a judge of the state o washington said that the fda should continue to approve thi drug so i don t know whether he was strategically waiting for th decision out of texas to mak sure that his opinion came last but it s sort of restored it either way i think that th judge in texas said that his decision would be stayed so th justice department can file an appeal or any other party can file an appeal the short term of these case will be that the drug will b continued to be available unti the appeals work out but i think that they are on a collision course to the suprem court. let s go back to that short term effect because people are confused tonight several democratic governors have posted on socia media that they will keep th drug available in their states why does this go next? what is the final rule what do you think that the final result is going to be? people are confused. they are walking int drugstores thinking do i nee to stock up on this?
circuit. back tonight to discuss what this all means, barbara mcquade, a veteran prosecutor and forme u.s. attorney for the easter district of michigan barbara, i m glad you are here right out for this ruling, a judge in washington stat issued another ruling stopping the fda from altering th status quo as it relates to th drug what does that even mean so, it s really interesting stephanie, we had these tw cases proceeding on parallel paths. one in texas, where you said the judge suspended the fda approval and just a couple o hours later. a judge of the state o washington said that the fda should continue to approve thi drug so i don t know whether he was strategically waiting for th decision out of texas to mak sure that his opinion came last but it s sort of restored it either way i think that th judge in texas said that his decision would be stayed so th justice department can file an appeal or any other party can file an appeal the short term of these case
control until the supreme cour case in griswold finds a right to privacy under substantive due process for people to be able to access that. they re reviving that act, it not right? let me just say i didn mean to suggest that this is all pretextual this is filed in amarillo wher the judge is the only federa judge sitting because they kne that he would respond in thi way, so it is very clear wha the interest was and why thi was done so this is not a rationa decision and the way and the tax even makes it clear. with regards to the act, it wa passed a 1979 to prohibit th distribution of quote unquot articles used for immora purposes through the federal mail service or interstate commerce that could be a lot of things, information about birth control, actual birth control, even erotica and sex toys and thing of that nature but it was meant to cut down o vice the law that you mentioned tha was invalidated in 196
melissa s comments are ver interesting. very interesting as if, i agre with them, as if this were eight and a rational decisio premised on rational finding about the lack of safety of th drug look at the language of this decision which is that we talk abou doctors as abortionists, the medication starves the unbor human until death, it resurrec these notions that women, what is really going on is that women terribly regret th decision to have an abortion and in a universe in which federalist societies, judges are concerned about th ministry of agency is no taking care, not being careful about the science if there i an administrative agency tha is careful about the science that is the fda. this is not a contrivance, the have hearings, there are findings, and in this case a 2 or battles so i think that this is complete pretext by a judge wh
democracy. plus lying about documents tha he took to his mansion and the refused to give up any of us would not survive an of these things. if he had gone through all o this and been scot-free, tha lesson for citizens, even wors lesson for future presidents and political figures. what we are seeing tonight may show us that, indeed crime doe not pay. we talk about it all th time, this moment in time an at the divisions in ou country. are you concerned that thi indictment, not without th decision on alvin bragg s part could ve been swayed by this but are you concerned that thi indictment could divide us eve more no question, and that has happened in a lot of trials in our history. a lot of issues in our history the demand that i would have and i think that you would agree with me stephanie, i that the differences remai nonviolent that is the way our system i supposed to operate. if you have a president of the