Talk:FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
Latest comment: 1 year ago by FactOrOpinion in topic Washington case
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Washington case edit
Masem: Sorry for the revert, I had saved the old version of the page. This article is about a specific court case (in Texas), which is completely unconnected to a different court case (Washington v. FDA), which is in Washington. If the Washington case should be mentioned anywhere, it is at mifepristone (or some Legality of mifepristone article or section), not here where it is an entirely different subject. It is not as though the Washington case overrules the Texas case, either, as they are just dueling (mostly-)nationwide injunctions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- They are very much tied together and mentioned one without the other at this stage would be inappropriate. Both of them cannot be enforced at the same time and thus likely the Supreme Court will be involved to make a decision on this. Of course, this case is still some time from resolution, and in the larger picture, this injunction may not matter much, but right now, how this injunction works with the WA one is an unknonw. Masem (t) 19:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- But they are not tied together—the only connection is that they touch upon the same subject. The Texas case is not about the Washington case, and the Washington case is not about the Texas case. Both are about mifepristone, and could be mentioned there, but there is no reason to mention outright the Washington case in this article. Maybe it should be mentioned as see-also, if it gets its own article. As it stands, this article is not about lawsuits regarding FDA approval of mifepristone (which would cover both), but about one lawsuit in particular about that issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- They are tied in the sense that for multiple states, both rulings would apply (had Kacsmaryk's ruling not been stayed), creating competing/contradictory demands on the FDA. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:53, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
- But they are not tied together—the only connection is that they touch upon the same subject. The Texas case is not about the Washington case, and the Washington case is not about the Texas case. Both are about mifepristone, and could be mentioned there, but there is no reason to mention outright the Washington case in this article. Maybe it should be mentioned as see-also, if it gets its own article. As it stands, this article is not about lawsuits regarding FDA approval of mifepristone (which would cover both), but about one lawsuit in particular about that issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:11, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Use of the term "abortionists" edit
Use of the term "abortionists" in the "Ruling" section, outside of a quote, may violate Wikipedia's neutrality rules, because it is not the common or medical term for gynecologists or providers of abortion, but rather, the language of the plaintiffs in this case. The judge specifically adopts the language of the plaintiff, but I don't think we should unless quoting him. Nosecohn (talk) 12:31, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- In writing that section, I was paraphrasing the judge's opinion, which uses that term. In addition, in the absence of a good alternative, we should use the judge's language. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
Amicus briefs edit
There have been a substantial number of amicus briefs filed already (in the 5th Circuit), so I'm listing them here (with citations) because it's difficult to keep track of them on the RECAP item. (There are 136 filings as of the time I'm writing this comment.) I have already added the briefs of members of Congress in favor of and in opposition to the motion for stay; those of the several states, and perhaps others including that of the local governments, should also be added.
- States of New York, Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaiʻi, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 52-1, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Local Governments in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 125, at 21–22 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
Local Governments
|
|---|
|
- Ethics and Public Policy Center in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 120, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
- 240 Members of Congress in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 124, at A-1–A-13 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
- Physicians for Reproductive Health in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 63, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Human Coalition in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 136, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
- Advancing American Freedom in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 109, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Doctors for America and the Reproductive Health Coalition in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 127, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
- Pharmaceutical Companies, Executives, and Investors in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 118, at 1a–7a (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
Pharmaceutical Companies, Executives, and Investors
|
|---|
|
- City of New York, New York and NYC Health + Hospitals and County of Santa Clara, California in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 117, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- City of New York and NYC Health + Hospitals, the County of Santa Clara, Los Angeles County, City and County of San Francisco, King County, and Cook County
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 117, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Over 100 Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Organizations in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 123, at A-1–A-8 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
Over 100 Reproductive Health, Rights, and Justice Organizations
|
|---|
|
- American Center for Law and Justice in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 122, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Former U.S. Department of Justice Officials in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 116, at i–iv (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
Former U.S. Department of Justice Officials
|
|---|
|
- NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Incorporated in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 115, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Charlotte Lozier Institute in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 113, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Former FDA Officials in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 112, at 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Stephen Ostroff, M.D., who served in various positions at FDA from 2013 to 2019, including Acting Commissioner of Food and Drugs (2015-16 and 2017) and FDA Chief Scientist (2014-15).
- Suzanne Junod, Ph.D., who served as a historian at FDA from 1984 to 2018.
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 112, at 2 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Christ Medicus Foundation, Catholic Benefits Association, Catholic Bar Association, National Catholic Bioethics Center, Catholic Health Care Leadership Alliance and Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 100, at 1–2 (5th Cir. Apr. 11, 2023).
- Medical and Public Health Societies in support of motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 111, at iii (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
Medical and Public Health Societies
|
|---|
|
- State of Missouri in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 168, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
- State of West Virginia in opposition to motion for stay
- Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, No. 23-10362, ECF No. 132, at 1 (5th Cir. Apr. 12, 2023).
- Pending Motions
- ECF No. 130 (Apr. 12, 2023), States of Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by TE(æ)A,ea. (talk • contribs)
- Please note that we do NOT include amicus brief details in these types of cases unless the amicus briefs are described by third parties. The briefs themselves are primary sources and may be self-serving, but through the eye of a reliable third party we get the relative importance of these. Also, calling out which lawmakers are for or against a case, without third-parties making that claim, is a non-neutral presentation of the information. --Masem (t) 02:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
- I referenced Texas v. Pennsylvania in the edit summary, where they did just that. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
Article name edit
Should the name of this article be changed to Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA per Bluebook? Brad (talk) 05:33, 19 April 2023 (UTC)