(03-15-2023 04:44 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-15-2023 04:36 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  

(03-15-2023 04:14 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(03-15-2023 03:55 PM)GoodOwl Wrote:  

Quote:Texas Wrongful Death Lawsuit Targets Use of Chemical Abortion Drugs

As Texas becomes ground zero in the fight over the legality of chemical abortion drugs, a Texas man has filed a wrongful death lawsuit (Silva v. Noyola Carpenter (Symmank)and Garcia Galveston County, Texas, 56th District Court) against three women who allegedly helped his ex-wife access abortion pills that killed his unborn child.

From the Daily Wire:

Plaintiff Marcus Silva filed the lawsuit in the Galveston County District Court last week, alleging two of his former wife’s friends — defendants Jackie Noyola and Amy Carpenter — assisted Silva’s former wife, Brittni, “in murdering Ms. Silva’s unborn child with illegally obtained abortion pills,” the lawsuit reads. Noyola and Carpenter allegedly texted Ms. Silva with information about an international group that provides abortion pills through postal services named Aid Access.

According to the lawsuit, Mr. Silva’s wife, Brittni, filed for divorce in May 2022 while pregnant with their third child. Text messages in the lawsuit show that in July, while concealing her pregnancy and still married to Mr. Silva, she, Noyoloa, and Carpenter conspired to acquire chemical abortion drugs in Houston.

A third woman, Aracely Garcia, allegedly transported the drugs in July 2022, a month after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and activated Texas’ trigger law banning abortions.

First of Its Kind

According to the court filings, under the law of Texas, a person who assists a pregnant woman in obtaining a self-managed abortion has committed murder and can be sued for wrongful death. Also, under Texas law the mother is exempt from charges.

“Marcus Silva recently learned of the defendant’s involvement in the murder of his child, and he brings suit against them for wrongful death and conspiracy,” the original petition reads.

The lawsuit is the first of its kind under the state’s trigger law that makes performing an illegal abortion a felony punishable up to life in prison. It comes just days prior to oral arguments in the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine’s lawsuit against the FDA for fast-tracking approval of the abortion drug mifepristone in 2000 despite evidence of its danger to women and girls.

Dangerous Drugs

The FDA “failed to abide by its legal obligations to protect the health, safety, and welfare of girls and women,” according to a summary of the suit brought before the District Court in the Northern District of Texas.

Last week, Erik Baptist, senior counsel at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told CatholicVote’s Erika Ahern that the FDA’s approval of chemical abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol is “dangerous, reckless, and frankly illegal.”

According to Baptist:

We are asking the court to set aside the approval of mifepristone and misoprostol to the degree the FDA has approved both drugs for chemical abortion purposes. So it’s an ambitious lawsuit in that we’re asking the court to do this, but it’s a reasonable one because the FDA, from the beginning to the end, has failed to follow the plain requirements of the law. We’re not second-guessing the medical judgment or the scientific judgment of a federal bureaucracy; we’re saying Congress gives the FDA the power to protect the American public from dangerous drugs, and the FDA failed to live up to its obligations when Congress gave it the power to evaluate these drugs.

Meanwhile, anonymous and unauthorized sources indicated to Washington Post reporters that the judge in the case, U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, met with lawyers in Amarillo, TX, last Friday and scheduled the hearing for Wednesday, March 15.

According to The Washington Post:

Kacsmaryk scheduled the hearing during a call with attorneys Friday, said multiple people familiar with the call, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss it.

The Washington Post’s anonymous source further alleged that “Kacsmaryk told the attorneys that he also wanted to delay publicizing the hearing because courthouse members have received threats in the wake of the lawsuit, according to the people familiar with the call.”

Meanwhile, in Silva’s case, pro-abortion groups have already declared the circumstances of the lawsuit as an example of “christian facism”:

According to the Daily Wire:

Sunsara Taylor with RiseUp4AbortonRites told the outlet she believes the action violates women’s fundamental rights and blamed it on “Christian facist movements.”

“It’s always just been a matter of time,” Taylor said. “Christian facist movements and I say that deliberately because not all Christians, and it is a facist movement that has been spearheading the movement over decades to ban abortion, has always been clear that their intention is to take this 'rite' away from women in all circumstances.” {There exists no such right to murder a child as Taylor falsely claims, but that won't stop her talking points.}

But Briscoe Cain, an attorney for Mr. Silva and member of the Texas House of Representatives, indicated that the law is clear and that more lawsuits are to come.

“Anyone involved in distributing or manufacturing abortion pills will be sued into oblivion,” Cain said. “That includes CVS and Walgreens if their abortion pills find their way into our state.”

This abortion drug case in Texas is pretty interesting. Is the judge going to basically override the FDA and say that their approval process didn't pass muster? Has this happened before (the courts stepping in on a drug approval)? Why would a judge have better insight as to the safety of a drug than the FDA panel that looked at this drug?

(Disclaimer: I don't know what the percentage split between scientific basis and political motive the plaintiffs have in this case.)

Federal agency decisions are subject to legal challenge. I don't think any of us would want to live in a country where they aren't.

Of course. But from what I understand some (I think significant?) portion of the case involves a scientific opposition to the FDA process rather than a strictly legal opposition. I haven't dug in that much so I could be mistaken.

That's where merits of the case come in. If the process is flawed in some provable way, then it can and should be challenged. If not, then the case should be thrown out, unless the judge is an activist judge and wants to make a point knowing that the appeals process will backstop him.