10 minutes ago, I received a breaking-news-alert email that the Supreme Court has issued a temporary stay on the Texas federal judge's ruling that Mifepristone no longer can be sold in the US.
In case you are one of the 300 million or so Americans inclined to believe that judges tilt their decisions in the direction of their favored political ideology, it may complicate your view that the issuer of the stay, Justice Samuel Alito, is the very same judge who authored the majority Dobbs decision last year.
Here is the quick thought: it would be a better country if judges were not nominated nor confirmed based on this single issue. But I don't think we're going in this direction. I'm given to understand that the judge who won Wisconsin's Supreme Court seat a week or two ago was pretty upfront in campaigning on abortion (or at least Super PACs were on her behalf). In the 2022 elections in Illinois, two Democrats were elected to the state Supreme Court in the same fashion. Running on abortion rights obviously works in blue and purple states, and there is no reason except, I guess, a decent regard for the health of the polity, that candidates shouldn't continue to do so.
The votes aren’t going the way the GOP assumed. They ignored the polls that show clearly that a large majority of Americans want abortion to remain legal - including a majority of Republicans. Now many of them are trying to avoid the subject.I’m guessing that part of your desire for politicians to back off the subject of abortion is because you also don’t like what has happened. Every place the people have had a way to vote (a direct ballot measure, a judge etc), the vote has been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping abortion legal, even in trump states.
ReplyDeleteThé SC judges may finally realize - too late - that they opened Pandora’s box, unleashing forces that have turned out to be increasing polarization in the country. The ruling by the Texas judge to overrule the FDA ( it’s never happened before) has frightening implications. It doesn’t matter if the medication is to initiate cramping and expulsion of an embryo, or if it’s contraception, or if it’s heart disease medication or if it’s a vaccine - for a single judge to be able to overrule the FDA could set a precedent that means that this country’s government will be helplessly in the hands of extremist judges going forward. Maybe the SC judges are deciding that this momentum needs to be slowed down so that our entire structure of government isn’t totally undermined.
it would be a better country if judges were not nominated nor confirmed based on this single issue
I couldn’t agree more. But the pro- life movement worked tirelessly with the GOP for 50 years to elect judges that would overturn Roe v Wade. It’s a bit late, Jim, for you to decide that this issue shouldn’t have such prominence. The three judges appointed specifically to overthrow Roe v Wade, who lied during their confirmation hearings, are exactly what you and your anti- choice friends worked tirelessly to achieve. Don’t pretend now that it wasn’t what you wanted because the voters aren’t voting the way you want them to.
Anne, I think it is unfair to think that all pro life people wanted this outcome, or thought that stacking the Supreme Court was the way to achieve respect for life. I know I didn't.
DeleteKatherine, I know that not ALL pro- life people wanted this (totally predictable) outcome. But the movement organizers definitely jumped into bed quite happily when the GOP realized it could harness millions of conservative christian votes with the help of the pro- life movement, the RCC, and the millions of evangelicals. . There are countless articles that have been written about this. It was a very deliberate political strategy. Because in getting the votes, in getting conservative judges at all levels, they got judges who would accommodate their views on other issues, like gun control, regulation, immigration, demolishing the wall between church and state, etc. Some of trumps appointments were barely out of law school. Many were deemed unqualified by the American Bar Association. Their qualifications and experience were unimportant to the GOP/Trump machine. The only thing that mattered was their very right wing political leanings. They were all chosen by the hyper conservative Federalist Society. It was all orchestrated, and abortion was the hot button issue that helped them get what they wanted.
Delete"I’m guessing that part of your desire for politicians to back off the subject of abortion is because you also don’t like what has happened. Every place the people have had a way to vote (a direct ballot measure, a judge etc), the vote has been overwhelmingly in favor of keeping abortion legal, even in trump states."
DeleteNot every place. At about the same time the dueling Mifepristone decisions were released, Florida passed legislation to restrict abortion to the first six weeks of pregnancy.
"I’m guessing that part of your desire for politicians to back off the subject of abortion is because you also don’t like what has happened."
DeleteWell, this topic is about judges, not politicians. Of course, in many states, judges must stand for election from time to time, so by necessity they are also politicians at least occasionally. The handful of judges I've known don't relish having to run for office; they'd like to be judges rather than politicians. I don't doubt there are some judges for whom politics and elections are mother's milk.
The custom for federal judicial nominees, when asked how they would rule on specific cases or topics, is to demur by saying they can't engage in hypotheticals; each case must be decided on its own facts, circumstances and merits. Of course, that's a helpful way for a nominee to dodge controversial topics. But shouldn't we also hope that it's also true: that judges don't come into cases with predetermined outcomes in mind?
Jim, the 6 week abortion ban had no input from voters. It was pushed by DeSantis and passed by the state legislature without any vote by the people. It is far more draconian than the previous 15 week deadline, a deadline even I would happily agree to. De Santis is an authoritarian who has the state legislature doing anything he wants them to, often signing new laws late at night, in secret, so that he can avoid press questions.
DeleteThe judge in Texas had his name taken off an article described as transphobic, and extremely anti- abortion before his Senate confirmation hearings. IOW, just like the SC trio, he lied about his true opinions on abortion. Some are now calling for him to resign because of his mendacity. He also tried to keep the case date off his court calendar so that he could hide the court proceedings from the press - and the people. When the info came out recently about the Law magazine article that removed his name from the article at his request, he tried to claim that he really hadn’t contributed to the article. His co- authors disagree. Nobody voted for that judge. He was a trump political appointee. He was appointed because of his well known political views.
When the voters have had a chance to vote, they have rejected the draconian bans. According to what I read, politicians are removing their anti- choice messages from their websites, even in some red states. The bogeyman now is gay rights, especially trans rights, as Katherine noted. Trying to change the subject from abortion.
It should be noted that medication abortions consisted of two drugs. Mifepristone is one of them. Misoprostol is the other. What I'm reading is that misoprostol can be used alone, and that is what many providers are planning to use. Misoprostol isn't under the same restrictions as mifepristone. It has more side effects when used alone. It causes increased cramping and nausea. It sometimes fails and medical intervention. So eliminating mifepristone isn't actually going to eliminate medication abortions. It's just going to make them more painful and less safe. Maybe that's the plan of the judicial zealots.
ReplyDeleteThis comment isn't about. the morality, or lack of it, of medication abortions. I'll save that for another time. It just seems that rather than being pro life , this decision is just about making political points.
It should be noted that mifepristone is used for other things than medication abortions, such as in the treatment of Cushing's disease. Also is used in the case of tubal pregnancies, which are always non- viable. Also in treating a retained miscarriage non- surgically. Draconian antiabortion measures can have the effect of making doctors reluctant to treat tubal pregnancies and miscarriages, resulting in harm or death to women.
DeleteNot to mention all the surveillance and police action brought to the realm of women's reproduction. Mifewhatever becomes another drug on the forbidden list. Government has become intrusive enough based on the ban of psychotropic drugs. And another way for criminals to make money.
DeleteSo, the people pushing all this are Republicans. Aren't they supposed to be the party of limited government and personal responsibility? Now they're the nanny state on steroids (when it comes to personal stuff, not the social safety net)
DeleteMethotrexate, which is widely used for auto-immune diseases and some cancers, is now hard to get in some states with strict abortion laws because it was used covertly in the '50s and '60s as an abortifacient. I take hydroxyurea, another chemo drug that is linked with miscarriage. One reason I voted for Prop 3 in Michigan was to prevent these drugs from becoming hard to get.
DeletePoliticians, in general, don't have principles. If you have a principle, you try to obey it. Politicians have an immune system that attacks and neutralizes principles.
DeleteRepublicans are as libertarian as the Communist Party in China is communist.
Yes. Both the extreme right and extreme left political regimes look very similar. Putin was once KGB. The people in Russia who once promoted atheism and closed and even destroyed churches, now promote a right wing, Orthodox nationalism and build new Orthodox churches. They and the Chinese leaders get along well although they Chinese are trying to restrict religions of all types. Both China and Russia have very complex relationships to the capitalist West they are related more to practical politics than to ideology.
DeleteJim,
ReplyDeleteYou say: "Running on abortion rights obviously works in blue and purple states, and there is no reason except, I guess, a decent regard for the health of the polity, that candidates shouldn't continue to do so."
Oh, I don't know. While Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett didn't "run" for the Supreme Court on the abortion issue, Trump frankly promised in campaigning for president to appoint "pro-life" judges, and he kept his promise. And bending over backwards to be kind, those three judges were less than candid during their confirmation processes.
It is hard to imagine how any candidate for the judiciary could honestly now claim have no position at all on the matter of abortion. After nearly half a century of abortion being a constitutional right, and after the manner in which that right was taken away, what judge (or candidate for the judiciary) could claim with a straight face not to lean one way or the other?
Also, while the issue of abortion in, say, the recent Wisconsin supreme court may have been decisive, I don't think it is reasonable to consider it a "single-issue" race. Both candidates were experienced judges, and while I didn't follow the race at all closely, I am sure they each had positions other than those involving abortion rights.
I see nothing in Alito's actions here that lead me to think he is in any sense "bipartisan." While my respect for SCOTUS has diminished somewhat over the past decade or so, I don't regard any of the justices as complete "partisan hacks" who will just vote for anything they please without any regard for the law. (Well, maybe one of them falls into that category.) I think it would have been unthinkable for Alito to do anything other than he did.
Thanks, David, your comment adds some nuance to the issue
Delete"I see nothing in Alito's actions here that lead me to think he is in any sense "bipartisan.""
DeleteRight - I want judges to be non-partisan - to decide cases on their merits, not on political preferences.
Perhaps David mis- spoke. Alito is definitely partisan. Thomas is both partisan and corrupt.
DeleteMichigan is a purple state, but the ballot proposal to make abortion a constitutional right and the election of pro-choice judges passed by a big margin. My Catholic girlfriends all voted for it despite the "vote no" messages from the pulpit, in the bulletin, and in the diocesan info.
ReplyDeleteThe reason it passed wasn't because of rabid pro-choice sentiment by me or my friends as much as the confusion around medical protocols in states where abortion is heavily restricted. For instance, in some states it is not clear whether a tubal pregnancy can be terminated with medication, or whether a doctor has to wait until the life or health of the mother is in actual jeopardy and surgical intervention is required.
Until people have had a chance to see how abortion-restrictive states adjudicate these situations and clarify the gray areas, many states will continue to vote for judges that will keep options open. And abortion will continue to be an issue in judicial elections and appointments.
Dobbs is going to keep the political/judicial landscape roiled up for a while yet.
I can remember a time when we had some reasonable restrictions, but didn't threaten doctors with lawsuits and prison sentences for exercising accepted practice of medical judgment. What's likely to happen is that no medical student in their right mind is going to choose OB/gyn as a specialty.
DeleteOB/GYNs and ER docs in some states are consulting lawyers about what they can do that keeps them within the law. None of them wants to be the test case that decides where the state draws the line. A court case suspends their practice and means prison time if they are convicted.
DeleteYes, we have had reasonable restrictions, waiting periods, and informed consent requirements in Michigan. They were pretty uncontroversial, though the screechers on both ends of the spectrum hated them.
No one seems to know if these are still in force since Prop 3 passed.
My guess is that a judge/legislator whose position was to retain those rules could get elected, no problem. But we aren't getting many candidates in the middle and probably won't for awhile.
Unfortunately the reasonable restrictions were tossed in the Planned Parenthood v Casey decision.
DeleteThe large majority of Americans support legal abortions, but they also support reasonable restrictions. So we have gon from one extreme to the other, neither of which represent the wishes of the majority of Americans. But it seems that in being forced to choose between the extremes, they are choosing legal abortion over no abortion, even if not agreeing with third trimester abortions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey
This Supreme Courts attacks on religious freedom in several cases may come to a head with the abortion issue. It imposes christian beliefs on all, and represents the growing extreme threat to religious freedom.
Deletehttps://religionnews.com/2023/04/14/abortion-pill-rulings-undermine-religious-freedom-interfaith-leaders-say/
Off topic. Jean mentioned in the Matthew thread that she believed that the Lectionary includes all scripture. Since I didn’t believe this, even for the small number of Catholics who go to mass every day, I finally looked it up. M
DeleteAfter the Council, the current format of four Readings was adopted: an Old Testament Reading, a Psalm, a New Testament epistle and a Gospel story. These reforms mean that a Sunday Mass attendee now hears 3.7% of the Old Testament and 40.8% of the New Testament. The percentages are even better for those attending daily Mass, coming in at 13.5% for the Old Testament and 71.5% for the New Testament.
I've tried to read the Bible straight through from Genesis to Revelation. Never got very far, there's a reason why there's a bit of cherry picking for liturgy. You get bogged down easily. Or maybe I'm just not that disciplined. My husband has read the entire Bible in his evangelical days and can quote chapter and verse pretty well. I can never remember exactly where a particular reference is found, I have to look it up (or ask K!)
DeleteUm, what I actually said was: "It covers most of the Gospels over time." I'll leave it to others to decide if that's accurate based on the numbers Anne provided.
DeleteI stand corrected. But “much of” does not mean that the religion professor who noted that many passages that describe women in leadership roles were not included in the lectionary is wrong. It’s really not surprising since the composition of the lectionary was done by celibate males.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAccording to Adam Liptak in the NYTimes:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/10/us/supreme-court-abortion-pill-fda.html
The conservative legal movement has long had two key goals: to limit access to abortion and to restrict the authority of administrative agencies.
Obviously, this Texas case allows them to do both.
In going after the FDA, they are really tangling with the whole pharmaceutical industry which is heavily dependent upon the FDA for legitimizing their profit making. The drug industry and its investors need a predictable environment. Furthermore, if drug approval becomes either deregulated or politicized, the public is going to begin to ask questions about drug safety. I am not so sure the FDA is where the conservative legal movement wants to begin its restriction of administrative agencies.
Regardless of how this case is decided, it will likely add momentum to the movement to enshrine abortions rights in state and federal law.
This is all very ironic because the stated attempt of the Dobbs decision was to get abortion out of the courts and into political choices made by legislatures and executives who are accountable to the people.
The people are now saying that they want to elect judges, legislatures, and executives who will preserve the ability to have an abortion.
Now we have a local judge attempting to establish for all Americans whether or not they can use a particular abortion pill! That seems to be even more problematical than the Supreme Court deciding whether or not people have a right to an abortion! Local judges in other parts of the country are even more unaccountable than federal agencies, legislatures, and executives.
Some of the pharmaceutical companies are big business and big employers in Texas. I have a niece who works for one of them there. I wouldn't be surprised if they bring some muscle to bear to head off destabilization of the industry.
DeleteFrom an opinion piece in the NYT
ReplyDelete“ In the homestretch of the epic Wisconsin Supreme Court race that ended last week with a blowout victory for liberals, voters’ cellphones pinged incessantly with text message ads.
“Woke trans activists have their candidate,” one text message said, according to Wisconsin Watch, a local nonprofit news site. “Schools across Wisconsin are stripping away parental rights and trans kids behind parents backs. There’s only one candidate for the Supreme Court who will put an end to this. Vote for Judge Daniel Kelly by April 4 and protect your children from trans madness.”
For a judicial race that centered on two big issues the Wisconsin Supreme Court is likely to consider soon, abortion and voting, it might seem odd that these ads in support of the conservative candidate chose to focus on an issue nowhere near the top of the agenda on the court’s upcoming docket.
For reasons that are now obvious, conservative groups supporting Kelly largely avoided touting his opposition to abortion. That’s a sure loser, as the G.O.P. is rapidly learning. It probably wouldn’t have been a good idea to run on preserving the right-wing gerrymander that gives conservatives a total lock on Wisconsin’s Legislature and congressional delegation either. So some supporters reached for the wedge issue du jour: transphobia.”
They tried to scare people with a bogeyman, but voters showed themselves to be more interested in issues that actually affect them. As David pointed in his comment, it was more complex than just abortion.
Delete"Kelly largely avoided touting his opposition to abortion. That’s a sure loser, as the G.O.P. is rapidly learning."
DeleteYes - in blue and purple states. But in red states, it's a sure winner - and in fact, politicians in at least some of those states have to take care not to be outflanked on the right by an even more zealous anti-abortion candidate.
FWIW - I don't think Wisconsinites as a whole are strongly pro-abortion; I don't suppose there is an actual consensus - Wisconsin voters probably are all over the map on abortion. But I suppose that, at least in purple states, voters who are faced with the choice to either ban abortion in the vast majority of cases, or keep it on the table as a legal option, they are choosing to keep the option open.
If I'm right about that, then I think we'd see a similar political fallout on the question of Mifepristone, should the court decisions progress in such a way that Mifepristone availability is permitted to become a political issue.
Jim, I think that you miss the way most Americans feel about keeping abortion legal because you are immersed in communities of people who are also against keeping abortion legal. But every poll indicates that the majority of Americans want to keep abortion legal. But with limits. From today’s WaPo.
DeleteWhen Republican donors arrived at the Four Seasons in Nashville last weekend, they were handed a polling memo written by former Trump aide Kellyanne Conway with a startling statistic: Eighty percent of voters disagreed with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson last year overturning Roe v. Wade. Among Republican strategists and candidates looking to the 2024 presidential primary, abortion has become the trickiest political issue and a divisive one internally for the party, according to GOP officials, campaign strategists, donors and others involved. The ruling last summer encapsulated a 50-year push by Republicans to overturn Roe and was viewed initially by many Republican politicians and activists as a seismic policy and cultural win. Conservative lawyers cheered what they long viewed as a bad ruling in Roe, and Republican politicians issued hundreds of statements praising the court. But in the aftermath, it has become a political headache. …… In recent weeks, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) signed a bill behind closed doors that would ban abortions after six weeks, when many women don’t know they are pregnant. RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel has privately circulated polling to candidates that shows the American public broadly supports a 15-week ban — and she has privately expressed concerns about a six-week ban.
Article at NCR online.
Deletehttps://www.ncronline.org/news/catholic-mothers-scholars-urge-us-bishops-listen-women-abortion
Please read it while remembering that 2/3 of women who seek abortion are either below or just above the poverty line. Poor women lack adequate incomes, and access to healthcare. Note the mortality rate for black women. These Catholic women scholars, theologians etc are asking others - especially men, and especially celibate ordained men - to LISTEN to the lived experiences of women.
Catholics just celebrated Easter, added Imperatori-Lee, and read accounts from the Gospel about how women stayed with Jesus at the crucifixion, were the first to see the risen Jesus, and were sent to tell the disciples the good news of the paschal mystery. If God can entrust women to relay the things they have lived and seen and believed, what is keeping the church from doing the same?" she asked. "What is keeping us from trusting women when they are telling us over and over again that these decisions are complex and we need room for conscience and discernment?"
I would be sympathetic to pro-lifers if they could be happy with a law that said you cannot provide an abortion to someone under xyz conditions by any means, and they stopped trying to ban specific drugs and therapies used for things other than elective abortion.
DeleteUnfortunately, pro-life efforts don't seem to be turned toward helping women and the many babies that will now be born in abortions restrictive states. Instead they seem focused on a search and destroy mission meds that might have spontaneous abortion as a side effect.
Changing Catholic theology to accommodate discernment and conscience strikes me as a waste of time. It is what it is, and the Church has made too many pronouncements against abortion under any circumstances to turn back now.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteCan’t help but noting that Alito and Thomas were the only two dissenters from the latest SC ruling to allow Mifepristone to still be prescribed until the full case reaches the court. Alito hasn’t suddenly become non- partisan, but probably faced a highly polarized group of fellow judges who pushed him to act reasonably.
ReplyDelete