Abortion Pill Case Moves One Step Closer to Anti-Choice Supreme Court

The battle over access to the abortion pill mifepristone got one step closer to the Supreme Court on Wednesday, as the future of the medication—which is currently still available—grows more uncertain.

The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that mifepristone, one of the medications used to induce an abortion, had been improperly approved by the Food and Drug Administration, despite overwhelming scientific evidence that the drug is safe. The Justice Department is expected to appeal the decision to the conservative-majority Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade last year.

Mifepristone’s status currently remains unchanged, because the Supreme Court in April halted lower court rulings that would have yanked the pill from the market. Mifepristone will remain nationally available until the Supreme Court hears and rules on the lawsuit.

A coalition of anti-abortion groups, represented by the extremist legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, sued to block access to mifepristone in November. They specifically brought the case in Texas, where they were likely to get Trump-appointed, ultra-conservative Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.

Kacsmaryk ruled in April that mifepristone had been improperly approved and should be yanked from the U.S. market. The Department of Justice appealed the decision, first to the Fifth Circuit Court, which only partially stayed the ruling. The Justice Department then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, which issued a temporary stay while the lawsuit plays out.

Kacsmaryk’s initial ruling hinges on several heavily biased “studies,” one of which claims to find most people who had medication abortions reported negative effects. The sample size was 98 blog posts from an anti-abortion website. The study authors only analyzed 54 posts and then just cherry-picked quotes from the rest.

Another study, which Kacsmaryk cited as proof of “adverse effects” from the abortion pill, is now under investigation for author bias and massively misrepresented findings.

Medication abortions make up more than half of all abortions performed in the United States. These drugs can be ordered online and delivered via mail, making them a key resource for people who live in states that have cracked down on abortion access since Roe was overturned.

A bigger issue at play, in this case, is that nonelected judges who do not have medical backgrounds are now making decisions about medication. When the lawsuit first began to play out, Rachel Rebouché, the dean of Temple University’s law school, told The New Republic, “The question for appellate courts is not just about abortion but about deference to a federal agency’s expertise.”

The Texas case “undermined” the FDA’s authority, she said. “To take seriously that it ignored risks, risks unsupported by any credible evidence, suggests questions as to what federal courts might decide about other federal agencies’ decisions.”

Donald Trump may soon decide that he prefers being publicly arrested over debating his fellow Republican presidential candidates.

Trump, who has said he’s not sure if he will not participate in the first Republican primary debate, was indicted for a record fourth time on Monday. A date has not yet been set for his arraignment, but he and his 18 co-defendants have until August 25 at noon to turn themselves in. The debate will be the night of August 23.

So Trump could easily arrange to appear at the Fulton County courthouse the day of the debate, ensuring that all eyes will be on him instead of his opponents.

“That’d be smart,” one former Trump campaign aide, speaking anonymously, told NBC.

Besides, “there’s no reason he should debate,” the aide said, referring to Trump’s massive lead over the other candidates. (Trump should, of course, have to participate in the debate and explain his policy ideas to voters.)

Another source close to Trump, also speaking anonymously, suggested the former president could turn himself in the day after the debate, preventing another candidate from gaining any momentum in the headlines.

“He should do it the day after the debate to suck up all the post-debate coverage,” the source told NBC. “That way even if another candidate has some sort of ‘moment’ at the debate, it falls into a black hole, press-wise.”

Trump announced two weeks ago that he has no intention of participating in the debate, adding on Truth Social that the other candidates should “so I can see who I MIGHT consider for Vice President!” Since then, he has said he’s still thinking about it, but he also said he won’t sign the Republican loyalty pledge required to participate.

Trump also is on increasingly bad terms with Fox News, which is broadcasting the debate. He called Fox a “hostile network” and has criticized his former favorite network for not covering his campaign events.

Even so, Fox executives have begged Trump to take part in the debate. He reportedly had dinner with Fox News president Jay Wallace and chief executive Suzanne Scott, during which they urged him to participate, just hours after he was indicted for a third time.

Republicans are getting way too creative in their defense of Donald Trump after his whopping fourth indictment.

Trump and 18 of his top allies were indicted late Monday for their attempts to overturn the 2020 election in Georgia. And Republican lawmakers have been brushing away the whole thing.

Representative Nancy Mace told Fox News Trump should actually be given a chance to prove the election fraud in 2020.

Mace argued that the charges against Trump are politicized. When Fox’s Neil Cavuto asked Mace whether she believed that all 91 criminal charges Trump is facing throughout the four indictments are really politically motivated, she said she believes most of them are.

“It’s not illegal to text people or to take legal advice no matter how awful we might think your attorneys are,” she added.

Representative Jim Jordan also argued that Trump’s legal team was only giving legal advice (on how to overthrow the election) and Trump’s chief of staff was only seeking a “phone number.”

“Trump was asking Raffensperger not to do anything illegal, but he was making the point that you don’t need to investigate every area where there was a problem, you just need to investigate enough areas to demonstrate the fact that he won,” Senator Bill Hagerty told Fox Business.

Trump, we now know, did ask Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger to do something illegal. In a January 2021 call, he asked Raffensperger to “find” 11,670 missing votes—the exact number Trump needed to win Georgia.

Trump’s 2024 competitors also pushed the “politicization” line of argument, as they have with every other indictment.
Senator Tim Scott criticized how the legal system is facing weaponization and that the prosecution is “un-American and unacceptable.” Governor Ron DeSantis called it “an example of this criminalization of politics.”

New York City Mayor Eric Adams chose to honor the legacy of Indian independence by comparing himself to Gandhi, a central figure in India’s struggle to free itself from the violent colonial rule of the United Kingdom.

“I am Gandhi-like,” Adams told a crowd of people during a flag-raising ceremony on Tuesday. “I think like Gandhi. I act like Gandhi. I want to be like Gandhi.”

These comments came after a long section of his speech where he speculated about what Gandhi would be doing if he were still alive today.

“If Gandhi was here today, he would be dealing with homelessness,” Adams said. If that were true, then we also wish Adams was a little more like Gandhi.

As of last month, the number of people sleeping on streets and in subway stations in New York City had increased by 18 percent since the beginning of the year. This number increased even after Adams promised that finding shelter alternatives for unhoused New Yorkers would be a top priority for his administration in 2023. Since coming into office, the mayor has instead prioritized involuntarily hospitalizing homeless people and limiting their stays in shelters to only 60 days.

The comparison is also beyond strange, given Gandhi’s complicated legacy and his overtly racist and sexist personal views. Comparing yourself to Gandhi is also just a really weird thing to do—especially when you’re a former police officer and have boosted pay for New York City Police at the expense of other departments. Real Gandhi-like.

Republican presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy says he will let China invade Taiwan after the United States has its own supply of semiconductors, because defending the island is not in American “self-interest.”

Taiwan produces about 60 percent of the global supply of semiconductors, which are microchips crucial to making all electronic devices. China has claimed sovereignty over the island since 1949, after the nationalist party in the Chinese civil war fled there and declared independence from the mainland. Chinese President Xi Jinping has increasingly insisted on “reunification” with Taiwan, even suggesting through the use of force.

The U.S. maintains “strategic ambiguity” regarding Taiwan, refusing to specify whether it would militarily defend the island if China attacks. President Joe Biden said last year that the U.S. would commit military force to Taiwan’s defense, but the State Department tried to walk back his comments.

Ramaswamy told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt on Monday that he wanted to move to “strategic clarity” on Taiwan. He argued that China only wants to invade Taiwan for two reasons: to control the semiconductor industry and to resolve the Chinese civil war.

Ramaswamy said, “Do not mess with Taiwan before 2028, before the end of my first term,” when he believes he can achieve semiconductor independence in the U.S.

But “that commitment is only as far as 2028 … and we will not take the risk of war that risks Americans lives after that for some nationalistic dispute between China and Taiwan.”

Ramaswamy said he intends to make his stance clear by dramatically upping the firepower around Taiwan during his first term. This includes moving destroyers and guided missile submarines to the Taiwan Strait, attempting to form a military alliance with India, and even “putting a gun in every Taiwanese household.”

It did not seem to occur to him that China would likely interpret these moves as acts of aggression and respond in kind. Nor does he seem to realize that it’s highly unlikely China would listen to his proposed arrangement. Hewitt pressed Ramaswamy multiple times on his apparent willingness to go to war with China (but just during his first term).

Ramaswamy responded by simply repeating that Xi “should not mess” with Taiwan until the U.S. has achieved semiconductor independence. He then admitted that if India does not agree to a military alliance, the U.S. would badly lose a conflict with China.

But rather than realizing that this is a terrible plan, Ramaswamy doubled down during a town hall with NewsNation on Tuesday.

Ramaswamy has been steadily rising in the polls, despite his only real campaign talking points being battling “wokeness,” taking away rights, and, apparently, going to war with China.