Not on topic, but applicable to entire discussion around Dobbs:
In a SCOTUS opinion, pre-Dobbs, Kagan , Breyer and Sotomajor wrote: Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the country, and some of the highest rates for preterm birth, low birthweight, cesarean section, and maternal death," they wrote. "It is approximately 75 times more dangerous for a woman in the state to carry a pregnancy to term than to have an abortion."
Thank you Jessica. And!!! Regarding Twitter’s move limiting visibility, would you consider an extra donate campaign specifically tied to promoting your important newsletter to make sure you keep growing your base? Your work is needed!!
This article does more than any source I have seen to clarify the complicated issues these two lawsuits bring forward. I have no legal expertise but am on the ground in abortion care. Information like this helps me navigate these chaotic times. Thank you Jessica V.
Do we know why New York and New Jersey did not join the lawsuit? I would love an explanation. Apparently H+H NYC hospitals are already planning to move to a miso only approach which seems insane and like it’s caving to the Texas judge.
This is why I subscribe beyond just supporting someone I value as a voice of advocacy. This is the most informative article I have read because you didn’t just talk to the legal Twitter/cable news people who opine in everything from mar a lago documents to stormy Daniels payments. One mistake our media have made us thinking a legal contributor can opine on all aspects of the law. By going to experts this is an actually useful explanation! Thank you so much! <futurama: shut up and take my money> gif 😉
I think this discussion here misses a big point: Reading the Texas opinion, it is clear the judge sees the fetus as a person from the point of conception. Given this perspective it logically follows that the FDA did not properly evaluate the harm caused to that person by mifepristone. If the now biased Courts allow this ruling to stand it will legalize that religious myth and make it the law of the land
The Biden Administration and the FDA should have been ready for this awful, purely political decision. The day that the suit was filed, we all knew which way Judge Kacsmaryk would rule. If we knew, there is no reason that anyone in government should have been surprised. A plan should have been in place for this, including a pre-written statement that the decision would be ignored.
This is good news AND absolutely fascinating. One of the things I've been thinking and talking a lot about as a disabled woman is drug access and healthcare in general- especially after zooming in on Idaho.
If someone decided the prescriptions I take in order to function were harmful and stripped them away I'd probably kill myself within a year. If random assholes without even a background in medicine can start deciding what drugs they like and don't like based exclusively on how it impacts a fetus, we already know they don't care what harm that would cause someone who relies on prescriptions to function (and/or live).
My point is that it feels like a situation in which you could take the issue of elective abortions out completely and the Texas ruling could still cause cascading collateral damage in the form of medical discrimination against women, drug approval chaos, and a generalized anxiety and distrust about medicine if it becomes precedent. I would love to be wrong though.
Thanks for this, Jessica, maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight.
I'd be interested in your take on the Comstock laws. Why the hell are they still on the books? They were awful back when Anthony Comstock got them passed and they're even worse in today's world. I understand we don't have the votes now in the House, but can't we begin working to repeal them? They're so dangerous for women!
Not on topic, but applicable to entire discussion around Dobbs:
In a SCOTUS opinion, pre-Dobbs, Kagan , Breyer and Sotomajor wrote: Mississippi has the highest infant mortality rate in the country, and some of the highest rates for preterm birth, low birthweight, cesarean section, and maternal death," they wrote. "It is approximately 75 times more dangerous for a woman in the state to carry a pregnancy to term than to have an abortion."
Thank you! This in-depth information is very helpful, especially about the FDA and its options.
Fantastic reporting! This is exactly the information we need right now. Many thanks, Elise Berlan MD
Thank you Jessica. And!!! Regarding Twitter’s move limiting visibility, would you consider an extra donate campaign specifically tied to promoting your important newsletter to make sure you keep growing your base? Your work is needed!!
Thank you Jessica.
This article does more than any source I have seen to clarify the complicated issues these two lawsuits bring forward. I have no legal expertise but am on the ground in abortion care. Information like this helps me navigate these chaotic times. Thank you Jessica V.
FYI, I have tried, twice, to re-post this on my Facebook feed, https://www.facebook.com/cenizo, and got blocked. FB says: "Today at 7:01 AM
We confirmed your post didn't follow the Community Standards
We reviewed your post again and it doesn't follow our Community Standards."
I will keep trying.
Do we know why New York and New Jersey did not join the lawsuit? I would love an explanation. Apparently H+H NYC hospitals are already planning to move to a miso only approach which seems insane and like it’s caving to the Texas judge.
Thank you, this is the clearest explanation of the two lawsuits I've read. Shared widely.
This is why I subscribe beyond just supporting someone I value as a voice of advocacy. This is the most informative article I have read because you didn’t just talk to the legal Twitter/cable news people who opine in everything from mar a lago documents to stormy Daniels payments. One mistake our media have made us thinking a legal contributor can opine on all aspects of the law. By going to experts this is an actually useful explanation! Thank you so much! <futurama: shut up and take my money> gif 😉
I think this discussion here misses a big point: Reading the Texas opinion, it is clear the judge sees the fetus as a person from the point of conception. Given this perspective it logically follows that the FDA did not properly evaluate the harm caused to that person by mifepristone. If the now biased Courts allow this ruling to stand it will legalize that religious myth and make it the law of the land
The Biden Administration and the FDA should have been ready for this awful, purely political decision. The day that the suit was filed, we all knew which way Judge Kacsmaryk would rule. If we knew, there is no reason that anyone in government should have been surprised. A plan should have been in place for this, including a pre-written statement that the decision would be ignored.
This is good news AND absolutely fascinating. One of the things I've been thinking and talking a lot about as a disabled woman is drug access and healthcare in general- especially after zooming in on Idaho.
If someone decided the prescriptions I take in order to function were harmful and stripped them away I'd probably kill myself within a year. If random assholes without even a background in medicine can start deciding what drugs they like and don't like based exclusively on how it impacts a fetus, we already know they don't care what harm that would cause someone who relies on prescriptions to function (and/or live).
My point is that it feels like a situation in which you could take the issue of elective abortions out completely and the Texas ruling could still cause cascading collateral damage in the form of medical discrimination against women, drug approval chaos, and a generalized anxiety and distrust about medicine if it becomes precedent. I would love to be wrong though.
Thank You Jessica! A little glimmer of hope.
Thanks for this, Jessica, maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight.
I'd be interested in your take on the Comstock laws. Why the hell are they still on the books? They were awful back when Anthony Comstock got them passed and they're even worse in today's world. I understand we don't have the votes now in the House, but can't we begin working to repeal them? They're so dangerous for women!
Thanks, Jessica. This helps a lot and we can always count on you to keep it real. Screw kacsmaryk