Connect with us

West

Republican states unite with pro-life doctors for SCOTUS abortion pill battle

Published

on

Republican states unite with pro-life doctors for SCOTUS abortion pill battle

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Three Republican attorneys general have asked to join a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court that could determine whether women have access to the abortion pill, mifepristone. 

Missouri, Idaho and Kansas on Monday jointly filed a motion to intervene in U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which, if granted, would allow the states to become plaintiffs in the case. The move is an effort to keep the lawsuit alive if the justices find the pro-life doctors who originally challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone lack standing to do so.

Advertisement

“This is one of the most important cases before the Supreme Court this term. We’re fighting to protect women and their unborn children from these dangerous abortion pills,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

The Supreme Court last month agreed to consider appeals from the Biden administration and drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories defending deregulation of mifepristone, the abortion pill, as part of an effort to make it easier to access and use the drug since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL SUES BIDEN ADMIN FOR APPROVING THE SHIPMENT OF CHEMICAL ABORTION PILLS IN THE MAIL

Attorney General Andrew Bailey outside the Supreme Court on Feb. 28, 2023. Missouri, Idaho and Kansas have asked to join a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s deregulation of the abortion pill, mifepristone. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In its landmark June 2022 decision, the court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion and that the matter should be decided by the states. In the aftermath, 14 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, and two others have banned abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is around six weeks of gestation.

Advertisement

The case now pending before the court concerns pro-life doctors and medical groups that sued the FDA in 2022, alleging that the agency unlawfully approved mifepristone in 2000 and that the drug is unsafe. 

Mifepristone, known by the brand name Mifeprex, is a pill taken with misoprostol in a two-drug regimen that first deprives an unborn baby of hormones it needs to stay alive and then causes cramps and contractions to expel the dead fetus from the mother’s womb.

In a highly controversial ruling, the district court in Texas where the case originated halted the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, triggering an appeals process that has now landed before the Supreme Court. 

20 STATE AGS WARN CVS, WALGREENS THAT DISTRIBUTING ABORTION PILLS VIOLATES STATE, FEDERAL LAW

Mifepristone is typically used in combination with misoprostol to bring about a chemical abortion during pregnancy and manage early miscarriage. (Soumyabrata Roy/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Biden administration and Danco are asking the high court to reverse an appellate ruling that would cut off access to the abortion pill through the mail and impose other restrictions, even in states where abortion remains legal. The restrictions include shortening from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks the time during which mifepristone can be used in pregnancy. The nine justices rejected a separate appeal from abortion opponents who challenged the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone as safe and effective in 2000.

The case will be argued in the spring, with a decision likely by late June, in the middle of the 2024 presidential and congressional campaigns.

Before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, Idaho, Kansas and Missouri moved to intervene in the case in the original district court. Texas U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk allowed the three states to join the lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2024, but by then the Supreme Court had already agreed to hear the case. 

Now, the Republican attorneys general say the Supreme Court should allow them to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs, asserting there are injuries their states have suffered that the pro-life doctors and medical groups are unable to address in court. They claim that abortion rights organizations have shipped abortion pills into their states, with the assistance of the FDA, in violation of state abortion bans.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO DECIDE ON ABORTION PILL ACCESS, APPROVAL PROCESS

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the legal challenges to the FDA’s deregulation of the abortion pill sometime this spring. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

“FDA’s actions impose substantial monetary and sovereign harm on the States. The private plaintiffs have no capacity to assert the States’ interests. So if this Court denies intervention and holds that the private plaintiffs lack standing, the States may be forced to wait for relief until this Court resolves a future emergency application or certiorari petition by Petitioners,” the states told the court in a legal filing.

Bailey, in the filing, also pointed to data that shows thousands of women have traveled out of state to purchase mifepristone and then return to Missouri. “The Federal Government admits that 5 to 8 percent of these women experience significant complications after returning home,” the filing states. 

“Intervention would also promote efficiency,” the attorneys general argued, observing that their separate challenge to the abortion pill is likely to end up before the court “within months” anyway. 

Should the Supreme Court decline their motion to intervene, the Republicans said they “are happy simply to submit an amicus brief.” 

Advertisement

“I am very pleased the district court in Texas has recognized Idaho’s standing in this case.  We intervened over concerns for the safety of Idaho women and the virtually unregulated access to mail-order abortion pills,” Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador told Fox News Digital in a statement. “The Federal Drug Administration’s recklessness puts the lives of both pregnant women and their unborn children in medical jeopardy.”

“Biden is beholden to the nation’s most radical abortion extremists so the FDA is allowing the shipment of chemical abortion pills,” Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach said. “The FDA lacks the statutory authority to do so. And that’s why Kansas is suing.”

The FDA has defended its approval of mifepristone and said the drug is safe when used correctly.

“The FDA approved Mifeprex more than 20 years ago based on a thorough and comprehensive review of the scientific evidence presented and determined that it was safe and effective for its indicated use,” the FDA’s website states.

Advertisement

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erik Baptist, who is representing the private plaintiffs, expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will ultimately come down on their side.

“Women should have the ongoing care of a doctor when taking high-risk drugs,” Baptist said. “The FDA betrayed women and girls when it removed safety standards that it previously deemed necessary for women’s health and well-being. The FDA should do the right thing and protect women and girls. Three courts have already agreed with us, and we are hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will also agree.” 

Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace, Greg Wehner and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Wyoming

Casper veteran David Giralt joins race for Wyoming U.S. House seat

Published

on

Casper veteran David Giralt joins race for Wyoming U.S. House seat


CASPER, Wyo. — David Giralt, a Casper-raised military veteran and conservative Republican, has announced his candidacy for Wyoming’s lone seat in the U.S. House of Representatives. The congressional seat is being vacated by Republican Rep. Harriet Hageman, who launched a campaign in December for the U.S. Senate seat currently held by retiring Sen. Cynthia Lummis. […]



Source link

Continue Reading

West

Registered sex offender’s city council bid sparks fury as officials explore blocking his path

Published

on

Registered sex offender’s city council bid sparks fury as officials explore blocking his path

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

A registered sex offender convicted in a child sex abuse material case is seeking elected office in California — launching a campaign for Fresno City Council amid fierce backlash and renewed questions about whether someone with his record should hold public office.

Rene Campos, a Fresno native required to register as a sex offender, has announced plans to run for the District 7 seat on the Fresno City Council.

Campos was charged in 2018 with possession of child sex abuse material, according to court records. He has said he pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge and is now a registered sex offender.

His opponent, Nav Gurm, says the campaign has transformed what should be a local race focused on infrastructure and public safety into a national controversy.

Advertisement

Rene Campos in a 2018 booking photo related to a child sex abuse material possession case. Campos, now a registered sex offender, has launched a campaign for Fresno City Council. (State of California Department of Justice)

“His candidacy is a slap in the face to families and children in Fresno,” Gurm told Fox News Digital. “They deserve a councilmember who can show up at their schools and in their neighborhoods without restriction.”

In a statement to Fox News Digital, Campos defended his candidacy, arguing he has met all legal requirements.

“I satisfied every legal obligation imposed under the laws this state enacted for accountability and rehabilitation,” Campos said.

CONVICTED KILLER KEPT IN POLICE OVERSIGHT ROLE AS CITY COUNCIL DISMISSES CONCERNS OVER PUBLIC SAFETY

Advertisement

The entrance to Fresno City Hall in Fresno, California. The District 7 City Council seat is up for election amid controversy surrounding a registered sex offender candidate. (James Ward, Visalia Times-Delta via Imagn Content Services, LLC)

“If those same laws can be set aside when politically inconvenient, then we are not debating one candidacy — we are testing whether the rule of law is stable or selective. Democracy depends on consistent standards. When eligibility shifts under pressure, public confidence weakens. Voters decide elections — not political preference.”

Under California law, registered sex offenders are not automatically barred from seeking or holding local office as long as they meet voter registration and residency requirements.

But Gurm argues that legality does not equate to fitness for office.

CHILD PREDATOR DUBBED ‘MONSTER PARENTS FEAR MOST’ CLEARED FOR RELEASE THROUGH CALIFORNIA PAROLE PROGRAM

Advertisement

“While it may not be a legal disqualification, it’s a disqualification in practice,” he said. “If you can’t fully participate in school events, youth gatherings and community activities, you can’t fully do the job.”

Gurm is urging state lawmakers to amend eligibility standards.

“I urge the Fresno City Council and the California State Legislature to push forward legislation making lifetime sex offender registration an explicit disqualification for holding public office,” he said.

NEW JERSEY POLICE SERGEANT, FORMER DEM MAYOR ALLEGEDLY DRUGGED, SEXUALLY ASSAULTED CHILD HE MET ONLINE

Nav Gurm, a candidate for Fresno City Council District 7, has called on his opponent to withdraw from the race amid controversy. (Nav Gurm for Fresno City Council Campaign Team)

Advertisement

The backlash has extended beyond campaign opponents.

Fresno City Council President Mike Karbassi said he believes voters will reject Campos and suggested he would oppose him taking office if elected.

“When it comes to the safety and welfare of our children, your past matters,” Karbassi said in a statement to Fox News Digital. “So long as I am Council President, I will not permit him to be seated on the Fresno City Council.”

VICTIM FEARS FOR OTHERS AFTER CALIFORNIA PAROLE BOARD APPROVES RELEASE OF CONVICTED CHILD PREDATOR

It remains unclear what legal authority, if any, the council president would have to prevent an elected candidate from assuming office.

Advertisement

Outgoing Councilman Nelson Esparza, who currently represents District 7 and is termed out, also criticized the campaign.

“Regardless of any rehabilitation, he needs to find a different line of work,” Esparza told Fox News Digital. “So much of what I do in this district is for and with respect to our children and youth. I don’t see any reasonable way someone with registered sex offender status could effectively do this job.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Esparza noted that councilmembers regularly participate in school initiatives and that children frequently visit City Hall for tours and meetings. He said councilmembers are examining possible municipal policy changes and urging legislative action at the state level.

The District 7 seat will open when Esparza’s term expires. Candidates face a filing deadline in early March, and the primary election is scheduled for June.

Advertisement

Stepheny Price covers crime, including missing persons, homicides and migrant crime. Send story tips to stepheny.price@fox.com.

Related Article

Backlash erupts after city council appoints police review board member with murder conviction

Read the full article from Here

Continue Reading

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco court clerks strike for better staffing, training

Published

on

San Francisco court clerks strike for better staffing, training


The people cheering and banging drums on the front steps of San Francisco’s Hall of Justice are usually quietly keeping the calendars and paperwork on track for the city’s courts.

Those court clerks are now hitting the picket lines, citing the need for better staffing and more training. It’s the second time the group has gone on strike since 2024, and this strike may last a lot longer than the last one.

Defense attorneys, prosecutors and judges agree that court clerks are the engines that keep the justice system running. Without them, it all grinds to a slow crawl.

“You all run this ship like the Navy,” District 9 Supervisor Jackie Fielder said to a group of city clerks.

Advertisement

The strike is essentially a continuation of an averted strike that occurred in October 2025.

“We’re not asking for private jets or unicorns,” Superior Court clerk employee Ben Thompson said. “We’re just asking for effective tools with which we can do our job and training and just more of us.”

Thompson said the training is needed to bring current employees up to speed on occasional changes in laws.

Another big issue is staffing, something that clerks said has been an ongoing issue since October 2024, the last time they went on a one-day strike.

Court management issued their latest statement on Wednesday, in which the court’s executive officer, Brandon Riley, said they have been at an impasse with the union since December.

Advertisement

The statement also said Riley and his team has been negotiating with the union in good faith. He pointed out the tentative agreement the union came to with the courts in October 2025, but it fell apart when union members rejected it.

California’s superior courts are all funded by the state. In 2024, Sacramento cut back on court money by $97 million statewide due to overall budget concerns.

While there have been efforts to backfill those funds, they’ve never been fully restored.

Inside court on Thursday, the clerk’s office was closed, leaving the public with lots of unanswered questions. Attorneys and bailiffs described a slightly chaotic day in court.

Arraignments were all funneled to one courtroom and most other court procedures were funneled to another one. Most of those procedures were quickly continued.

Advertisement

At the civil courthouse, while workers rallied outside, a date-stamping machine was set up inside so people could stamp their own documents and place them in locked bins.

Notices were also posted at the family law clinic and small claims courts, noting limited available services while the strike is in progress.

According to a union spokesperson, there has been no date set for negotiations to resume, meaning the courthouse logjams could stretch for days, weeks or more.



Source link

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending