Hold onto your seats, folks, because we’ve got a legal battle brewing over the use of the abortion drug, mifepristone. The plaintiffs in this case argue that they might have to treat complications from the use of the pill, and the majority seems to think they’ve got a point. Sounds like a real nail-biter, doesn’t it?

Now, get this: two of the judges on the appeals court panel are Trump appointees. What a surprise! The third, Catharina Haynes, was appointed by George W. Bush, so at least things aren’t completely one-sided. We’re on the edge of our seats wondering who will come out on top.

But wait, there’s more! The agency representing the FDA says these plaintiffs can’t prove they’ve been directly and concretely injured, and that their claims are nothing but implausible speculation. Ouch, that’s got to sting. Looks like they’ve got some work to do to prove their case.

The company that makes the branded version of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, is also chiming in with their two cents. They’re not happy about the appeals court’s ruling, claiming it’s going to create “regulatory chaos.” It’s almost like they think this legal battle is actually going to affect their business or something.

In a real plot twist, we’ve got a judge on the case who used to work for an organization defending religious freedom. Democrats weren’t too keen on confirming him to the bench back in 2019 due to his history of being anti-LGBTQ rights. What a colorful cast of characters we’ve got in this legal drama.

So, there you have it folks: a battle over an abortion drug, Trump and Bush appointees, implausible speculation, corporate drama, and even a controversial judge thrown in for good measure. It’s a regular old soap opera in the legal world.

Serious News: nytimes