Posted on 04/19/2023 2:25:06 PM PDT by nickcarraway
Gov. Gavin Newsom and several California legislative leaders on Tuesday promised to protect medication abortion in California, but it’s not clear how the state will move if the United States Supreme Court decides to limit the availability of Mifepristone by stripping its FDA approval.
"I believe in the rule of law, the other side doesn’t," Newsom told reporters when asked if he would comply with however the court decides.
Advertisement The governor provided no new information in Tuesday’s news conference on how exactly the state plans to protect access to the pill. He and state lawmakers referenced 17 bills that are being considered this year at the state Capitol to expand abortion access and protections. It wasn’t until after the news conference ended that his staff told reporters Newsom is floating a handful of ideas that were soon to be announced in a news release.
That news release showed proposed action that includes protecting the licenses of pharmacists who dispense the pill in California, regardless of how the court decides on the FDA approval. Newsom’s office said the legislation was not in writing and had not yet identified an author to carry the bill.
When asked if that proposal was contrary to Newsom’s statement during the news conference, Newsom’s Senior Advisor of Communications, Anthony York, said, “No, the federal law will be the federal law.”
"The idea through all of this has been to try to react to the ever more repressive court decisions that come out and tailor policy to the extent possible that would be legal in California, anything we can do to protect access and providers," York said.
The governor will also pursue legislation that would shield out-of-state patients’ private health information from other state laws.
You can now apply for your share of a $725 million Facebook data privacy settlement. Here's how York said the governor will finetune the proposals once the Supreme Court makes its decision. Newsom may provide another update on the state’s response by the end of the week.
Rumors are that NEWSOM has already used state funds to purchase MILLIONS of abortion pills.
The Supreme Court can compel no force to enforce its opinions.
Are Democrats about to rediscover federalism?
You’re right. USSC has no divisions, as Stalin famously said when told the soviet court would strike down his edicts.
So USCC if issues ruling, ignoring it is believing in “the rule of law” according to Stalin, I mean Newsom.
This Republic operates on good faith execution of legit powers. Without that good faith, it is a dictatorship. Nothing less.
Well, they’re already not complying with federal laws on marijuana. What’s one more drug to ignore the feds about?
Democrat response: "We don't need no stinking laws or courts - unless they agree with us."
Classic clip from 'Treasure of the Sierra Madre': https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqomZQMZQCQ
I regard abortion and drugs as a matter up to the individual states. Thus as an ardent supporter of states rights each state should make their own policy on such. We are a Republic made of individual republics.
For the record with rare exceptions, I am anti abortion.
The Supreme Court is not going to ban it he abortion pill in California. It might give each state the power to ban it but I don’t see how California could defy such an order. They might boycott other states but so what?
When SCOTUS said the issue was no where in the US Constitution and was strictly a State matter they stated a truth. If they reverse that now, they destroy their credibility on not just this, but every thing they decide. They justifiably become the laughing stock.
The inferior judge who made a decision applicable nationwide should be corrected by the SCOTUS. It is a State Issue, not a Federal Issue. States issue birth certificates, death certificates. The only place where it might be a Fed issue is on overseas military bases and embassies.
You are correct, see my post #8.
So basically abortion drugs are a States’ rights issue, but almost every other drug is permitted to be Federally regulated? How does that compute?
Why aren’t drugs treated the same as alcohol and Prohibition?
Agreed. Where is the FDA, the EPA, the ATF in the Constitution?
That is true. But there are other options. For instance, the House as the body responsible for budgetary and financial matters could tell California that it would not get any federal government funding in its funding authorizations until it complies with the ruling
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.