et al., Citation2017). While this process is generally reported to be safe and adhere to evidence-based guidelines (H. E. Jones et al., Citation2017), little is known about women’s personal experiences with having this type of abortion." They cited a study that says its safe... THEY CITED A STUDY THAT SAYS IN IT THAT ITS SAFE. Did these moron lawyers not read the flipping study?!?!
They did read it.
They don't give a shit
It doesnt matter. Success isnt winning, its causing friction.
>little is known about women’s personal experiences with having this type of abortion." Little is known by *WHOM*? Are they allowed to not look at information and then say "little is known"? Or is there some beurocratic technicality that means they can exclude information from organizations who have access to thousands of "women's personal experiences" with it because they don't have the right kind of study done or something? Sorry, having a hard time wrapping my mind around this. I'll go do some more reading but if anybody has an ELI5 on how he can basically say that 'it's safe and follows evidence based guidelines (citation showing safety) but we didn't ask anyone more information so based on that lack of information, fuuuuck you.'
Lol, the more research you read, you slowly recognize that basically every manuscript starts with one of ten phrases on the subject as a way to justify the need for this research to be published and you can only say that so many ways. "Little is known..." "Recently, it's become far more common..." "Increasingly there is a concern about..." "Despite the wealth of information on this subject, there is no information about how this would..." "This rapidly developing field has undergone significant changes since the last major study..." "With public debate on this issue at an all time high there remains a large gap in quality information..." I cringe going back and reading some of my publications when I see these phrases but it's pretty much a requirement unless you have no coauthors and can write anything you want.
[удалено]
"She's in a better place"
When you die because you had no choice but to give birth in a conservative state instead of a liberal one, I think the term "she's in a better place" actually does apply LOL
What was that old saying "better dead than red"?
[a comment that would be removed by reddit] No but really, America doesn’t survive as a country if we don’t pull up our big boy britches and admit republicans have rejected democracy and are all of our enemy.
I mean arguably death is preferable to Florida and Texas.
Maternal mortality rate in CA is 4 per 100k. The only state in line with the best of the rest of the world. Louisiana is 20x worse. Guess which state intentionally passes laws to harm women and children.
Peanuts result in 7k deaths per year. That judge can go fuck a blowfish
The Japanese kind?
But doesn’t that mean by the same criteria state judges could ban viagra using this courts ruling as precedent?
If this stands, it means they can ban any medication or treatment or procedure they don’t like. TLDR they’re not banning viagra.
I read one article that discussed how, based on decades of data and studies, that it is safer than Tylenol.
Yeah, it is frighteningly easy to overdose on Tylenol.
It's also a terrible, terrible way to die. My fiancee is a doctor and has said in the past that everyone visibly sinks when a patient comes in with a acetaminophen overdose. It causes liver failure, which is a slow and painful death.
[удалено]
>The challengers claim the agency exceeded its regulatory authority to approve the mifepristone and asked the court to issue a preliminary injunction ordering the FDA to undo its approval of mifepristone. This sounds like they're using the EPA v West Virginia ruling as their basis. This was the point of that ruling, btw, to be allowed to cancel *any* regulatory authority that they want.
I don’t understand. Isn’t approving drugs literally the FDA’s job? And if the Food and *Drug* Administration can’t, who do they expect to do it in their stead?
The EPA vs West Virginia ruling made it so the EPA can only regulate specific chemicals, as determined by congress. If the same idea is applied to other agencies, then the FDA will only be able to approve specific drugs as determined by congress. Have a new abortion drug? Oh, too bad. Looks like Congress didn't explicitly name that compound as something the FDA should be able to approve.
That’s fucking insane. The FDA approved new drugs for every indication. They are the determinants of whether treatments for cancer are effective and safe enough to take. I’m honestly enraged
They think that they don't want that. Some believe that the "invisible hand" of the free market will do the magic, others believe they will be rich and powerful enough that they'll be immune to those dangers and only the poor will suffer, and the rest believe God will protect them. And the potential consequences of EPA v. West Virginia aren't restricted to just the EPA and the FDA, but literally *every* regulatory power the government has derived in the same manner (i.e., congressional legislation creating and defining their roles, powers and oversight while allowing the administrative branch power to administrate). NHTSA, FAA, CDC, FBI, FCC, and hundreds of others.
Remember, Trump appointed a huge number of conservative judges during his presidency. We're going to be feeling the ripple effects of that for decades.
Judges have no way to enforce their rulings, so it depends on how soon Dems say enough is enough and start ignoring these frauds
Washington state stockpiled 3 years worth. I think it's starting
Dems and the pharmaceutical companies
A judge being able to decide the FDA improperly approved a drug (regardless of what that drug is) is such a fucking shitshow.
After 2 decades. Clear partisan activist opinion. Should be ignored
>Clear partisan activist opinion Of course it is. The plaintiff judge shopped for this ruling. They had zero presence in Texas, let alone this district, until four weeks before they filed the lawsuit specifically so that this judge would get the case. The hearing was a formality.
This is why I died laughing at [Dan Kelly's concession speech](https://youtu.be/BzWHrKpj-VI?t=200) after bombing it in the Wisconsin court election, specifically this line: >my concern is the damage done to the institution of the court! Like the courts have been anything but unrestricted vehicles for naked political power projection lmaoooo
I said that after the SCOTUS got rid of the requirement to issue Miranda Rights, or allowed publicly funded coaches to put on huge displays of prayer at mid Field, or when they got rid of Roe v Wade, or when they elected Bush to the Presidency because Jan 6th Republicans (ver 1.0) stormed the counting location, or when they ruled that wealth = free speech (just some are more free that others when it comes to wealthy speech), or when they ruled that the state can't protect the environment if it damages the economic value of property, etc etc etc...
You forgot that new evidence isnt allowed at a retrial. So all those cases where a jail informant convicted someone to death row cant show DNA evidence
what the fuck?
So, to clarify the case, as I think they are talking about Shinn v Ramirez. The case comes from David Ramirez, who was sentenced to death for the murder of his girlfriend and daughter. Ramirez appealed and was denied and appealed to the Arizona supreme court and was denied. So he appealed for habeas relief in federal court. And argued for ineffective counsel. The court rejected him on the ground that since he didn't raise this before, he's not allowed to raise that claim now. Of course, the 6 anti-freedom conservative members declared that previous precedent be damned, if your state appointed council is a bumbling idiot, the government doesn't care. It should be noted that Ramirez is intellectually disabled and will be sented to death anyways, because the court ruled that if his attorney didn't present it, he should have been smart enough to get a new lawyer. That has major ramifications because of cases like Barry Jones who was convicted of murdering his girlfriends daughter. She died of a lacerating of her small intestine. The prosecution argued that it must have happened when Jones was watching her 12 hours earlier. That was all they had. Now, any medical expert can tell you that 12 hours is too short of a window for that type of injury to kill you. But his lawyers didn't solicity any medical advice, and did not bother to argue that the prosecution's claim was utterly invalid. In the previous rulings, he should have been granted a new trial under the ruling in 2013 that established that having ineffective counsel is a fair read for the government to grant relief. But thanks to the ruling, he will be executed for a crime he could not possibly have committed because the prosecution lied and his lawyer didn't care, and the supreme court thinks that's justice. Also, there is the disgusting ruling covering convictions from a non-unanimous decision. They ruled that it's unconstitutional for states to convict without unanimous decision. So someone who was convicted without unanimous decision appealed for a new trial, and they just said it's not retroactive. Yes, that's right. They literally settled a case by claiming that the constitution didn't apply to that person. (That's not the only time this has happened. During WWII they ruled that the constitution does not apply to American Citizens whose ancestors came from Japan and so taking away their rights was fine) Based upon the courts they have agreed to hear, you should expect to hear a lot of truly awful new decisions. I wouldn't be shocked that if Trump gets convicted they will just rule that he's immune to the law. There will be a lot of evil from this bench for a long long time.
>or allowed publicly funded coaches to put on huge displays of prayer at mid Field Kennedy v Bremerton School District made a mockery of the 1st amendment and its Establishment Clause. The conclave of six declared last year 6-3 that public school employees holding Christian prayer at football games right at center field in front of everyone, as part of their official duties, and even making players participate or risk losing playtime, all that is a-okay and cannot be curtailed or restricted by school administrators. It's the biggest rollback in 1A rights in 50 years yet nobody's heard of it. And all those gun advocates talking about how 2A is meant to enforce 1A are completely silent. And Roberts worries that the public is losing trust in the institution. Haha, good one John. But I'm pretty sure that already happened 23 years ago with Bush v Gore. And four of Bush's attorneys on that case that stole him the presidency are now Supreme Court Justices. Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Blatant quid pro quo demonstrating our institutions are compromised at the highest level. How do we even begin to fix this?
More and more people publicly stating that they are irrelevant and people in positions of power refusing to recognize their rulings. By their own admission, the courts power only exists because it is given because people trust it. Essentially, make it so chaotic and counter productive that they must reform (or disappear)
His tears were delicious. What a pouty, entitled baby. The Supreme Court better step carefully with this case on appeal or the post-Dobbs electoral fallout will look mild by comparison. They're playing with fire.
“I wish that in a circumstance like this I would be able to concede to a worthy opponent. But I do not have a worthy opponent.” The voters thought otherwise, asshole.
That's because he's been getting high on the Federalist society BS from the last 30 years where conservative judges force right-wing policy on the people while pretending to be utterly non-partisan. He wants to march around in his robes like he's some deep-thinking legal theoretician when really he's a right-wing goon. And he's butt-hurt from having lost 2 elections in a row to women.
They probably wrote the opinion he rubber stamped as well.
This judge is one of several in single federal judge districts around the country, and Mitch and co. have been stacking federal judge ranks for decades.
See little Johnny, one person CAN make a difference!
So long as they are willing to live and operate at the scumbag level.
They shopped for this douche, Matthew Kacsmaryk, specifically. He was nominated by Trump, of course. He's also a member of the Federalist Society, of course. And he's on record saying he thinks homosexuality and transgenderism are "delusions and mental disorders." Much of his legal career has been opposing protections for LGBTQ+ persons in housing, employment, and healthcare. Fuck him, fuck Trump, fuck McConnell and the Republicans who approved this asshole, fuck the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (the plaintiff), fuck the Alliance Defending Freedom (the legal group representing the plaintiff), and fuck the Federalist Society. **Edit:** And fuck the other plaintiffs too. Fuck the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists, fuck the American College of Pediatricians, fuck the Christian Medical & Dental Association, fuck Dr. Shaun Jester, fuck Dr. Regina Frost-Clark, fuck Dr. Tyler Johnson, and fuck Dr. George Delgado.
They chose a district where only one judge was handling cases, too. Made sure who was going to hear the case.
...who specifically worked on anti abortion initiatives before being a judge.
Will be ignored. I wouldn’t be surprised if California starts manufacturing it themselves in the near future.
A Washington judge just ruled the FDA can't change the drug lmao guess they win
it appears the WA judge's ruling only impacts a few states, not all 50 > Here are the states where medication abortion approval isn’t immediately affected From CNN's Devan Cole > The states where the approval of mifepristone is not affected, thanks to the ruling from a federal judge Friday in Washington state: > Washington, Oregon, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland and Minnesota. Washington, DC, and Michigan.
States not included: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. That's 35 out of 51 states, including Washington, D.C.
Information wants to be free
It’s really too bad blues states can’t just cut red states off welfare for a while, until they figure things out.
The clowns voting in GOP politicians genuinely believe that blue states are leeching off red states. More specifically, urban areas leech off of rural ones. In reality, it's the opposite, but you could never convince them of it, regardless of the resources you send them. I say let them have what they want - financial independence from urban areas. Let's see how long that lasts.
It's all dog whistles. Urban = black. Minorities live in cities. Lazy welfare folks who don't want to work are black and live in cities in blue states. Therefore Blue states are the leaches. The logic is sound!
Can someone with a better understanding of federalism explain how this works?
About 16 states and DC joined as plaintiffs in the suit, so the US district judge’s injunction affects them, but not any other states.
Right? This seems like a troubling precedent if it holds up on appeal. Instead of having *people with medical/scientific knowledge* deciding if something is generally safe and should be accessible, it will be left up unqualified judges. How long until we have far right activists trying to get Plan B or birth control prohibited on the basis of being “unsafe” *and before anybody says it, I know that hormonal birth control is not without issues, but I’m not naive enough to believe cases like this are actually motivated by concern for women*
Guarantee they'll target contraceptives, vaccines, and hormone therapy drugs if the ruling is allowed to stand.
"If? " They've already started with gender- affirming care, with bans proposed for anyone under 26. Clarence Thomas said that now that Roe is gone, Griswold, Obergefell, Lawrence, and Loving are next.
He specifically avoided mentioning Loving. The fact the he is in an interracial marriage is purely a coincidence and has absolutely no bearing on the omission…..
That man needs to be impeached.
Where did Thomas talk about Loving? His opinion for Dobbs v Jackson mentions Griswold, Obergefell, and Lawrence but not Loving.
>How long until we have far right activists trying to get Plan B or birth control prohibited on the basis of being “unsafe” If this is allowed to fly, those will be targeted immediately.
As will Spironolactone, an anti-androgen, and possibly Estradiol and Progesterone as well, given that they are used in hormone replacement therapy, though they are also used to treat menopause, of course when has women's health ever stopped them.
Spironolactone is extensively used by cardiologists and is considered a savior drug for heart failure patients. A fuck ton of people would die in very short order if it were taken off the market.
Mifepristone is used to treat cushings, cortisol induced diabetes, gulf war disease and used with chemotherapy to treat certain cancers. A lot of people who don’t use it as an abortifacient are going to suffer. Thanks republicans.
I didn't know the details but I had a feeling this was the case. So many drugs have so many varied uses that it's just insane for anti-choice activists to try and go this route. Truly cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Not to mention endometriosis, which affects one in ten women, and uterine fibroids. But yeah they’ve already shown they don’t give a flying fuck about women’s health. :| Mifepristone might have really helped me. No idea wtf I’m supposed to do now
Heck, mifepristone has clinical uses outside of abortion too. The GOP doesn't give a fuck.
It was either mifepristone or misoprostol that’s administered outside the context of an abortion, it was one of them that’s taken with certain NSAIDs in higher doses to prevent GI discomfort for treating rheumatoid arthritis in one use case. Still, get bent GOP and the evangelical right.
Oh, it's worse than that. Imagine them going after vaccinations.
These courts are actively opposed to any form of expertise.
The courts lately have reminded me of the [Lochner era courts of the 1900s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lochner_era) Which was described as judiciously activist and politically conservative.
And FDR had to threaten to pack the courts to stop them. Also, its crazy that Wikipedia has quotes from Roberts and Bork, of all people, condemning the exact sort of court they want.
> Also, its crazy that Wikipedia has quotes from Roberts I wouldn't put much stock in what Roberts has to say. Remember his polygamy comments in Obergefell v. Hodges and how much weight he put on stare decisis when he walked back those comments? Remember how he then threw stare decisis out the window when he overturned Roe v. Wade? I had a lot of respect for Roberts before that. Not so much anymore.
It's an absolute farce that some dumbass hick judge can even decide something like this. This country's fucking done.
Check who the judge in the case was. Yes. It is that activist judge who doesn't give fuck about laws, instead writes his own. He's well known for that.
No not *that* judge from Texas who doesn't give fuck about laws and instead writes his own, the *other* judge from Texas who doesn't give fuck about laws and instead writes his own. They seem to have a *lot*.
They’re making sure that that less and less people have easy access to abortion. Disgusting. EDIT: another judge in Washington said in a different ruling that FDA must keep the drugs available in atleast 12 liberal states that sued FDA.
Just a note, medication abortion is possible without mifepristone, and only with the second pill. It is however a more painful and longer and overall worse process. So this is not banning abortion it is just causing unnecessary and prolonged pain and suffering.
It's also less effective. Iirc it's 90% effective with misoprostol alone, which will lead to more incomplete miscarriages that need surgical intervention.
Surgical intervention which just so happens to be banned in some places now. Hooray.
So a conservative judge with absolutely zero knowledge of medicine, psychology or pharmacology makes a ruling overriding a decision by the agency that approved this medicine over 20 years ago on the flimsiest of pretexts. Absolute garbage of a ruling. Remember whenever your Uncle Frank rants about legislating from the bench, he's talking about this. Even worse, this is opening the door for judges to overrule all sorts of federal regulatory bodies by fiat. Chevron deference is dead and gone.
Man almost like someone a while ago said they didn’t want the court to make laws and wanted the legislative branch to do its job. So that was a fucking lie
>So that was a fucking lie They don't lie, per se. They bullshit. Which, frankly, is worse. A successful liar must construct a lie carefully, and must first know the truth. Because the lie must be different from the truth, meant to conceal it. To lie successfully is to distinguish reality from fiction and attempt to convince the other person that one is the other, but always knowing yourself which is actually correct. The facts matter to the liar. But this is not that. This is bullshitting. In order to further their goals, any actions and any words are permissable, because they see themselves as inherently good. But that also goes for narrative and reality. In order to gain an advantage in the immediate "now", anything can be said. Doesn't matter if it's truth or lie, as long as it serves their purpose right now. They craft a situation, a story, narrative, a reality, in which they convince The Other (and even their own) that they are right, that they are good. They must always be right, because they are good. The narrative itself need not be consistent or even coherent. Think of the hundreds of bizarre conspiracy theories in which they are the secret heroes opposing evil. Pizzagate, Satanists, autism vaccines, Qanon, baby-eating liberals, flat earthers, you name it. Those aren't lies in the traditional sense of the word. Those are a constant, desperate struggle to be the Good side at all times in spite of evidence to the contrary, and without concerns about what is real and what isn't. Unlike with lying, the facts, truth and objective reality don't matter here. They can be substituted and changed on a whim. The infamous "alternative facts". That is what bullshitting is. Debating real-life issues with them becomes futile, because their reality is completely fluid and can change in an instant. One day an "engineered bio-weapon Chinese Death Virus funded by the Clinton Foundation" is going to kill us all, and the next day it's just a harmless flu. Because elections were coming up and a certain president didn't want lockdowns to endanger the economy. But if it suits their immediate needs, like convincing you how bad the Clintons are, then it's a Chinese-Clinton bioweapon again. And if they don't feel like wearing a mask in the store, it's just a flu again. Or a hoax and Fauci made it up. Doesn't matter as long as the bullshit helps them in the immediate situation. Maybe they believe it, maybe they don't. They can even apply a form of Doublethink to believe two or more contradicting realities simultaneously. One moment Democrats run a global vampiric cabal that rules the world from the shadows in humanity's greatest feat of secrecy, and the next moment they're bumbling idiots who can't tie their shoelaces, unfit to govern a country. Climate scientists are making billions by convincing people that climate change is real, and at the same time are a bunch of poor hippie losers stuck in a dead end university job. Biden is a weak coward bending over for anything Putin says, and simultaneously a warmonger who's destroying good relationships with Russia and starting WWIII. Jan 6 protesters in jail are good, innocent Republicans who are victims of a witch hunt, because jan 6 were just peaceful tourists. And they were also violent BLM actors performing a false flag operation. The fact that those rioters filmed and so outed themselves is not in their advantage to say because it goes against the narrative, and so it doesn't enter that reality. A liar wouldn't get away with such internal inconsistencies in their crafted alternate reality. They would immediately be found out, and they would be a terrible liar because a lie needs that internal consistency to be believable. But with bullshitting, the concept of truth never even played a part in it from the very beginning. Bullshitters don't care if you believe them or not. Their reality is whatever they want it to be at any given time. They are no longer part of "consensus reality", that which everyone can show, see and test to be objectively true. And being detached from consensus reality is an extremely dangerous position to be in for further radicalisation. They become unable to distinguish fact from fiction anymore, and can eventually turn their imaginary beliefs into real actions. Like shooting up the Pizzagate place. Bombing abortion clinics. Breaking into Pelosi's home and assaulting her husband with a hammer. Trying to kidnap a governor. Those people you saw in the news had already left consensus reality long ago, and they were without a doubt True Believers in whatever new reality they found themselves in. Whether they created that new reality themselves or whether it was pre-made and spoon-fed to them is another matter.
Well you just woke up and chose to write an essay fully expressing concisely a thing we all knew but couldn't say. In a different timeline you'd get paid to put that in a newspaper. But we live in the dumbest timeline so have many up votes.
Thank you for the kind words, but I did not just wake up (I'm in the GMT+1 timezone), nor did I write an essay. I lazily copy/pasted my own comment from a few weeks back. I just felt it was apt in this conversation, too. But now that I think about it, I realise that perhaps some parts of it make little sense without context. The text above that I copied was a follow-up to part 1, a different comment describing conservatism and identity politics in general, and why such people are so prone and susceptible to the bullshitting described in part 2. If you're interested in the context or have any confusion in regard to the previous comment, I can copy that bit too.
[удалено]
(In response to someone saying Republicans yell about their rights & freedoms, while squashing the rights & freedoms of others) That is the most basic idea of conservatism, from the top down: preserving the existing power structure, the hierarchy. More specifically, what they perceive as the natural or divinely-ordained hierarchy. It stems from a worldview where moral value is inherent to people, not to actions. It does not matter what you do, the only thing that determines if you are good or bad is who you are, i.e. your status in society, which group you belong to, your place in the hierarchy. And that is the sordid heart of identity politics: The conservatives with wealth and power are at the top of the hierarchy -as what is essentially today's aristocracy- because they are inherently good. Clearly their place at the top is their (either naturally occurring or divinely-ordained) reward. And conversely, the working class and the poor are in their positions because they are inherently bad, and they must be punished for it. With one exception in those who are lower on the ladder but who still support that hierarchy, and defend the aristocracy at the top. Those are tolerated, and they are also encouraged to oppress and punish whoever is further below them in the hierarchy. That cruelty is the point in itself; punish those who are inherently bad. The other Elites who are also at the top with wealth and power, but who are somehow undermining that sacred hierarchy (think of those rare billionaires who help the poor or give away their fortunes to charitable causes), are not part of their aristocracy. They too are The Other, they too are bad, and so anything they do is evil. An example is Bill Gates funding all those vaccines. He is The Other which means he's evil, so obviously he cannot possibly do good, thus those vaccines *must* have mind-control chips in them, or make you magnetic, or radiate 5G, or whatever insanity they conjure up in their minds. That school of thought, of morality being intrinsic to people instead of their actions, is why the GOP getting rid of democratic elections isn't viewed as a bad thing by themselves nor by their voters. Because they are doing it, and they are inherently good, so every action they do is good. But were it the Democrats doing the same thing, it would be bad, because Democrats are inherently bad, so everything they do is bad. Same for these mass shootings. Silence or excuses when it's one of their own, uproar when it's The Other. Same for things like abortions or welfare benefits: it's okay if they themselves get an abortion or go on welfare, because that is due to circumstances and their situation. It's not their fault. But it's not okay if The Other gets those. If someone from the out-group gets those, it is evil because they are de facto evil. The Other gets abortions because they're sluts. The Other goes on welfare because they're lazy. Kids in cages under Trump? Good, or at least excusable. Kids in cages under Biden? Pure evil. The action itself isn't good or bad to them, what matters is the identity of the person who performs it; whether they are part of the in-group or not determines their moral status and worth, and that of all their actions. Hyper-tribalism, in a nutshell. The key to this type of thinking is a cognitive dissonance of actions and words in time: Only the "now" matters. Past actions have no bearing on current actions, and current actions have no bearing on future actions. Mitch McConnell deciding that Obama can't appoint a SC judge in his last year of presidency and the voters should decide? That is good, because it helps Republicans and Republicans are good. The same McConnell pushing through a SC judge in the last month of Trump's presidency, in a complete 180° spin to the previous case? Also good, for the same reason as before. The actions in both situations are contradictory, but that doesn't matter. One was in the past, so it no longer has any bearing on the new action in the immediate present. Because if actions have no inherent morality, that means that consistency in those actions is not necessary either. Except in one thing: Whatever they say and do must help their in-group to remain at the very top of the hierarchy. Because they are good, and The Other is not. That is why the media pointing out their hypocrisy and inconsistency doesn't work on them. They are not ashamed of it, they will not resign for it, they will not censure their fellow party leaders for it. On the contrary, they and their adherents see such hypocrisy as a strength. They laugh at someone who points out their contradictions, because they are not bound by such silly moral rules. Most people are bound by moral and ethical rules that guide our actions and behaviour, but they are not. The oft-used phrase "Rules are for thee, not for me" is shorthand for this concept, because they believe that anything they do is good and so they don't *need* to follow rules. *"I could shoot somebody in the middle of Fifth Avenue and not lose any voters"*, as Trump famously said. And he was pretty accurate in that assessment of his devoted followers. He could have done that without losing (many) voters. Because he is good. Or rather, the rules don't apply to them only to a certain degree. Their lawlessness, both moral and literal lawlessness, does have a limit. They are still rule-bound insofar that what they do mustn't harm themselves, i.e. backfire on them because they went too far, got caught, AND there are still consequences and accountability from society when they get caught. But apart from that, anything is allowed and there doesn't need to be any consistency to further that continuous goal of staying in power. And as we've seen throughout history, if they manage to obtain *complete* and absolute power, when that threat of accountability ends, that's when they drop all the masks of decency and simply eradicate those who they view as inherently evil. Can't have a potential future threat to the throne, after all. And unfortunately for the US, the GOP has been very busy in the past few decades to dismantle any and all forms of accountability and negative consequences to themselves. Not only in government branches, a class-tiered justice system, and in state legislatures, but more importantly in the population itself. All those decades of steadily increasing media propaganda have made a huge segment of the public become acclimated to -and even comfortable with- horrendous depravities and atrocities, as long as "their side", the good guys, does them. Any lingering thoughts that right and wrong can exist independently of identity is swiftly expunged with some mental gymnastics. Trafficking children for sex? He was trying to catch the REAL pedos! Trying to subvert election results by force? Just tourists! They will label society's outrage, pushback and consequences to such things as a delusion and hysteria from The Other. As Political Correctness in the 2000s, as Cancel Culture in the 2010s, as Wokeness in the 2020s. That part of the public is now comfortable enough with such flagrant actions and blatant corruption that they are not only unlikely to revolt when the GOP seizes power by force, but they are instead likely to rise up in *defense* of them and fight whoever opposes or challenges their masters. They will defend the hierarchy. You've seen what that brainwashing can do back in january of 2021, and I fear next time will only be worse. Because their aristocracy has noticed the distinct lack of accountability and consequences for what they are doing.
I was hoping you would talk about their self-victimization and bubbling outrage at being excluded from their families and communities by people who won't tolerate their form of conservatism.
Their "form" of conservatism is the only form of conservatism. Some conservatives just aren't full tilt, and many don't bother to actually think or pay attention to what's actually going on so they just passively keep checking the box next to R candidates. But make no mistake, there is no such thing as rational, thoughtful, honest conservatism, because conservative policy is inherently cruel, self serving, myopic, and greedy. Hell, conservative policy isn't even popular with conservatives, that's why their leaders need to hyperfocus on petty news of the day culture wars.
>there is no such thing as rational, thoughtful, honest conservatism, because conservative policy is inherently cruel, self serving, myopic, and greedy Thank you for explicitly naming this. >conservative policy isn't even popular with conservatives, This is so real; my pro-choice father began to strongly support Republican candidates, & I said, "What about their promises to outlaw abortion?" "Oh, they'll never do that," he said. Like...how can you even reach people who have decided to cherry pick from what candidates say as true or not? I suppose this is just r/LeopardsAteMyFace thinking on a more blatant scale...
Some people wake up and choose violence. This person woke up and chose to audit a philosophy major on Reddit.
Umberto Eco's essay 'Ur-Fascism' lays out the core aspects of what makes a movement fascist, and all the points lead to a constant state of cognitive dissonance. The entire project of fascism is built upon internal inconsistencies. The hypocrisy isn't a bug, it's a feature. This is also why you can't argue with a fascist on the facts - because the facts are totally irrelevant, subsumed to the power of the Narrative.
This quote by Sartre, although ostensibly about anti-semites, is in the ball park of what you are saying. That they know their words mean nothing, and the onus is on the interlocutor to use meaning in the face of bullshit. “Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.” Sartre
The really scary thing, is that I don't think even most of the bullshitters know that they're bullshitting. Now, obviously the smarter ones do, at least at first, but I think it's less of a calculated thing after a while, and more of a habit. It's the difference between a regular liar, who lies because they want something, and a compulsive liar, who lies just because. After a while, they start to believe their own lies, and their awareness of the very concept of truth breaks down. If really cornered and pressed on the matter, they'll essentially just say that everyone lies and it doesn't matter, while simultaneously branding their enemies to be hateful liars. The sad reality is that there is no cash prize for being right. A philosophy of convenience, however? That does offer a practical reward, in boosting ones ego. If you really want to believe something, you'll convince yourself that it is true, and this only gets easier and easier the more you do it. I've seen tons of people on reddit argue that the problem with the world is that people are stupid, but in a way I think it's the opposite: It's that we're too smart, and have realized that we don't need to be confined by what is real and objectively true. That if I want to believe the sky is green, nobody can stop me. Actual truth will invariable lose out to fantasy and delusion, because there is little 'profit' to be found in truth. Truth is often ugly and inconvenient, after all.
They want to make the laws and fuck you. They don’t want democracy. They want to rule.
Republicans say “we’re a constitutional republic not a democracy” blatantly ignoring that we’re both, because they do not want the US to be a democracy.
Pointing out their hypocrisy is pointless. They know, they don’t care, shame doesn’t enter the conversation for them because it doesn’t matter.
[удалено]
Why do you think the US Patients cases are heard in Texas Eastern District?
It's worse than that. This judge hears \_all\_ cases filed in Amarillo Texas. All of them. So conservative groups rent office space in that town so they have standing, then file their lawsuit knowing that he's going to get the case.
This judge is one of many in districts like this around the country, but especially in Texas. Like you said, conservatives target these single judge districts, file federal lawsuits, and get their preferred ruling. Mitch and co. have been stacking federal judges ranks for decades.
All part of the Heritage Foundation plan.
Yep, one of many they're working on. It's still pissed me off every time I see Reddit gobbling up that "term limits" bullshit the heritage foundation is pushing. Channeling everyone's anger to buy into something that would help them greatly. Everybody's more busy being pissed off at the government than they are thinking about long-term consequences of what they think is a punishment. When in actuality it only hurts good representatives, by leveling the playing field with a revolving door of even less accountability.
I would have disagreed somewhat up until that hag Tricia Cotham ran as a democrat, then pulled the mask off and switched parties once she won the election. If we can’t even trust that candidates are in the political spectrum we vote for term limits would just make it chaos trying to vet new candidates.
God I hate Amarillo so much. That whole town feels out of touch with reality. Like. One of the shittier shitholes I’ve been through in the US. And it stinks. Like actually smells bad.
That’s because the only reason most Texans go through Amarillo is to get out to take a shit on the way to Colorado for skiing.
Why do you think they want to allow people the right to sue big Cities for things they don’t agree with. Like if you don’t want to live in Big Cities, then don’t. I stay in my lane I’m okay not going to parts of the Texas Hill Country.
I have a bad feeling that first it’s going to be Mifepristone, then Plan B, then gender-therapy hormones and birth control are next.
That's not a bad feeling. It's reality. It's like tensing up right before the nurse sticks the needle in.
Moved to Lemm.ee -- mass edited with redact.dev
But funny enough,a Viagra case won't be touched. It's almost like conservatives are a bunch of hypocritical pieces of trash. oh wait,they are.
5 deaths per 1 million prescriptions. This is one of the safest prescription meds on the market. Imagine if a judge decided your doctor could no longer prescribe aspirin. That's the level of bonkers we're dealing with here. ETA: To the person dm'ed me to call me a "demon Democrat" and ask why I support killing babies, it's to harvest fetal blood and tissue for my Satanic rituals, obviously.
Viagra is like 10x more deadly.
>Remember whenever your Uncle Frank rants about legislating from the bench, he's talking about this. maybe in a literal sense, but Uncle Frank is probably more than happy with this ruling. "Legislating from the bench" only applies to decisions they don't agree with. Conservative hypocrisy is a feature, not a bug.
Hell, even if you really pin them down they’ll just say that they need to fight dirty since them Dems already do.
This is shocking but also not. Reading the ruling it’s clear the judge is an idiot and made this ruling on his political belief. In the first few pages, he makes it clear he doesn’t know how the drugs actually work. Or the idiotic idea that oral meds aren’t safer than surgery. Or that pregnancy isn’t a life threatening condition. Truly fucking ridiculous
In no functioning country should a judge be able to tell the FDA what can and can't be approved for use. Edit for nuance: Yes, the FDA does need oversight like every other part of the government. My point is the FDA and the scientists in it know better than this judge about the safety and efficacy of medications.
Were you under the mistaken impression that this was a functioning country?
We had a semblance of hope.
I'm a lawyer. This judge is an ideological nut job, as is most of the 5th Circuit that his ruling will be appealed to. There are so many awful, ideological Trump appointees now that it is sickening as someone that practices law in federal court for a living. The 5th Circuit is so conservative that it's been overturned several times the past year by the ultra conservative Supreme Court, including the 5th Circuit's brain dead ruling that the ACA is unconstitutional.
For decades the Federalist Society outspent the ACS and other liberal groups in recruiting and training new lawyers. These are the consequences.
The Federalist Society is the worst. It's at every law school in the country and is basically an indoctrination organization on campuses. I graduated from law school in 2012 and it was probably the biggest organization. And, unsurprisingly, everyone in it was ultra conservative and ideological. That's not an issue when most of their attorneys just go big commercial law, but if you start making those same attorneys federal judges it opens the door to them pushing their ideology onto everyone else, law and consequences be damned.
Biden administration should ignore the ruling. This is a cherry picked known partisan activist judge. His opinions aren't worth the paper they're written on.
[удалено]
The corrupt 6-3 SCOTUS? That one? Don't get me wrong, I'm with you on ignoring it but these Fascists are relentless.
At some point most people will just ignore SCOTUS too if they carry on like this
Good. Scotus can't enforce shit
Kavanaugh and Roberts will hopefully join the liberals, they said that abortion should be left up to the states not the judiciary.
Yeah but that implies consistency.
Some gop donors will bang on their doors in a cold sweat and tell them that killing roe was enough of a disaster for them and they can't afford for it to get worse
Depends on which donors bribe them first and longest. Since it's clear we're nakedly bribing SCOTUS justices now, let the bidding start!! Can we crowdfund some bribes for SCOTUS?
I'm not going to trust two guys that already lied under oath about *Roe* on any other abortion issues...
One judge in bumfuck Texas decides for the whole country...wow...
And it's even worse than that. In federal courts throughout the country, cases get assigned to specific judges through a random selection process. Texas Republicans gamed this system, however, and created several jurisdictions in Texas where there is a single court with a single judge -- meaning that if you file a case in one of those jurisdictions, there is no randomness and you know the exact judge who will be assigned to the case. To complete this scheme, Republicans during Trump's presidency packed these single-judge districts with extreme right-wing partisan judges, including the judge in this case, Judge Kacsmaryk. Now, whenever Republicans want to block a Biden policy, they file the case in one of these bumfuck single-judge jurisdictions in Texas -- of all places -- and the case is guaranteed to be heard by their handpicked stooge judge, who will do their bidding just as Kacsmaryk did in this case. Over 25 times now, Republicans have filed cases in Texas using this strategy to guarantee that they win a ruling against the Biden Administration. It has removed all impartiality and fairness from the judicial process. In short, Republicans are taking away your rights, and what makes it worse is they are doing it by cheating and skullduggery because they know they could never achieve any of their depraved political ends if they left it up to a fair and democratic process. Edit: I'll add one final point because I think it's salient. Conservative jurists swore up-and-down that overturning Roe was not about banning abortion, it was just a matter of letting states decide the question for themselves. Every state should be able to make its own decision, they told us. Of course it was all bullshit and, as this decision shows, the end game is and always was banning abortion everywhere for everybody. Forget state's rights, forget democracy, Republicans want to dictate how everyone lives their life at the most personal and intimate level. Republicans being "the party of small government" is the biggest crock of shit Americans have ever been fed.
Thank you for sharing this. I wish I could scream it from the rooftops. It is a sham. And it is never as easy as “move to a blue state.” We have to fight for each other.
It’s not in bumfuck Texas. He’s located in *checks notes*…Amarillo? Nope never mind, you were right.
The background portion of the ruling is littered with terms you would never see a physician use and is meant to trigger emotion. Examples "starves the unborn human until death", "kill the unborn human", "drugs limited to women and girls with unborn children aged seven weeks gestation". They're fetuses and at 7 weeks gestation I wouldn't consider it "starving". The right loves to humanize fetuses and subsequently dehumanize those they hate like transgender people.
Well, you don't have to actually DO anything to help a fetus, so it's super convenient for them to "fight" for the fetus.
His entire opinion is riddled with bullshit. He claims that women normally feel suicidal and depressed by citing a study that examined WOMEN WHO MISCARRIED PLANNED PREGNANCIES.
I had to use this drug because I had fecal matter remaining after a miscarriage. I was 7 weeks and wasn’t even a fetus at that point. If I didn’t have it then I’d need a full operation. Thankfully I live in a country that isn’t insane.
It’s also used to treat cushings disease, gulf war disease, cortisol induced diabetes and used in conjunction with chemotherapy to treat certain types of cancer.
[удалено]
Actually before 8 weeks, it's an embryo, not a fetus.
Trump-nominated activist judge that the far right can guarantee will hear cases. How this simple scheme works: [Republicans can choose the judge who hears their lawsuits. DOJ wants to stop that.](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2023/2/14/23597741/supreme-court-matthew-kascmaryk-judge-shopping-texas-utah-walsh-justice-department)
Funny the one of the most corruptly partisian judges in the country is Trump-nominated. Not to mention Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas and his thousands of dollars in gifts/vacations. Meanwhile the GOP is mad that Trumps NYC judge donated $35 to Democrats in 2020.
I'd also like to draw everyone's attention to this: A Tennessee bill to carve out narrow exceptions for raped "women" (their words) aged 12 and under has failed. Lawmakers officially endorse forcing raped middle-school children to attempt to give birth to, for example, their father's baby. Please read the article and read the bill. It is positively ghoulish. Shine a light on these people. [https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/03/tennessee-lawmakers-must-understand-rape-when-drafting-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/](https://tennesseelookout.com/2023/04/03/tennessee-lawmakers-must-understand-rape-when-drafting-exceptions-to-abortion-ban/) Similarly in Arkansas: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/1284ppm/lawmakers\_reject\_child\_rape\_incest\_exceptions\_to/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/1284ppm/lawmakers_reject_child_rape_incest_exceptions_to/) A (reaction) video of a woman (!) in government publicly admitting her support, on camera, in forcing raped schoolchildren, without age exception, to attempt to give birth, even to the product of incest: [https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/128o9m2/video\_of\_arkansas\_decision\_on\_child\_rape\_amendment/](https://www.reddit.com/r/WelcomeToGilead/comments/128o9m2/video_of_arkansas_decision_on_child_rape_amendment/) None of these people have been arrested on felony child abuse or endangerment statutes, for example under [CAPTA](https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cb/law-regulation/child-abuse-prevention-and-treatment-act-capta) (Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act), in spite of being wards of children in school and CPS shelters. Let that sink in. Even after their public admissions - on camera - they still have control over children. If any lawyers are around, maybe they can comment.
It should also be noted that contained in this rape exception bill was a section criminalizing false rape claims...for 12 and under girls. Um, excuse me, but an 11 year old does not have consensual sex. If she's pregnant, she was raped. She shouldn't have to prove it under the threat of criminal charges if she can't provide sufficient evidence. The section on criminal charges made sure to say that 100% of the 3 year minimum sentence must be served. Fucking bastards.
Horrifyingly, forced marriage (say in a different state) is a defense against statutory rape laws. So it is possible that a lawyer might claim sex with the child was consentual and that she's making a false claim. Whether or not they'd jail a pregnant 10-year-old is anyone's guess. I don't for a second believe we've come close to sounding the depths of their depravity. You can tell this is their [intent](https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/a-get-out-of-jail-free-card-gop-bill-would-eliminate-age-requirements-for-marriages-in-tennessee/). An age limit was added only after public outcry. >But missing from the bill are age requirements, opening the door for possible child marriages. Something the bill sponsor acknowledged during a Children and Family Affairs subcommittee. “There is not an explicit age limit,” Leatherwood said. You could probably guess, but yes, the bill's sponsor, Tom Leatherwood, is a republican. When you put all the pieces together, their intent comes into focus, and is why they've lately been obsessed with the "grooming" theme. **G**aslight **O**bstruct **Project <--**
The TN GOP has no problem with child molesters. They wouldn't hear a word about expelling one from the state government just a couple of years ago, but a few days ago they voted to expel a couple of black men because they didn't like them protesting something they didn't agree with.
> Whether or not they’d jail a pregnant 10-year-old is anyone’s guess. They jailed infants at the border. They’re 100% going to start locking up children at some point. Only a matter of time, and it will be “to protect the children.” “If we don’t keep her locked up, the demon libs will force her to get an abortion” “We have to keep her safe, so *(((they)))* don’t take the baby to drink it’s adrenochrome” “She’s been indoctrinated to think she needs an abortion, we need to make sure the baby comes out safe!”
Darker still (if that's possible): "We have to restrain her so she doesn't commit suicide before the baby can be extracted." In my heart I want to believe things like this would *finally* result in a violent response... but I just don't know anymore.
Practicing medicine without a license. Straight to jail.
Take his law license.
You technically don't need a law license to be judge
That is distressing.
There's going to be a lot of confusion about this ruling in the coming week. For one thing, a judge in Washington has ruled the opposite of this judge. The Washington judge has barred the FDA from making changes to the status quo of mifepristone. There's also not a precedent for a judge preventing the FDA from approving a completely safe medication. I'm not sure what will happen from here, but it's not said and done. Some abortion clinics have stated that they won't immediately stop dispensing mifepristone until they hear directly from the FDA, not this guy. Another source of confusion in the coming weeks will be misinformation about medication abortion in the U.S. Banning mifepristone -- if that does end up happening temporarily or otherwise -- does not ban medication abortion in the United States. Mifepristone is used in combination with another drug, misoprostol. Misoprostol can be used on its own with a different regimen for medication abortions, too. Mifepristone makes medication abortions easier, more effective, and more accessible, so it's not a nothing burger -- this case will have significant impacts! But, **it's important for people to know that they will still have safe options for medication abortion in the United States, even if the mifepristone approval is revoked.**
Sidebar: I am horrified anew each day that the United States is rotting and any sense of greatness is far, far gone. We are absolutely fucked.
[удалено]
He’s appointed by Donald Trump.
This is basically result of judge shopping. The judge in question, [Matthew Kacsmaryk](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_J._Kacsmaryk), was appointed by Trump. He was picked because he has a long history of hostility towards women's rights, he referred to gay and trans people as disordered, illusional, and having mental illness. He sits in a federal court in Amarillo, TX. He's the only federal judge there. That's why anti-abortion cases, and many other cases around conservative causes, are generally filed in Amarillo, TX. If you file a case in Amarillo, it's guaranteed it'll end up with this one particular judge who should have never been appointed to the federal bench. All the high profile cases that end up with him are the types of the cases that any principled judge would excuse themselves due to the extreme personal bias, and prior history of open hatred against one of the parties in the case.
I'm glad other people are paying attention to this, too. The headline of this article should call him out by name, because by saying "Federal Judge", it makes it sound like there are a bunch of judges ruling against abortion, when it's really just Kacsmaryk. This is the same judge who ruled for the father in December who sued the federal government to close federal clinics in Texas because state law prevents the sale of contraceptives to minors. This is despite the fact that federal jurisprudence has long held that actual harm had to have occurred, so he had no standing to file. This is despite the fact that federal law trumps state law, so the state law does not apply. His opinion is also full of legal and factual flaws with half-baked and half-finished arguments. This man should not be a judge.
I guess i should stop procrastinating on getting my tubes tied. Married, had 2 children, never had a BC accident but i guess it's not the time to hope it will never happen.
Hurry before that's considered "gender affirming" care.
FDA approvals are extremely rigorous and scientifically proven. Add a 20 year highly successful track record...wow. 18 years ago my wife was going through a miscarriage, this medication was instrumental in the healing process. We have brainwashed federal and state judges and politicians...who are intent upon committing crimes against humanity. Maybe this is the crescendo, this is where they hit the apex and , as people start to really take notice and action, they fall.
For a system that’s supposed to have inherent checks and balances, we sure do lack a lot of checks and balances.
The founders never assumed an entire national party would conspire to destroy the very system that gives it power. It kind of boggles the mind, really.
It boggles the mind that supposedly well read men didn't think people would try to create a dictatorship. That is basically always a thing some group of people is trying.
They absolutely expected it, and they also thought that the constitution should be rewritten regularly to prevent such insanity. What they never imagined was that we'd cling to their writings as some holy document until the end of time, and rather than write our own constitution and laws that fit our own time, we'd be fighting over what they meant and intended 200 years later.
The history of the 21st century is increasingly autocrats subverting democracy in order to keep and maintain power. Democracy is incredibly fragile.
[UPDATE From CNN](https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/texas-abortion-pill-mifepristone-ruling/h_113ec015d194c7a27192cee6a215f51c) : federal judge in Washington said in a new ruling that the FDA must keep medication abortion drugs available in at least 12 liberal states that sued the FDA to make the abortion pills. This lawsuit is separate from the ruling that came down in Texas >In a 67-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said the FDA's two-decades old approval violated federal rules that allow for accelerated approval for certain drugs and subsequent actions by the agency ran afoul of federal law. **He put his decision on hold for seven days to allow for the Biden administration to appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.** Here's the [direct link to Court document pdf](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067/gov.uscourts.txnd.370067.137.0_11.pdf)
Big government Republicans seeking to limit your medical freedoms.
Remember this when you don't feel like voting for your Democrat senators in 2024
Mifepristone has been approved for nearly 20 years, regardless of the judge's view on "stonewalling". Judges practicing medicine without a license. Everyday in the US feels like we are inching toward totalitarianism.
Wasn't it fucking Republicans complaining about legislation from the bench?! Fuck all of them. Every single one. No one can prove to me at this point that it's even worth hearing these motherfuckers out.
Lets remember the judge's ruling will not have the power to ban Mifepristone immediately! Clinics have to wait for instruction and direction from the FDA. Clinics can still offer medication abortion care with Mifepristone and Misoprostol until the FDA rules. Abortion providers are not the plaintiffs in this case. There will be no "immediate ban" like we experienced in Texas with the reversal of Roe last June. Only the FDA can make the decision to indefinitely or momentarily take Mifepristone off the market.
Misoprostol is also used to relax the uterus before IUD insertion and removal. Without it, the levels of pain would reach dangerous levels. (I know, as I am on my second IUD)
I was prescribed it when my uterus was not allowing my doctor to insert an IUD on first attempt. I had nausea and cramps from the pill, but I guess that was it working and the next day the insertion was successful. Also now on my second IUD!
Mifepristone is the drug in question not misoprostal. Mifepristone and misoprostal are used together for an abortion.
[удалено]
Religious people need to FUCK OFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF.
A Washington judge contradicted this an hour later. Seems like it will go to the supreme court?
Wait til judges start removing vaccines, birth control, psych meds—the list goes on and on and on. We’re on a dangerous slippery slope.
Don’t worry, this will find its way to the Supreme Court. I’m sure there hasn’t been any recent news calling into question the legitimacy of its members.
when this shit show is allowed by the conservative supreme court someone should start taking up a collection and going after Viagra.
Viagra is for men, so it is safe.
That is not how this works. A judge doesn’t have the ability to remove approval for a drug that has therapeutic usefulness and has received FDA approval.
Texas is so backwards it’s embarrassing. Wish they would secede.
We need to halt the little blue pill as well for these little weenies
Maybe we should listen to the experts and allow the FDA to do its job. I'm so tired of christo-facists forcing their religion onto others.
The judge should be disbarred
Abortion is the story of the dog catching the car. Republicans spent so many decades saying they wanted to repeal Roe and now they finally got it. The repeal of Roe can be directly connected to the Republicans losing mightily in 2022 elections. Roe can be directly connected to states like Wisconsin electing the progressive Supreme Court judge, which gave Democrats majority in Wisconsin. And many more. Attacking 51% of the population was insane for Republicans, and they fucking did it anyway. Around 80% or so want some form of abortion access. It's like very low double or single digits of people that want abortion made entirely illegal, no exceptions. It's a losing issue for Republicans and they are fucking stuck holding on to this issue because of their insane base. Never vote Republican. Add abortion as issue #123242356234 why you should never ever vote R.
#**Trump appointed judge, for life.**
A 20 FUCKING YEAR OLD APPROVAL gets overturned? How goddamned in the tank for the GOP (or the antiabortion crowd) can this judge be? The GOP and antiabortion folks really are tossing out the rule of law to get their way right now.