Don’t
be
upset,
honey.
You’re
doing
it
for
increased
representation
in
the
House!
Conservative
lawyers
—
with
the
help
of
five
out-of-state
groups
who
formed
a
dummy
organization
in
Amarillo,
Texas,
to
take
advantage
of
that
district’s
ironically
liberal
forum
shopping
rules
—
filed
a
lawsuit
challenging
the
FDA’s
approval
of
mifepristone
with
a
1-in-1
chance
of
landing
before
Trump
appointed
activist
judge
Matthew
Kacsmaryk.
That
process
ultimately
didn’t
work
out,
but
now
there’s
a
complaint
brought
by
three
Republican
state
attorneys
general
—
not
from
Texas
—
who
have
run
to
Texas
in
a
bid
to
grandstand
a
little
for
right-wing
media
clicks.
But
have
they
solved
the
standing
problems
from
the
first
suit?
They
think
they
have,
and
the
answer
is:
the
state
has
a
compelling
interest
in
getting
teen
girls
pregnant!
The
first
time
around,
Kacsmaryk
did
what
he
was
groomed
to
do
and
ordered
the
pill’s
approval
yanked
on
the
grounds
that
medical
scientists
aren’t
as
good
at
medicine
stuff
as
he
is.
The
Fifth
Circuit
rubberstamped
his
opinion
and
James
Ho
introduced
a
new
cockamamie
theory
of
standing
based
on
“random
bystanders
think
babies
are
cute,”
which
may
be
true
but
is
more
a
function
of
being
able
to
give
them
back
once
they
start
crying.
The
Supreme
Court
rejected
the
standing
theory
in
the
case
because
it
was,
of
course,
gibberish
cobbled
together
in
crayon
by
a
clutch
of
judges
that
the
Court’s
conservative
majority
keeps
striking
down.
But
Justice
Kavanaugh
set
down
his
beer
to
draw
a
rough
map
for
Kacsmaryk
to
try
again
with
less
risk
of
faceplanting.
After
inviting
state
AGs
to
enter
the
case
with
a
slightly
better
shot
of
establishing
standing,
we’re
back
at
the
beginning.
Andrew
Bailey
of
Missouri,
Raúl
Labrador
of
Idaho,
and
Kris
Kobach
of
Kansas
just
delivered
their
199-page
amended
complaint
and
they’ve
got
theories,
man.
These
estimates
also
show
the
effect
of
the
FDA’s
decision
to
remove
all
in-person
dispensing
protections.
When
data
is
examined
in
a
way
that
reflects
sensitivity
to
expected
birth
rates,
these
estimates
strikingly
“do
not
show
evidence
of
an
increase
in
births
to
teenagers
aged
15-19,”
even
in
states
with
long
driving
distances
despite
the
fact
that
“women
aged
15-19…
are
more
responsive
to
driving
distances
to
abortion
facilities
than
older
women.”
The
study
thus
concludes
that
“one
explanation
may
be
that
younger
women
are
more
likely
to
navigate
online
abortion
finders
or
websites
ordering
mail-order
medication
to
self-manage
abortions.
This
study
thus
suggests
that
remote
dispensing
of
abortion
drugs
by
mail,
common
carrier,
and
interactive
computer
service
is
depressing
expected
birth
rates
for
teenaged
mothers
in
Plaintiff
States,
even
if
other
overall
birth
rates
may
have
been
lower
than
otherwise
was
projected.
To
summarize,
they’re
arguing
that
there’s
a
study
showing
that
15-19
year-old
girls
are
less
likely
to
have
babies
when
mifepristone
is
available
online.
Which
might
be
true.
It
also
might
be
true
that
teen
pregnancy
is
just
down
because
of
birth
control
and
condom
availability
and,
just
for
shits
and
giggles
let’s
say
abstinence
education.
But
whatever
the
reason,
how
do
teen
pregnancy
rates
matter
to
this
case?
A
loss
of
potential
population
causes
further
injuries
as
well:
the
States
subsequent
“diminishment
of
political
representation”
and
“loss
of
federal
funds,”
such
as
potentially
“losing
a
seat
in
Congress
or
qualifying
for
less
federal
funding
if
their
populations
are”
reduced
or
their
increase
diminished.
Your
eyes
are
not
deceiving
you.
Republicans
are
arguing
that
teen
pregnancy
is
good
because
it
might
lead
to
another
House
seat.
If
you
told
young
me
that
in
the
Year
of
Our
Lord
2024
the
Republican
Party
would
be
all
in
on
“teen
pregnancies
are
necessary”
I’d
have
assumed
some
sort
of
dystopian
Children
of
Men
scenario
was
happening.
This
is
the
political
entity
that
spent
the
80s
and
90s
aggressively
demonizing
teen
pregnancy
as
the
final
disgrace
brought
on
by
all
the
pre-marital
sex
MTV
invented.
It
was
pathologized
from
the
White
House
as
an
“epidemic.”
Today,
with
a
straight
face,
the
same
party
argues
that
the
state
needs
to
knock
up
more
kids.
But
I
guess
it’s
the
same
party
that
fought
the
Cold
War
and
now
colludes
with
a
KGB
general
so
maybe
times
just
change.
As
shockingly
cynical
as
the
idea
of
cultivating
a
generation
of
unplanned
children
just
to
game
the
electoral
college
might
be,
the
federal
funding
claim
might
actually
be
worse.
This
shouldn’t
have
to
be
said,
but
when
the
federal
government
hands
out
more
funds
based
on
population,
the
expectation
is
that
the
funds
pay
for
the
growing
population.
In
other
words,
if
the
state
doesn’t
have
another
citizen,
it
wouldn’t
need
another
citizen’s
worth
of
funds.
Which
is
how
they’re
telling
on
themselves,
of
course.
Republican
state
governments
obsessively
seek
wealth
transfers
from
the
rest
of
the
country.
They
want
more
bodies
to
claim
more
funds
and
then
NOT
actually
spend
the
money
on
those
specific
bodies,
but
instead
to
funnel
funds
to
the
“people”
they
like.
Maybe
some
retired
athlete
is
looking
to
build
a
volleyball
stadium
or
something.
That
sound
you’re
faintly
hearing
might
just
be
Kavanaugh
and
Roberts
smacking
their
heads
wondering
how
the
rest
of
the
conservative
legal
movement
can’t
help
but
invent
increasingly
embarrassing
quotable
material
in
their
bid
to
own
the
libs.
For
anyone
concerned
about
reproductive
health,
it’s
a
dangerous
world
out
there
but
as
they
say,
for
now,
“it
helps
that
our
enemy
is
very
stupid.”
(Amended
complaint
on
the
next
page…)
Earlier:
MAGA
Judge
James
Ho
Unveils
New
Injury
Based
On
Conservative
Tears
The
Fifth
Circuit’s
Mifepristone
Decision
Is
A
Disgrace
Supreme
Court
Rejects
World’s
Dumbest
Legal
Theory,
Accidentally
Protecting
Birth
Control
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.
Joe
also
serves
as
a
Managing
Director
at
RPN
Executive
Search.