 Almost immediately after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, the Republican party made it very clear that their intent was to extend bans on abortion to all 50 states. And now, due to a ruling from just one rogue extremist judge in Texas, they are now one step closer towards that goal, and it is absolutely terrifying to see. As Ceylon reports, District Court Judge Matthew Kazmark of Amarillo, Texas, imposed the nationwide injunction revoking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's approval of Mipha Pristone. As a result, it will pull the abortion pill from shelves nationwide. Now Common Dreams adds, Kazmark, an appointee of former President Donald Trump, stayed his preliminary injunction for seven days to give the FDA time to appeal. Shortly after Kazmark's ruling, U.S. District Judge Thomas Rice in Washington State issued a contradictory decision that blocks the FDA from removing Mipha Pristone from the market. Now the Biden administration predictably announced that it will indeed be appealing this ruling, and given the conflict between the Texas ruling and the Washington State ruling, there is a pretty good chance that this case makes it all the way up to the Supreme Court, where the conservative majority can then deal another death blow to reproductive rights across the country. So even if they win the appeal, at least in the immediate future, this doesn't look good in the long run. Now, before we talk about the implications of that, we have to discuss the sheer absurdity of this ruling. As PBS explains, legal experts warned of questionable arguments and factual inaccuracies in this suit for months, but Kazmark essentially agreed with all of the plaintiffs' major points, including their contention that the FDA didn't adequately review Mipha Pristone's safety. Medical groups, by contrast, point out Mipha Pristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years, and complications occur at a lower rate than with other routine procedures like wisdom teeth removal and colonoscopies. But yet this judge says that the FDA didn't do their due diligence, because he would definitely know more than the FDA. So in other words, the plaintiff literally used conspiratorial arguments similar to what we'd hear from anti-vaxxers who listened to Joe Rogan, and it worked. They asked the judge to not only pretend as if he knows better than the FDA, but they actually expected him to overstep his authority and unilaterally strip the FDA of the authority granted to them by Congress to make these kinds of determinations in the first place. And do you want to know what that judge said? He said, okay, yeah, that argument that all legal experts are saying sounds unreasonable actually sounds pretty reasonable to me. Now the legal reasoning here is obviously extremely flimsy, but we'll come back to that later because I want to give you more context before we address why this judge is just batshit fucking insane. But this is not the first unserious ruling from him, so this isn't really that surprising. But it's just, it's so ludicrous that there are literally calls from sitting members of Congress to just ignore this decision. That's how bad it is. But again, I want to come back to that argument because his ruling is just one aspect of the story. I want to talk about the overall impact that this potentially has if it stands. So as Salon explains in 2020, medication abortions accounted for nearly 53% of all abortions in the United States. 98% of medication abortions use the regimen of myphipristone and mysoprostol. Without nationwide access to myphipristone, Gutmacher Institute estimates that abortion access will be even more restrictive to at least 2.4 million women across the country. That includes women in blue states. So we're talking about a potential scenario here where the main method of abortion could be cut off to women even if they live in states where abortion is not banned. It's bad enough that abortion is banned in multiple states, but women in blue states now are seeing their access to abortion restricted as a result of this if this indeed stands. Now to be clear, myphipristone isn't the only form of medical abortion. There's also mysoprostol as the article mentioned, but the problem is that mysoprostol is usually used alongside myphipristone because it isn't approved by the FDA for abortions itself. So this means that women in states where abortion is still legal would be forced to opt for procedural abortion instead of a pill, which is obviously much more medically invasive. So the question is why would Republicans want to force women to deal with that when we've made improvements? Modern medicine offers better options for women now. I mean I think that's an obvious question. Of course it's to dissuade them from having abortions in the first place. If you don't make it so easy for them then maybe they won't have the abortion. So in the same way that the right tried to restrict access before Roe v. Wade was overturned in red states, they're doing that now but in blue states. This was the strategy in red states for years and now they're trying to implement that in states where your lawmakers say abortion is a right. And the problem is even if you live in a state where abortion is technically legal, access to abortion may still be difficult to come by. So the most convenient method of obtaining an abortion could literally be stripped away from millions of women like that all because of one theocratic ideologue. But this decision is so extreme that even most Republicans don't support it. And when I say Republicans, I'm not referring to Republican lawmakers. I'm talking about GOP voters, but don't take my word for it. Let's listen to Henry N10 on CNN, explain this. Well, since Roe v. Wade was overturned in the middle of last year, we had half a dozen abortion ballot measures, right? And the pro-abortion right side and every single one of them came out with the majority, with the win. And we're not just talking about blue states like Vermont and California. We're talking about red states, right, like Kentucky and Kansas and Montana. So the fact is Americans are on the side of pro-abortion rights and it's going to be very interesting to see going forward, whether or not they like this decision. I don't believe that they will if it holds, you know. So even Republicans are against this. And we're in this situation, regardless where the judiciary has been hijacked by extremists who are imposing their theocratic will on all of us, regardless if we want them to do that or not. So what can we do about this? Well, we can simply tell the court to go fuck themselves. And I know that you're going to think that that sounds petulant and maybe it does to a degree, but I'm being 100 percent serious here. The courts have no real enforcement mechanism. I mean, think about it. When they issue a ruling, they don't disperse judicial police officers to punish those who don't comply. Their rulings are only legitimate in so far as the American people believe that they are legitimate. So do you want to know who actually gave the courts the power for judicial review in the first place? The Supreme Court in the 1803 Supreme Court ruling, Marbury versus Madison, they're the ones who said we actually have the power and authority of judicial review. So what people don't understand is that our court system is basically a house of cards and it all comes crumbling down the second that they become illegitimate and people realize that we actually don't have to listen to what they have to say because what exactly are they going to do if we don't? The answer is they can't do shit if we refuse to listen. And this is a recommendation that Senator Ron Wyden made. He just said, well, the Biden administration should just ignore this decision because it's not valid. Not only is it an overstep of authority, it's illegal. And because of that, we have to protect the rule of law by ignoring this judge and representative AOC echoed that same sentiment. So let's listen. My question is when this case is resolved by the Supreme Court? Should the administration follow that decision? If that decision ends up banning this abortion drug? Well, you know, I want to take a step back and dig into the grounds around ignoring this preliminary ruling as well. There is an extraordinary amount of precedent for this. There is a term known as agency non acquiescence. And this has been used and for folks saying this is a first that this is a precedent setting. It is not the Trump administration also did this very thing, but also it has happened before the idea of consistency in governance until there is a higher court ruling is not an unprecedented thing to happen. In fact, when the Trump administration did it, it was arguably through a much, you know, a very grave issue when it came to DACA. The Trump administration was ordered to fully reinstate DACA, the DACA program. And they in in in a complete defiance did not do that. They rely on the courts rely on the legitimacy of their rulings. And when they make a mockery of our system, a mockery of our democracy and a mockery of our law as the as what we just saw happen in this myth of pristone ruling, then I believe that that the executive branch and we know that the executive branch has an enforcement discretion, especially in light of a contradicting ruling coming out of Washington. Should that apply if the Supreme Court upheld upholds the Texas judges decision? You know, I think one of the things that I think one of the things that we need to examine is the the grounds of that ruling. But I do not believe that the courts have the authority to to have the authority over the FDA that they just asserted. And I do believe that it creates a crisis. She's absolutely correct here and it creates a crisis and we can't allow courts to overstep their authority like this. It's it's shameless. And she explained in a different interview with Anderson Cooper, which we're about to watch, that this is really a balancing act, right? None of this is an easy thing to just say. Ignoring the court, it does open the door to Republicans potentially doing the same. But at the same time, allowing the court to assume this new power to overturn decisions of the FDA could be an even worse outcome if we allow it. We want to live in a world where a government can decide to ignore a federal court. Well, no, of course. I mean, I do think that this that it raises these important questions. And I do think that when we look at and there are serious questions that the FDA and by demonstrations going to have to figure out and how exactly we map this out. But on the other hand, what we are also seeing is is a power grab over our courts in which the laws passed by Congress and the rules and policies passed by the executive branch now are going to require unanimous consent from 650 district court judges, many of which are appointed with even, you know, the American Bar Association saying that they're completely unfit for the role. Exactly. I mean, think about the implications of that. Imagine the covid vaccine getting FDA approval and then being subsequently pulled nationwide, all because of one conspiratorial judge agreeing with the plaintiff's argument that they didn't do enough due diligence to determine whether or not it's safe. I mean, if judges can determine which medicine is safe, can they make other determinations about medications? I mean, Congress gave the FDA this authority for a reason, not judges. So if we allow judges to say that the FDA in their assessment of the safety of particular drugs is incorrect when they have no authority legally and expertise to do that, we are opening Pandora's box here. So this is an absurd ruling that should be ignored. I agree with AOC and you want to know who else agrees with AOC. Republican Nancy Mace, I think that a judge in Texas should be able to say that an FDA's determination about a drug is invalid. I don't. In fact, when you look at the court case and the ruling here, the judge used a an act or a law from the 1800s that was overturned by the Supreme Court, at least the Supreme Court decided in 1983, over 100 years later, roughly that that law was unconstitutional. And that was the basis for his argument last week. And look, this is an FDA approved drug, whether you agree with its usage or not. That's not your decision. That is the FDA's decision on the efficacy, safety and usage of that particular drug. Do you agree here then with comments from people like your colleague, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, that the Biden administration should ignore this ruling, that the FDA should ignore this ruling? Well, I mean, you know, this is the judicial branch. We have a court system. I do think that this is going to be relegated to the courts. There are other lawsuits that are going on right now. I would. This is an FDA approved drug. I support the usage of FDA approved drugs, even if we might disagree. It's not up to us to decide as legislators or even, you know, as the court system that whether or not this is the right drug to use or not number one. So I agree with ignoring it at this point. But there are other lawsuits that are happening right now in other states as well over this issue. But to look at the case itself, when you look at the law that the judge used and old law that the Supreme Court said was unconstitutional, this thing should just be thrown out quite frankly. So you think the FDA should ignore this? I would. Aside from social issues, she's a pretty standard Republican. And I can assure you that Nancy Mace is not some arbiter of woke moralism or a secret Marxist. She is a standard Republican. But earlier, I told you that the judge's legal reasoning was pretty flimsy. And Nancy Mace's argument there is what I was referring to. And she's correct. So let's give you some additional context. The Hill explains Mace appeared to be referring to the Texas judge's reliance on the Comstock Act in 1873. Anti vice law that aimed to bar the mailing of contraception and anything that could be used for abortion. The law has been narrowed by the courts and Congress since and has not been enforced in decades. Mace also seemingly referenced a 1983 Supreme Court ruling that said a federal regulation prohibiting mailing unsolicited advertisements of contraceptives was unconstitutional. Now, to be clear, calling the Comstock Act and anti vice law really doesn't do it justice. This was essentially an unconstitutional anti obscenity law and it banned material that was lewd or obscene from being distributed through the mail. It is extremely illegal because it brazenly violates the First Amendment. And yes, it also blocked the contrast, the mailing of contraceptives and pro-abortion material through the mail as well. But the intent behind this law was to essentially stop the dissemination of anything that the good Lord wouldn't like. That law is partially where this judge derived his authority from to make this determination that. This drug can't be distributed. I mean, that tells you everything you need to know about this judge. He's a fucking dipshit. And the problem is that the Biden administration has made it very clear that they're not going to opt for this strategy of ignoring this ruling. And one legal adviser for the Biden White House spoke to Politico under the condition of anonymity and explained why they're not going to do this. And one of the reasonings here that they listed out was shocking, but not surprising, if that makes sense. They said that this essentially gives Democrats the opportunity to present themselves right now as the adults in the room who care about the rule of law. And that kind of just like that tells you everything you need to know about how unserious the Biden administration is about trying to fight this. And they also listed three additional reasons why the Biden administration isn't pursuing the strategy. First, ignoring a lower court ruling stripping FDA approval of the pills wouldn't stop GOP controlled states from imposing their own restrictions and prosecuting those who violate them. Second, a future Republican president could reverse any decision on enforcement discretion and choose to aggressively prosecute those who sell or prescribe the pills. And third, even in the short term, the president defying the court could leave doctors across the country afraid to dispense the pills. Yeah. See, this is my problem with the Biden administration. They have no spines. Time and time again, they unilaterally disarm before the fight even begins. Restoring the authority of blue states to sell these pills, even if it's temporary, is obviously better than blue states not being able to sell them at all. I feel like that's that's pretty obvious, right? Moreover, even if you're not going to ignore this decision, could you not love for like five minutes just to maybe scare them? I mean, holy shit, when the Supreme Court kept striking down New Deal reforms during the infamous Lochner era, do you think that FDR tucked his tail between his legs and told Democrats that, well, you know, we'll take the L, but we'll just use this as an opportunity to present ourselves as the adults in the room? Do you think that he did that? Of course he didn't do that. He threatened to clap their cheeks. He threatened to pack the fucking court. He told them that if they thought that his New Deal reforms were unconstitutional, then they needed to change their interpretation of the Constitution. But instead, these are the kinds of advisors in Biden's ear. Well, you know, we'll just wag our fingers at them and scold them for not caring about the rule of law. And I'm sure that that's going to dissuade them. And, you know, best case scenarios, we look like the adults in the room to our voters. This isn't the rule of law and you don't look like adults. You look like cowards. We're talking about judicial overreach here. And if the executive branch isn't going to act as a check on the judiciary and the divided legislative can't do it, then who the fuck will? That's the question. Who will? It's already bad enough that you have openly corrupt justices like Alito leaking cases, the right wing donors and insurrectionists like Clarence Thomas, accepting luxury vacations from Nazi admiring real estate moguls. But now we have to go along with far right partisan judges across the country, just making shit up as they go along to. I mean, is that really what we have to put up with? Because Democrats refuse to fight. The court has lost its legitimacy. And until they earn the trust of the American people back, Democrats must use every single tool at their disposal to limit their tyrannical reign. Otherwise, trust in all institutions is going to fail. And regardless of what strategy the Biden administration pursues, extraordinary times cause for extraordinary measures. So simply accepting the outcome of an appeal isn't going to suffice here. You either fight fire with fire or you will allow the entire country to slide further into authoritarianism as a result of these right wing extremists on the court. And that's not an option in my mind. So if Biden is too afraid to fight, then he needs to step aside and not run in 2024. So we have the opportunity to nominate someone who actually will.