This doesn’t just affect the abortion pill.
It basically undermines the FDAs ability to regulate things by stating they can’t be trusted to make the decisions they have to make.
“Conservative” SCOTUS justices aren’t the brightest bulbs in the bunch, only the most vicious, but even they know after killing Roe, to kill the mail at home Abortion pill would usher in a Democratic House and Senate with Biden ready and willing sign on to as many additional SCOTUS justices as needed to neuter their authority, so, the safe money (80/20) is it stays status quo for now
I wonder if she can run as fast as Josh.
A piece criticizing this one for meekly accepting Hawley’s preferred (and nonsensical) framing of her political motivations.
NYT: Ms. Hawley’s particular background makes her ideal for this moment. Her longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state is well suited to speak to the current court’s conservative supermajority, which has welcomed cases challenging regulations on everything from herring fish to machine guns and, now, abortion.
There’s just so much bullshit here. Banning abortion is not consistent with a “longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state.” The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority isn’t welcoming “cases challenging regulations on … abortion,” it is welcoming cases designed to impose regulations on abortion — like the one Erin Hawley argued today. And note that this bullshit is coming from the New York Times, in its own voice, not from Erin Hawley.
Syphilitic rat fucker. Literally.
A real life Serena Joy.
Literally started watching that because of recent events, it’s actually horrifying.
She doesn’t have to take it if she doesn’t like it
This is the best summary I could come up with:
She argues that federal approval of the abortion pill went forward without enough consideration of possible side effects and dangers, and that subsequent changes to enable greater access have ignored health risks to women.
The government lawyers in this case, led by Solicitor General Elizabeth B. Prelogar, have argued in court filings that Ms. Hawley and her legal team offered scant evidence of real injury, and that declarations from “seven identified doctors” were “often vague or conclusory.”
Her longtime interest in limiting the power of the administrative state is well suited to speak to the current court’s conservative supermajority, which has welcomed cases challenging regulations on everything from herring fish to machine guns and, now, abortion.
As he campaigned for the U.S. Senate, she wrote a devotional book for mothers, drawing spiritual lessons from the lives of her children while comfortably weaving in references to modern theologians like Stanley Hauerwas.
She worked on 303 Creative, the case in which the Supreme Court justices ruled in favor of a Colorado web designer who cited the First Amendment in refusing to serve same-sex couples.
She answered a question from Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. about determining standing — whether the anti-abortion doctors could show direct harm — by referencing how the court considered the issue in a case about genetically engineered crops.
The original article contains 1,763 words, the summary contains 220 words. Saved 88%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
She looks like she wants to outlaw a good time.
