Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, February 07, 2023

A single judge could outlaw the abortion pill nationwide. And that's not even the worst of it.




Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.


When the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June, it promised to "return the issue of abortion to the people's elected representatives." In virtually every instance in which it's been returned to the people, which has mostly happened by ballot initiative and referendum, the people have acted to protect reproductive rights. Perhaps that explains why less than a year after the fall of Roe, conservative activists are trying to put the issue of abortion access into the hands of a single man for whom no one ever voted: a federal judge in Texas named Matthew Kacsmaryk. In the coming weeks, there is a very real possibility that Kacsmaryk will single-handedly outlaw medication abortion in all 50 states, massively disrupting access to reproductive health care across the entire country. Worse, there is a substantial likelihood that higher courts"including the Supreme Court"will let him get away with it.

#1 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-02-06 09:56 PM | Reply

The so-called "supreme" court is a ------- joke.

#2 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2023-02-06 10:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Who gives a ----

Nothing can be done

#3 | Posted by truthhurts at 2023-02-06 10:47 PM | Reply

Important details the article points out:

"A majority of American patients now terminate their pregnancies with pills rather than by undergoing a procedure at a clinic. This makes good sense, as medication abortions are 18 times safer than childbirth, very reliable, and easy to access."

The case is being brought by anti-abortion activists who are "represented by the far-right Alliance Defending Freedom; Erin Morrow Hawley, wife of GOP Sen. Josh Hawley, is a lead attorney."

The anti-abortion activists went judge shopping: "The suit was filed in the remote Amarillo division of the Northern District of Texas. . . . The plaintiffs only filed there because they were guaranteed to draw a single judge: Kacsmaryk, whom Donald Trump placed on the bench in 2019. Before donning his robe, Kacsmaryk served as deputy general counsel at the far-right First Liberty Institute[.] . . . Since his confirmation, he has gained a reputation as perhaps the most lawless jurist in the country."

Welcome to the current iteration of American "democracy".

#4 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-02-06 10:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

But Her Emails!

#5 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-06 11:16 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Kansas voted in favor of abortion remaining legal. If the average voter in Kansas demands abortion remain legal the people Nationwide feel the same.

#6 | Posted by Tor at 2023-02-06 11:17 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

They don't care what the people think.

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-06 11:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3


I'd say that's a safe bet.

#8 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2023-02-06 11:24 PM | Reply

The Founding Fathers didn't mention mifepristone. Therefore, the right to use it isn't guaranteed and is, in fact, unconstitutional. Why? Because we said so.

#9 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-02-06 11:28 PM | Reply

During the founding fathers era New York State outlawed abortion but when they outlawed it they did not say it was murder and this was not an error on their part. They did not think abortion was murder.

#10 | Posted by Tor at 2023-02-06 11:38 PM | Reply

Republicans have taken this right from women, one that they swore was baked into the Constitution.
If you think they'll stop there, you haven't been paying attention.
Or you have been paying attention, and you're okay with it.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-07 12:09 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Why not offer a national referendum on the issue?

Because they don't give a s*** what the people want.

#12 | Posted by Nixon at 2023-02-07 09:54 AM | Reply

"Why not offer a national referendum on the issue?"

We had that in 2016.
But Her Emails won.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2023-02-07 09:55 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It was never about late term abortions and the so-called live birth abortions. It was always eliminating all abortions. IOW, it's always been about instituting into law the conservative Christian belief that human life begins at conception and all abortions are a sin, i.e. murder, and must be eliminated. Then there is the even more extreme and radical religious belief that using birth control is an attempt to circumvent God's will and also a big moral no-no. Eliminating the use of abortion pills isn't even the end goal for these religious zealots, who want to eliminate the use of birth control pills as well.

#14 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2023-02-07 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

The dirty little racist truth, it is and always has been about white women having abortions of white babies. There was no anti-abortion movement in Amrtica until Civil Rights laws were passed which ended segregation so southerners started ptivate Christian academies and the Evangelical movement. The anti-abortion movement came from that. It is actually a response to the difference in birth rates between whites and people of color. It is actually a response to the fears of white people that we are losing our majority dominance. Trust me, those folks who started the Po-Life movement really meant Pro-White=Life and if you don't already know that then you are getting your information from right wing sources.

#15 | Posted by danni at 2023-02-08 07:23 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Abortion or carry to term? That decision must be between a woman and her physician. This is and has been a medical decision, and religion ought to have nothing to do with it. God-botherers will be the ruin of America!

#16 | Posted by john47 at 2023-02-08 11:44 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dobbs Was Always Just the Beginning

Beginning of what?

Dobbs was simply a Supreme Court decision that corrected a really bad, 50 year old piece of law that had decriminalized the butchery of unborn children.

Legal folks across the ideological spectrum, including Ruth (God rest her rotting hide), warned you this day was coming.

Alas now it has.

Now the question of whether it should be legal to butcher the most innocent of human life so that the nostrums and imperatives of late 20th century "feminism" might be assuaged has defaulted back to the states"-where it always belonged.

Now it's up to the activists to get to work.

The Arc of Progress is long, but it bends inevitably toward justice.

#17 | Posted by Mao_Content at 2023-02-08 06:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2023 World Readable

Drudge Retort