Recently, Democratic lawyers have been taking matters into their own hands as they desperately try to loosen the voting restrictions in several states across the country. On Monday, they launched a wave of nearly two dozen lawsuits in a bid to make sure every vote counts in the upcoming November elections.
The lawsuits seek to overturn laws that place limits on voting by mail and voting access for those who are most likely to cast ballots for Democrats. This wave of litigation was filed in Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and Texas, with the lawsuits claiming that the stiffer laws placed on voters are unconstitutional and discriminatory, since they disproportionately affect people of color.
The lawyers argue that the measures put in place by states, such as Kansas and Texas, places an excessively burdensome requirement on potential voters. These include limiting the number of voting sites to one per county and closing down polling places in Hispanic and Black neighborhoods.
What is even more troubling is that Republican-led legislatures have made efforts to erase decades of progressive voting rights gains. In Iowa, for example, Democrats are suing over a law that does away with early voting and same-day registration. In Mississippi, the legal team is going after a requirement that would make it harder to restore voting rights to those who were previously sentenced for felonies.
Democratic lawyers hope that the voter laws that are being heavily contested are placed on hold before November 3rd. Considering the current political atmosphere and the immense amount of voter suppression, this is a necessity for democracy and for people of color.
These lawsuits are just one step in a long battle for voting rights, a battle that is far from over. If Democratic lawyers are successful in these efforts, it will allow more marginalized groups to access the ballot box with ease.
It is our hope that these court proceedings will offer a glimmer of hope in an otherwise very gloomy political environment. We must keep fighting to ensure that everyone can have a say in this crucial election. [ad_1]
Mifepristone was accepted by the Foods and Drug Administration in 2000 to induce initial-trimester abortions in combination with a 2nd drug, misoprostol.
Mifepristone was accredited by the Meals and Drug Administration in 2000 to induce very first-trimester abortions in blend with a next drug, misoprostol.
A coalition of point out lawyers normal is suing the Food stuff and Drug Administration, accusing the agency of excessively regulating the abortion tablet mifepristone.
Mifepristone was accepted a lot more than 20 a long time back to induce very first-trimester abortions in mixture with a 2nd drug, misoprostol. The lawsuit, submitted in federal court in Washington state by a dozen Democratic state lawyers typical, asks the Fda to carry added levels of regulation earlier mentioned and past people for regular prescription medication.
It accuses the Food and drug administration “singling out mifepristone…for a distinctive established of limitations,” and asks the court docket to declare the drug to be secure and productive, and invalidate the further regulation, identified as a Chance Evaluation and Mitigation Technique or REMS.
In an job interview with NPR, Washington condition Lawyer Typical Bob Ferguson, who co-led the fit, noted that the REMS has been applied only to a couple dozen substantial-risk prescription prescription drugs.
“What we’re inquiring the court docket to do is take out people constraints and make access to this critical medicine additional readily available to females across the country,” Ferguson says.
Because it was authorized in 2000, mifepristone has been the subject matter of heated political discussion bordering abortion. For several years, reproductive legal rights advocates and major healthcare teams have pushed for eliminating the REMS. In current many years, the Biden administration has loosened some demands, enabling the drug to be shipped by mail and creating it less complicated for significant pharmacies to eventually dispense the drug. But prescribers are nonetheless matter to added principles this kind of as specific certification necessities.
The lawsuit comes as a federal decide in a separate scenario in Texas is thinking about no matter if to overturn the FDA’s acceptance of the abortion drug, location up the risk of conflicting rulings by different federal judges.
“So you can have two federal judges potentially on the lookout at the foreseeable future of mifepristone, whether to grow obtain to it or remove entry entirely,” Ferguson says.
He suggests the dilemma of how to regulate mifepristone could end up prior to the U.S. Supreme Court docket.
In a statement to NPR, Erik Baptist, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom, the anti-abortion authorized team main the mifepristone obstacle in Texas, mentioned that a group of Democratic attorneys general submitted a quick in that scenario supporting the FDA’s acceptance of the drug.
“We locate it really ironic that the exact same attorneys standard who filed an amicus transient in our circumstance two weeks in the past arguing that the FDA’s judgments have to not be next-guessed have now submitted a lawsuit in a unique court arguing just the specific reverse,” Baptist claims.
Main health care teams like the American Faculty of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Health care Association submitted an amicus short in the Texas situation calling mifepristone “thoroughly analyzed” and “conclusively safe and sound.”
An Fda formal states the company does not remark on ongoing litigation.