Posted on 06/13/2024 8:11:08 AM PDT by joesbucks
“The court found unanimously that the group of anti-abortion doctors who questioned the Food and Drug Administration’s decisions making it easier to access the pill did not have legal standing to sue.”
#####################
OK, then who DOES have legal standing to sue?
The unborn I suppose. Legally this is the correct court decision as it should be left up to the states. I am against abortion but that must be within the construct of the system.
What do you want to bet that these doctors bringing this suit won't soon be forced to prescribe these abortion pills.
This decision is actually a lot better than it seems at first. The left has abused “standing” with lawfare and this decision greatly limits the concept of “who has standing” for the future. The ACLU should be worried.
Won't be or will be? I think they will be forced to prescribe them.
Difference is ACLU typically has someone in the suit that does. And if it hurts libs, remember while not often, it does represent right wing causes periodically. This would be impacted too
My guess is that this ruling is in keeping with the Dobbs decision, in that it is a state’s issue as it deals with all forms of abortion, not the Federal Government. Which is why they heard the case, to make it their official stance as a reinforcement on the issue of abortion in whatever form is presented. From now on the standing ruling sets the precedence for all forms of abortion, and any cases brought forth will rule standing as the reason for rejecting hearing future cases on the abortion issue.
I agree...who does? Congress needs to pass a law that judges must say “who does”. I think a lot of times they use this because they don’t want to deal with the issue.
SCOTUS issued opinions on three cases today. This one and two others. Still nothing on Fischer, bump stock ban, Chevron, or Presidential immunity. I believe we are still waiting on opinions for 27 cases that are remaining for this term.
Another opinion day is scheduled for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m.
In other court news, in Mock v. Garland (N.D. TX), Texas federal judge vacates ATF pistol brace rule, preventing its enforcement across the country.
Same thing happened in November 2020.
Conservatives who lawfully voted in their home state discovered they had no standing to challenge election fraud.
Same thing happened again after 2021.
Conservatives who demanded that long established immigration laws be enforced in their home states discovered they had no standing to compel the Executive Branch to do anything.
I haven’t read the decision , but it’s clear it was less or nothing about states rights or abortion, but standing of those bringing the case. Otherwise I would have thought they would have made a states rights ruling or Thomas and/or Alitio would have chimed in.
Artful dodge.
Someone who can point to some tangible harm they’ve suffered as a result of the availability of these pills.
Until she moved, he was my daughter's doctor. When she wanted to discuss birth control, he gave her a referral. He does not prescribe birth control, and definitely, his group does not do abortions. Within their group, they have a women's health PA who deals with birth control.
A doctor can simply refer someone to a women's health PA or doctor and not deal with abortion.
You’re right! Look at this and other reports listed here.
Deaths and Severe Adverse Events after the use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient from September 2000 to February 2019
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33939340/
Kathi Aultman 1, Christina A Cirucci, Donna J Harrison 2, Benjamin D Beran 3, Michael D Lockwood 4, Sigmund Seiler 5
Affiliations expand
PMID: 33939340
Abstract
Objectives: Primary: Analyze the Adverse Events (AEs) reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after use of mifepristone as an abortifacient. Secondary: Analyze maternal intent after ongoing pregnancy and investigate hemorrhage after mifepristone alone.
Methods: Adverse Event Reports (AERs) for mifepristone used as an abortifacient, submitted to the FDA from September 2000 to February 2019, were analyzed using the National Cancer Institute’s Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAEv3).
Results: The FDA provided 6158 pages of AERs. Duplicates, non-US, or AERs previously published (Gary, 2006) were excluded. Of the remaining, there were 3197 unique, US-only AERs of which there were 537 (16.80%) with insufficient information to determine clinical severity, leaving 2660 (83.20%) Codable US AERs. (Figure 1). Of these, 20 were Deaths, 529 were Life-threatening, 1957 were Severe, 151 were Moderate, and 3 were Mild.
The deaths included: 9 (45.00%) sepsis, 4 (20.00%) drug toxicity/overdose, 1 (5.00%) ruptured ectopic pregnancy, 1 (5.00%) hemorrhage, 3 (15.00%) possible homicides, 1 (5.00%) suicide, 1 (5.00%) unknown. (Table 1).
Retained products of conception and hemorrhage caused most morbidity. There were 75 ectopic pregnancies, including 26 ruptured ectopics (includes one death).
There were 2243 surgeries including 2146 (95.68%) D&Cs of which only 853 (39.75%) were performed by abortion providers.
Of 452 patients with ongoing pregnancies, 102 (22.57%) chose to keep their baby, 148 (32.74%) had terminations, 1 (0.22%) miscarried, and 201 (44.47%) had unknown outcomes.
Hemorrhage occurred more often in those who took mifepristone and misoprostol (51.44%) than in those who took mifepristone alone (22.41%).
Conclusions: Significant morbidity and mortality have occurred following the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient. A pre-abortion ultrasound should be required to rule out ectopic pregnancy and confirm gestational age. The FDA AER system is inadequate and significantly underestimates the adverse events from mifepristone.
A mandatory registry of ongoing pregnancies is essential considering the number of ongoing pregnancies especially considering the known teratogenicity of misoprostol.
The decision to prevent the FDA from enforcing REMS during the COVID-19 pandemic needs to be reversed and REMS must be strengthened.
Keywords: Abortifacient; Abortion Pill; Adverse Event Reports; Adverse Events; DIY Abortion; Drug Safety; Emergency Medicine; FAERS; FDA; Medical Abortion; Medical Abortion Complications; Mifeprex; Mifepristone; Misoprostol; No touch abortion; Post-marketing Surveillance; REMS; RU-486; Risk Evaluation Mitigation Strategy; Self-Administered Abortion.
Copyright © 2021 by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc.
PubMed Disclaimer
Similar articles
Mifepristone Adverse Events Identified by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 Compared to Those in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Those Obtained Through the Freedom of Information Act.
Cirucci CA, Aultman KA, Harrison DJ.
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 21;8:23333928211068919. doi: 10.1177/23333928211068919. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
PMID: 34993274 Free PMC article.
Mifepristone With Buccal Misoprostol for Medical Abortion: A Systematic Review.
Chen MJ, Creinin MD.
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Jul;126(1):12-21. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000897.
PMID: 26241251 Review.
First-trimester medical abortion with mifepristone 200 mg and misoprostol: a systematic review.
Raymond EG, Shannon C, Weaver MA, Winikoff B.
Contraception. 2013 Jan;87(1):26-37. doi: 10.1016/j.contraception.2012.06.011. Epub 2012 Aug 13.
PMID: 22898359 Review.
Analysis of severe adverse events related to the use of mifepristone as an abortifacient.
Gary MM, Harrison DJ.
Ann Pharmacother. 2006 Feb;40(2):191-7. doi: 10.1345/aph.1G481. Epub 2005 Dec 27.
PMID: 16380436
Low-dose mifepristone 200 mg and vaginal misoprostol for abortion.
Schaff EA, Eisinger SH, Stadalius LS, Franks P, Gore BZ, Poppema S.
Contraception. 1999 Jan;59(1):1-6. doi: 10.1016/s0010-7824(98)00150-4.
PMID: 10342079 Clinical Trial.
See all similar articles
Cited by
Mifepristone Antagonization with Progesterone to Avert Medication Abortion: A Scoping Review.
DeBeasi PLC.
Linacre Q. 2023 Nov;90(4):395-407. doi: 10.1177/00243639231176592. Epub 2023 May 29.
PMID: 37969420 Free PMC article.
Self-Managed Medication Abortion: Implications for Clinical Practice.
Cirucci CA.
Linacre Q. 2023 Aug;90(3):273-289. doi: 10.1177/00243639221128389. Epub 2022 Dec 12.
PMID: 37841380
Comparison of outpatient with inpatient mifepristone usage for cervical ripening: A randomised controlled trial.
Baev O, Karapetian A, Babich D, Sukhikh G.
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol X. 2023 May 16;18:100198. doi: 10.1016/j.eurox.2023.100198. eCollection 2023 Jun.
PMID: 37234794 Free PMC article.
Mifepristone Adverse Events Identified by Planned Parenthood in 2009 and 2010 Compared to Those in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System and Those Obtained Through the Freedom of Information Act.
Cirucci CA, Aultman KA, Harrison DJ.
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2021 Dec 21;8:23333928211068919. doi: 10.1177/23333928211068919. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
PMID: 34993274 Free PMC article.
A Longitudinal Cohort Study of Emergency Room Utilization Following Mifepristone Chemical and Surgical Abortions, 1999-2015.
Studnicki J, Harrison DJ, Longbons T, Skop I, Reardon DC, Fisher JW, Tsulukidze M, Craver C.
Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2021 Nov 9;8:23333928211053965. doi: 10.1177/23333928211053965. eCollection 2021 Jan-Dec.
Retraction in: Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol. 2024 Feb 5;11:23333928231216699. doi: 10.1177/23333928231216699.
PMID: 34778493 Free PMC article.
MeSH terms
Abortifacient Agents* / adverse effects
Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal / adverse effects
Abortion, Induced / adverse effects
COVID-19
Female
Humans
Mifepristone / adverse effects*
Misoprostol
Pandemics
Pregnancy
SARS-CoV-2
Substances
Abortifacient Agents
Abortifacient Agents, Steroidal
Misoprostol
Mifepristone
Related information
MedGen
PubChem Compound (MeSH Keyword)
"the federal courts are the wrong forum for addressing the plaintiffs' concerns about FDA's actions ... The plaintiffs may present their concerns and objections to the president and FDA in the regulatory process or to Congress and the president in the legislative process," Kavanaugh wrote.
Which implies that if a future president and a different thinking FDA decide to undo the regulatory changes in dispute, any federal lawsuits contesting that reverse scenario should also be thrown out.
TTT # 2022-2468
NDA 020687
ANDA 091178
Mifepristone U.S. Post-Marketing Adverse Events Summary through 12/31/2022
The following information is from United States (U.S.) post-marketing reports received by FDA of adverse events that occurred among patients who had taken mifepristone for medical termination of pregnancy
https://www.fda.gov/media/164331/download
(SEE LINK ABOVE FOR DATES RANGES OF ADVERSE EVENTS FOR TABLE 1 AND 2 LISTED BELOW)
Table 1. Cumulative Post-Marketing Fatal and Ectopic Pregnancy Reports in U.S. Women Who Used Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Date range of cumulative reports 09/28/00† - 12/31/22
Died ‡ 32
*Ectopic pregnancies || 97
† U.S. approval date
Table 2. Post-Marketing Adverse Events in U.S. Women Who Used Mifepristone for Medical Termination of Pregnancy
Date ranges of reports
received
09/28/00† - 10/31/12 and
11/01/12 - 12/31/22‡
Cases with any adverse event 2740 1478
Hospitalized, excluding deaths 768 281
*Experienced blood loss requiring
transfusions § 416 188
Infections || 308 110
*Severe infections 57 18
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.