"JFC this court has re-established a degree of separation of powers and a limitation of powers"

Who should be making the decision on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving drugs that you need to take, the FDA or Matthew Kazmaryk?

It permits insane people to litigate every single decision an agency makes.

See. Mifepristone.

Who should be making the decision on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving drugs that you need to take, the FDA or Matthew Kazmaryk?

How come no one will ask this very, very, very simple question?

Who should be making the decision on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving drugs that you need to take, the FDA or Matthew Kazmaryk?

To give a little perspective, one of the arguments in the Mifepristone case that the -------- who filed the argument made was that many of the approvals for Mifepristone by the FDA were not appropriate. They stated, without factual basis that Mifepristone was unsafe, they relied on some anti-reproductive freedom website posts by anonymous bloggers as "proof". 5th Circuit Judge Matthew Kazmaryk accepted that argument and put a stay on the use of Mifepristone. The stay was lifted by the SC until the argument was adjudicated. The SC found that the -------- who filed the lawsuit did not have standing. They did NOT comment on the merits of the case. Thus, if the standing issue hadn't played out OR if the SC decided not to hear the case, Mifepristone would have been outlawed due to a Federal Judge's interpretation of anonymous blog posts.

Mifepristone is safer than Tylenol.

Who should be making the decision on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving drugs that you need to take, the FDA or Matthew Kazmaryk?

It boggles my mind that ANYONE would prefer judges to be deciding the safety and efficacy of a drug that they needed to take to save their ---- life.

But, then again, there is jeff.

Hey Jeff

Who should be making the decision on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving drugs that you need to take, the FDA or Matthew Kazmaryk?

That's a nonsensical question.

#17 | POSTED BY BELLRINGER

You do understand that Kazmaryk already did that right? He ruled that an FDA approved drug was no longer approved because of anonymous blog posts. You understand that correct?

Here, I'll repost the facts:

To give a little perspective, one of the arguments in the Mifepristone case that the -------- who filed the argument made was that many of the approvals for Mifepristone by the FDA were not appropriate. They stated, without factual basis that Mifepristone was unsafe, they relied on some anti-reproductive freedom website posts by anonymous bloggers as "proof". 5th Circuit Judge Matthew Kazmaryk accepted that argument and put a stay on the use of Mifepristone. The stay was lifted by the SC until the argument was adjudicated. The SC found that the -------- who filed the lawsuit did not have standing. They did NOT comment on the merits of the case. Thus, if the standing issue hadn't played out OR if the SC decided not to hear the case, Mifepristone would have been outlawed due to a Federal Judge's interpretation of anonymous blog posts.
Mifepristone is safer than Tylenol.

The -------- being the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine.

This is what you are cheering.

A federal judge ordering a safe drug taken off the market due to anonymous posts.

Not science
Not the federal agency which studied the medicine

A federal judge.

This is what YOU want.

So, answer the question:

Who should be making the decision on the safety and efficacy of the lifesaving drugs that you need to take, the FDA or Matthew Kazmaryk?

Think of it in these terms.

Say a federal judge decided Prolieitall=your preferred medicine, was unsafe and outlawed it over FDA recommendations.

Would you want that?