plaintiffs have “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections to elective abortion and to FDA’s relaxed regulation of mifepristone,” that does not mean they have a federal case.
I read that as “Rephrase the case and send it back”.
When they say that the doctors lack standing, what they’re saying is that the doctors have not suffered harm as a result of the FDA’s action. The doctors are not obligated to provide the medication that the FDA has authorized. Unless the doctors can prove that they, personally, have been affected negatively by the decision, there can be no court-ordered remedy for their injured moral fee-fees.
On the other hand, a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing; she would be able to demonstrate that the law had directly, personally affected her ability to get the health care she needed.
As far as I know, you are generally correct that you can’t sue a government becuase they didn’t ban a thing. But you can sue when the gov’t has banned a thing, and that ban has caused you direct harm. This would be especially true if her lack of access to reproductive care meant that she had suffered serious physical harm, or lost her ability to have children in the future.
Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:
“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. “And they may also express their views about abortion and mifepristone to fellow citizens, including in the political and electoral processes.”
They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
I read that as “Rephrase the case and send it back”.
No, that’s not what it’s saying at all.
When they say that the doctors lack standing, what they’re saying is that the doctors have not suffered harm as a result of the FDA’s action. The doctors are not obligated to provide the medication that the FDA has authorized. Unless the doctors can prove that they, personally, have been affected negatively by the decision, there can be no court-ordered remedy for their injured moral fee-fees.
On the other hand, a woman that is unable to obtain an abortion because a state banned a drug that the FDA had approved would have standing; she would be able to demonstrate that the law had directly, personally affected her ability to get the health care she needed.
deleted by creator
…But that’s not what I was saying.
As far as I know, you are generally correct that you can’t sue a government becuase they didn’t ban a thing. But you can sue when the gov’t has banned a thing, and that ban has caused you direct harm. This would be especially true if her lack of access to reproductive care meant that she had suffered serious physical harm, or lost her ability to have children in the future.
Maybe, but elsewhere he suggests this issue should be decided by elected officials:
They need a more compelling case of mifepristone causing harm. It’s probably best for those who use it to keep their experiences private if possible.
They need a case where mifepristone has caused any harm at all to the plaintiffs at the very least. That this case even got here is a testament to the insanity of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Even that wouldn’t work. If a drug causes you harm, you sue the company that made it.
They need a compelling case of how the FDA harmed them in order to sue the FDA. I don’t think that will be easy.
Perhaps a sovcit can provide the correct forms and precise terms to use, in their proper order.