Mifepristone

[Tennesseer]

Conservative judge relied on now-retracted studies to outlaw mifepristone
Last year, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk ruled against distribution of the abortion pill. Now, a medical journal he cited has retracted studies he used.

When U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued his ruling last year banning distribution of mifepristone, a commonly used abortion pill, it seemed fairly clear that the conservative judge had taken a political approach to his decision.

Now, a medical journal has made that even clearer.

Kacsmaryk’s ruling has been put on hold as the Supreme Court prepares to hear an appeal next month, but in the meantime, it’s being exposed for having relied on pseudoscientific conclusions.

On Monday, Sage Publications announced that it was retracting three articles that helped form the basis of Kacsmaryk’s conclusion that access to mifepristone should be restricted:

"Two subject matter experts undertook an independent post-publication peer review of the three articles anew. In the 2021 and 2022 articles, which rely on the same dataset, both experts identified fundamental problems with the study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the authors’ analysis of the data, and misleading presentations of the data that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and invalidate the authors’ conclusions in whole or in part. In the 2019 article, which relies on a different dataset, both experts identified unsupported assumptions and misleading presentations of the findings that, in their opinions, demonstrate a lack of scientific rigor and render the authors’ conclusion unreliable.

Sage found, for example, that with a 2021 study cited by Kacsmaryk, all but one of the eight authors were affiliated with an anti-abortion advocacy organization “despite having declared they had no conflicts of interest.” The investigation also discovered that a peer reviewer who initially reviewed that study had been affiliated with one of those groups — the Charlotte Lozier Institute — as well. (The lead author of the three articles, James Studnicki, told Retraction Watch that the retractions were “a blatant attempt to discredit excellent research which is incongruent with a preferred abortion narrative.”)

Sage’s investigation came about after pharmaceutical sciences professor Chris Adkins notified Sage about potential issues with the studies. He explained to States Newsroom why he had done so, saying:

"I have significant concerns about the merits, legality, and use of shoddy studies and personal anecdotes to upend national healthcare policies essential to women’s reproductive health and bodily autonomy. To go out and say this drug needs to be, you know, removed from the market, it’s not honestly paying tribute to what the true science really is saying.

Rest of article here: Conservative judge relied on now-retracted studies to outlaw mifepristone

[djAdvocate]

is there any way to withdraw or reconsider a ruling?

[thyme4change]

Conservatives seem to cheat a lot. I’m sure liberals have too - but I can’t think of any examples.

[Tennesseer]

Feb 7, 2024 18:23:06 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

is there any way to withdraw or reconsider a ruling?

I would think Judge Kacsmaryk would have to overturn his previous ruling first?

[djAdvocate]

probably easier to just let this go to the SCOTUS at this point.

this is a major blow for the advocates of that ruling.

[thyme4change]

Feb 7, 2024 19:07:55 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

probably easier to just let this go to the SCOTUS at this point.

this is a major blow for the advocates of that ruling.

Now we will find out if there is any integrity left on the court. Any judge that upholds this ruling better have clear and thorough reasoning to justify it. Otherwise, nothing will happen - there are no consequences for the judges. 🤷🏼‍♀️

[Tennesseer]

Let's hope so.

Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Tuesday it would likely retain widespread access to one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, in a case that could have nationwide implications for reproductive rights and the authority of federal agencies.

During oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical that a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had the right to sue the Food and Drug Administration over changes the agency made to make it easier to access mifepristone.

In particular, the conservative justices appointed by former President Trump questioned whether any of the doctors in the lawsuit could show they had personally been harmed by the government’s actions to regulate mifepristone.

The doctors asserted they would be violating their morals if they had to treat a woman suffering complications from using mifepristone. But as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and some of the justices noted, the doctors have the ability to opt out if such a scenario were to occur.

Rest of article here: Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

[happyhoix]

Mar 26, 2024 11:46:44 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Let's hope so.

Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Tuesday it would likely retain widespread access to one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, in a case that could have nationwide implications for reproductive rights and the authority of federal agencies.

During oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical that a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had the right to sue the Food and Drug Administration over changes the agency made to make it easier to access mifepristone.

In particular, the conservative justices appointed by former President Trump questioned whether any of the doctors in the lawsuit could show they had personally been harmed by the government’s actions to regulate mifepristone.

The doctors asserted they would be violating their morals if they had to treat a woman suffering complications from using mifepristone. But as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and some of the justices noted, the doctors have the ability to opt out if such a scenario were to occur.

Rest of article here: Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

Yeah they were talking about this on the news. There is no requirement the doctors prescribe the drug, and none of them ever had, so this does not impact them at all. No standing.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 26, 2024 11:46:44 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Let's hope so.

Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Tuesday it would likely retain widespread access to one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, in a case that could have nationwide implications for reproductive rights and the authority of federal agencies.

During oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical that a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had the right to sue the Food and Drug Administration over changes the agency made to make it easier to access mifepristone.

In particular, the conservative justices appointed by former President Trump questioned whether any of the doctors in the lawsuit could show they had personally been harmed by the government’s actions to regulate mifepristone.

The doctors asserted they would be violating their morals if they had to treat a woman suffering complications from using mifepristone. But as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and some of the justices noted, the doctors have the ability to opt out if such a scenario were to occur.

Rest of article here: Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

"their morals" should NEVER be the standard by which they provide care.

this is well known in the medical profession.  to wander off the path here is extremely dangerous to the practice of medicine.  what if, for example, doctors refused to treat gay patients with AIDS?  apart from the very obvious moral issues of NOT providing care to someone who needs it, this would allow disease to spread to the NON-GAY population.  

this case should be thrown out.  it has no standing whatsoever.

[NastyWoman]

Mar 27, 2024 12:40:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Mar 26, 2024 11:46:44 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Let's hope so.

Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

The U.S. Supreme Court signaled Tuesday it would likely retain widespread access to one of the two common drugs used in medication abortion, in a case that could have nationwide implications for reproductive rights and the authority of federal agencies.

During oral arguments, a majority of the justices appeared deeply skeptical that a group of anti-abortion doctors and organizations had the right to sue the Food and Drug Administration over changes the agency made to make it easier to access mifepristone.

In particular, the conservative justices appointed by former President Trump questioned whether any of the doctors in the lawsuit could show they had personally been harmed by the government’s actions to regulate mifepristone.

The doctors asserted they would be violating their morals if they had to treat a woman suffering complications from using mifepristone. But as Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar and some of the justices noted, the doctors have the ability to opt out if such a scenario were to occur.

Rest of article here: Supreme Court justices appear deeply skeptical of effort to cut access to abortion pill

"their morals" should NEVER be the standard by which they provide care.

this is well known in the medical profession.  to wander off the path here is extremely dangerous to the practice of medicine.  what if, for example, doctors refused to treat gay patients with AIDS?  apart from the very obvious moral issues of NOT providing care to someone who needs it, this would allow disease to spread to the NON-GAY population.  

this case should be thrown out.  it has no standing whatsoever.

Why limit it to refusing to gays with AIDS? How about refusing to treat anyone with a VD?  That would surely fit in with their "moral" objections? Talk about a slippery slope if their objections are allowed to stand!

[djAdvocate]

it is a horrendous argument to even CONSIDER, let alone to bring to the SCOTUS.

[Tiny]

Mar 27, 2024 13:33:14 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Mar 27, 2024 12:40:03 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

"their morals" should NEVER be the standard by which they provide care.

this is well known in the medical profession.  to wander off the path here is extremely dangerous to the practice of medicine.  what if, for example, doctors refused to treat gay patients with AIDS?  apart from the very obvious moral issues of NOT providing care to someone who needs it, this would allow disease to spread to the NON-GAY population.  

this case should be thrown out.  it has no standing whatsoever.

Why limit it to refusing to gays with AIDS? How about refusing to treat anyone with a VD?  That would surely fit in with their "moral" objections? Talk about a slippery slope if their objections are allowed to stand!

For any treatment - not just women and pregnacy  if doctor's morals/religious beliefs are involved in who they treat: 

Will doctors need to make sure that a woman who isn't married is a virgin before treating them?
Will medical care be predicated on the recipients religion? Kind of like how some "soup kitchens" require the people being served to participate in prayers or to be proselytized before being served and if the recipient says "no, thank you" they will not receive help?

As an atheist will I have to worry about NOT receiving care at all? Atheists are evil after all.


It's not a slippery slope it's a cliff..

[billisonboard]

I do think individuals should have the right to refuse to act against their morals. However I think they have a moral responsibility also to not take on a job which puts them in a position in which they have to choose. I am sure we could use a few more anti-abortion podiatrists.

[tallguy]

Mar 27, 2024 14:34:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I do think individuals should have the right to refuse to act against their morals. However I think they have a moral responsibility also to not take on a job which puts them in a position in which they have to choose. I am sure we could use a few more anti-abortion podiatrists.

Exactly.  There are requirements for a job serving the public in almost any capacity.  If you cannot act within those, then find something else.  Your 'profession" (whatever it is) does not need you that badly to put up with your moralistic bullsh** and discriminatory behavior.

[NastyWoman]

Mar 27, 2024 13:54:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is a horrendous argument to even CONSIDER, let alone to bring to the SCOTUS.

I agree with you. But how is this different from refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple?  At least in my mind this argument has already been made in front of the SC and, just a reminder, the SC ruled IN FAVOR of that baker. So don't think for one second that this is something the Court won't consider as a valid argument

[billisonboard]

Mar 27, 2024 15:32:11 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Mar 27, 2024 13:54:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is a horrendous argument to even CONSIDER, let alone to bring to the SCOTUS.

I agree with you. But how is this different from refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple?  At least in my mind this argument has already been made in front of the SC and, just a reminder, the SC ruled IN FAVOR of that baker. So don't think for one second that this is something the Court won't consider as a valid argument

But they didn't ban wedding cakes.

[NastyWoman]

Mar 27, 2024 15:39:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 27, 2024 15:32:11 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I agree with you. But how is this different from refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple?  At least in my mind this argument has already been made in front of the SC and, just a reminder, the SC ruled IN FAVOR of that baker. So don't think for one second that this is something the Court won't consider as a valid argument

But they didn't ban wedding cakes.

Yet

[thyme4change]

Voting Republican is against my morals.

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2024 15:32:11 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Mar 27, 2024 13:54:35 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

it is a horrendous argument to even CONSIDER, let alone to bring to the SCOTUS.

I agree with you. But how is this different from refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple?  At least in my mind this argument has already been made in front of the SC and, just a reminder, the SC ruled IN FAVOR of that baker. So don't think for one second that this is something the Court won't consider as a valid argument

only by degrees.  that falls in a similar section of the law: protected status.

the difference being that one is life threatening and the other isn't.

[NastyWoman]

Aside from the civil rights issue there is the fact that both cases revolve about how the influence of a person's/group's religious beliefs should be allowed to influence laws and force the consequences of one religion upon others in society. This is not supposed to be a theocracy yet the country is slowly (?) moving into a fascist version thereof.

[Tiny]

Mar 27, 2024 14:52:26 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Mar 27, 2024 14:34:50 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

I do think individuals should have the right to refuse to act against their morals. However I think they have a moral responsibility also to not take on a job which puts them in a position in which they have to choose. I am sure we could use a few more anti-abortion podiatrists.

Exactly.  There are requirements for a job serving the public in almost any capacity.  If you cannot act within those, then find something else.  Your 'profession" (whatever it is) does not need you that badly to put up with your moralistic bullsh** and discriminatory behavior. 

And isn't this why the Conservative Right is creating laws to codify THEIR moral values as the law of the land.     It's not about tolerance or diversity - it's about "our way or the highway we don't want anyone to question our values or to rock the boat."   It's easier to enforce the religious themed rules and laws as "right" even if they are unjust or unethical if no one ever questions them or causes a need to question them.  

[Tiny]

Mar 27, 2024 17:04:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- gays don't have (federal) protected status. they are not covered by the Civil Rights Act. so this narrow discussion has little to do with our broader discussion.

having said that, i don't disagree that this SCOTUS is giving us much cause for concern regarding civil rights.

I'm not so sure about that: 


The wiki pedia says "LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex." 

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2024 18:24:01 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Mar 27, 2024 17:04:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- gays don't have (federal) protected status. they are not covered by the Civil Rights Act. so this narrow discussion has little to do with our broader discussion.

having said that, i don't disagree that this SCOTUS is giving us much cause for concern regarding civil rights.

I'm not so sure about that: 


The wiki pedia says "LGBT employment discrimination in the United States is illegal under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity is encompassed by the law's prohibition of employment discrimination on the basis of sex." 

i don't know how i missed that ruling:

www.aclu.org/news/lgbtq-rights/supreme-court-says-firing-workers-because-they-are-lgbtq-is-unlawful-discrimination#:~:text=The%20Supreme%20Court%20agreed%2C%20holding,exactly%20what%20Title%20VII%20forbids.%E2%80%9D


thanks for correcting me!

[djAdvocate]

Mar 27, 2024 17:41:59 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Aside from the civil rights issue there is the fact that both cases revolve about how the influence of a person's/group's religious beliefs should be allowed to influence laws and force the consequences of one religion upon others in society. This is not supposed to be a theocracy yet the country is slowly (?) moving into a fascist version thereof.

ChristoFascism.

for those that think this combination is unthinkable, it isn't.

[saveinla]

Listen to Justice Jackson’s arguments- i hope they throw it out. The fake study it was decided on has been removed from the medical journal.

[daisylu]

Mar 27, 2024 14:00:16 GMT -5 Tiny said:

Mar 27, 2024 13:33:14 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

Why limit it to refusing to gays with AIDS? How about refusing to treat anyone with a VD?  That would surely fit in with their "moral" objections? Talk about a slippery slope if their objections are allowed to stand!

For any treatment - not just women and pregnacy  if doctor's morals/religious beliefs are involved in who they treat: 

Will doctors need to make sure that a woman who isn't married is a virgin before treating them?
Will medical care be predicated on the recipients religion? Kind of like how some "soup kitchens" require the people being served to participate in prayers or to be proselytized before being served and if the recipient says "no, thank you" they will not receive help?

As an atheist will I have to worry about NOT receiving care at all? Atheists are evil after all.


It's not a slippery slope it's a cliff..

And that is only one reason women have had issues with doctors for years centuries, because testing for virginity is assault rape. There is only one test for virginity no accurate test for virginity, just an invasion of the body by another individual.

The lines through are intentional and this was the nicest that I could be on this subject.

[daisylu]

Mar 27, 2024 15:39:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

Mar 27, 2024 15:32:11 GMT -5 NastyWoman said:

I agree with you. But how is this different from refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple?  At least in my mind this argument has already been made in front of the SC and, just a reminder, the SC ruled IN FAVOR of that baker. So don't think for one second that this is something the Court won't consider as a valid argument

But they didn't ban wedding cakes.

No, they just approved discrimination.

[billisonboard]

Mar 28, 2024 13:16:23 GMT -5 daisylu said:

Mar 27, 2024 15:39:00 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

But they didn't ban wedding cakes.

No, they just approved discrimination.

Yes, individuals can discriminate. Freedom.

[Tennesseer]

Louisiana Lawmakers Vote to Make Abortion Pills Controlled Substances
The legislation would make possession of the drugs without a prescription a crime in Louisiana, punishable with jail time.

Louisiana lawmakers passed legislation on Thursday to make the state the first in the nation to designate abortion pills as dangerous controlled substances. Possession of the drugs without a prescription would be a crime punishable with jail time and thousands of dollars in fines.

The legislation, which passed the State Senate by a vote of 29 to 7, now goes to Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican who previously defended the state’s stringent abortion ban in court as attorney general. He is widely expected to sign it.

By classifying the abortion pills mifepristone and misoprostol as Schedule IV drugs — a category of medicines with some potential for abuse or dependence that includes Ambien, Valium and Xanax, among others — lawmakers in the state say they aim to curb the illicit distribution of the drugs for abortions. But the Food and Drug Administration does not consider the two medications to have potential for abuse or dependence, and years of research have overwhelmingly shown both pills to be safe.

Because Louisiana already bans most abortions, and because the two drugs are also prescribed for other uses — both can be used during miscarriages, and misoprostol is often used to prevent ulcers and help during childbirth — hundreds of doctors in the state strenuously opposed the legislation.

Rest of article here: Louisiana Lawmakers Vote to Make Abortion Pills Controlled Substances

[pulmonarymd]

Louisiana already has an abysmally high maternal mortality rate, and ranks very low on most health metrics. Why not do something to make both of those things worse. Not like the function of government should be to enhance the health and wellbeing of the general public and enhance the public good.