Federal judge in Texas
invalidating FDA approval of Mr.
Freestone,
a widely used drug
and medication abortion.
Speaking at the airport
in Nashville,
here's her initial response.
So the district
court in the abortion medication
decision came down today.
I haven't read it yet.
So I'm going to do an analysis of it.
But it's a general matter.
I'll say that
there is no question
that the president
and I are going to stand
with the women of America.
And do everything we can
to ensure that women
have the ability to make decisions
about their health care
and their reproductive health care
in a manner that is what they need
and they decide that,
not their government.
More reaction
now to that in a separate ruling
Washington State on the same drug
going in the opposite direction.
All of it
likely headed to the Supreme Court.
Joining us,
New York
Democratic Congresswoman
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.
Thanks so much for being with us.
When you've heard the news
this afternoon,
a couple hours ago, what did you think?
Well, you know,
I think rulings like this
and I think we've seen from the FDA
and and
also from activity in Congress that
some of these rulings there,
I think we've been preparing
and anticipating
for there
being these egregious overreaches
by members of the judiciary, appointed
by a right wing Republican Party,
whose goal
for a very long
time was to just pack
these courts with partizan judges, often
often
underqualified or completely unqualified
for these for their role.
And so there has been thought,
I believe,
given to this
Senator Ron
Wyden in has already issued statements,
for example,
advising what we should do in a situation
like this, which I concur, which is that
I believe that the Biden administration
should ignore this ruling.
I think that we you know,
the courts have the legitimacy
and they rely on the legitimacy
of their rulings
and what they are currently doing.
Is engaged in
an unprecedented and dramatic erosion
of the legitimacy of the courts.
They it is the justices themselves
through the deeply partizan
and unfounded nature of these rulings
that are
undermining their own enforcement.
So what you're saying
the Biden administration
should have ignored this court, but
what does that look like?
What does that actually mean?
You know, I think
the interesting thing when
it comes to a ruling
is that it relies on enforcement
and it is up to the Biden administration
to enforce,
to choose whether or not to enforce
such a ruling.
But is that do
we want to live
in a world
where the government
can decide to ignore?
Well, no, of course.
I mean, I do think that this
that it raises
a these important questions
And I do think that when we look at
and there are
serious questions
that the FDA and the Biden
administration
is going to have to figure out
in how exactly we map this out
But on the other hand,
what we are also seeing is it is a power
grab over our courts
in which
the laws
passed by Congress
and the rules and policies
passed by the executive branch.
Now, we're going to require
unanimous consent from 650 district
court judges many of which are appointed
with even, you know,
the American Bar Association
saying that they're completely
unfit for the role.
You know,
it is one of the things
that a lot of people didn't pay
that much attention
to during the Trump administration
because there were so many bizarre things
going on every day.
But Mitch McConnell was,
you know, getting judges appointed to
to the bench
who were the most conservative
judges possible.
And they weren't just conservative.
They were completely unqualified
And, you know,
the American Bar Association,
along with many other organizations,
they issue recommendations
or assessments.
Oftentimes, some of them are nonpartizan
about how qualified a candidate
may be to be nominated to the bench.
And many of them
were completely unqualified
and Republicans knowingly
put these folks on the bench
because they they
you know, the federal between nominations
with the Federalist Society
and other
organizations knew
that they would get outcomes like these.
And this is an effort to really subvert
the will of the American people
who elect their legislators
and who elect their leaders
to enact the policies
that they are accountable to.
I understand,
you know, people
having differences of opinions
on on on matters
like this of religious differences,
whatever it may be.
What's interesting me
at this judge, though,
the arguments he's making,
I mean, we just spoke to that physician,
the arguments
he's making about the medical concerns
just do not stand up to facts.
And that is exactly what
makes this ruling different.
This is not about a case
where a judge is calling
balls and strikes on
what is within
the bounds of the law
and not a precedent has been legal
and in the market for 23 is.
And it's not as if there is some
new study that has come out and said,
oh my gosh,
this is actually
this is like someone coming out
and a judge
just coming out
and outlawing Claritin or aspirin
or or plan B because they felt like it.
I mean
the contents of this judge's ruling
is frankly shocking.
And it should be appalling
to anyone who practices law
because it is so unfounded.
It is in insulting,
I believe, to any profession in the law
because it is
it is pure conjecture, pure conjecture.
As you mentioned,
there is no medical evidence.
There is no new study.
This is
this is a ruling that happened
because they could
because they wanted to.
So were you seeing Vice
President Harris saying,
you know, we're going to do
everything we can to stand,
you know,
to stop this, to stand by,
to stand with women?
You're saying that they should not
they should just ignore this judge?
I think I think what we need to see here
and we saw
and there is precedent for this
and the precedent for it
escalated in the Supreme Court
back, you know, 100 years ago
when there were these
mounting pressure is with
then FDR and the Supreme Court,
where the supreme
there was concern about the Supreme Court
truly expanding its reach
and abusing its power.
And when we have a system of checks
and balances,
there is the question of
who is the check on the Supreme Court.
You have the check on the presidency.
You have the check
on Congress to veto power
and you have the check on the presidency
with overriding,
you know, the check on
both with the with the Supreme Court
and ruling in their rulings.
But what is the check
on the Supreme Court?
And that is up to the president
of the United States and Congress.
I want to ask you about what
we saw in Tennessee last night.
Three legislators who took
part in a protest on the floor of the
state House,
not with protesters,
but on the actual floor
they had a bullhorn.
Clearly a violation
of the rules of decorum.
You know, not something legislators
normally do or would,
you know,
make sense
to have legislators
do for a good order
of actually hearing people's arguments.
That being said,
the punishment for two of them
was to be expelled
How do you see that?
Do you think that really
was about the rules of decorum
or something else?
We know that that it absolutely was not.
We know that.
And there is precedent for this
You know,
while protest is not a normal occurrence
on the House floor,
it happens all the time.
We saw
John Lewis
lead a sit in on the floor
of the of the United States Congress.
You saw the
you know, the on on seeming behavior
from House Republicans.
Even during the State of the Union
yelling and hooting
and hollering
from the National Republican Party
during the president's
State of the Union.
Were these people expelled or
was there even an ethics
question brought up to this?
No, there was not.
There was a shot. Right.
And so what we're also seeing here,
and there are so many levels
before expulsion, naturally,
there's even censure.
There is striking the word. There is.
So what was it about? Pardon?
What was it about?
I think this is about the fascist
takeover of our state houses
that Republicans have invested in
in the last several decades.
This is about a naked abuse of power.
This is about disinformation uprising.
This is about disenfranchizing Democrats
in a state in states
where there is extreme
levels of voter suppression.
And it was also about racism.
It was deeply about racism
from the comments.
The absolutely disrespectful
and denigrating comments
made to the black members that of
of the Tennessee House
to the fact that the that
these Republicans voted to expel
after charging 33 of these members.
They expelled
two black male legislators
and they voted to acquit in a way
or they voted to to not expel
the sole white woman Representive.
Gloria Johnson,
who has been a phenomenal
ally herself, raised this issue of race.
Yes.
And they have no defense
there is no defense.
And we have not heard
any rational explanation for why that is.
And and it's so important
that we recognize this for what it is
and that we see this for what it is,
because if we do not, then
we will not take the proper actions
to stop it.
Congresswoman Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez, thank you.
Thank you so much.