Get off the abortion, get off the abortion conversation.
Women have a whole lot more other issues than just abortion.
>> It's a little weird that Republican lawmakers end up succeeding in what
they've been wanting for so long for literally decades,
which is stripping women of their reproductive rights.
But then they realize how unpopular that is and
they don't want you to talk about it.
That's exactly what happened during Republican Congressman,
Tony Gonzales's interview on CNN over the weekend.
Just get off it, get off it, get off it.
Lots of interesting moments during that interview, but
I do wanna talk a little bit about what recently happened in regard to two
conflicting federal judge rulings on the abortion pill.
Before I do so, Cenk, go ahead.
>> Yeah, look, a consultant told him that line.
Some staffer told him get off the abortion conversation as soon as you can cuz
they've seen the polling that is disastrous.
He wasn't supposed to say that out loud during the interview,
but he just went with whatever the last person told him.
And you have to realize when the thing that,
of course you're never going to see in mainstream media is most of
the politicians are unintelligent cuz that's how the donors want them.
They don't want them to be independent thinking, and brilliant, and interesting,
and creative.
They say, here's the check, now do as you're goddamn told.
So the dumber the politician is the happier the donor is.
That's why you get knuckleheads like Tony Gonzales going on TV going,
I was told to get off the abortion conversation.
Wait, did I say that out loud?
Yes, you did, Tony.
Yes, you did.
>> Now, he went on Dana Bash's show over the weekend to talk about the fact
that there was a federal judge, a Trump appointed judge in Texas who decided
to vote against or rule against the FDA's approval of one of the abortion drugs.
And so that would effectively reverse the approval for it if he has his way and
that would outlaw one of the abortion drugs throughout the entire country.
I wanna give you the details on that in just a moment.
Now, for those of you who might wonder who is this judge?
Well, we've heard about him before.
He has had some pretty terrible rulings against our freedoms before,
his name is judge Matthew Kacsmaryk.
He ruled to suspend the FDA approval of mifepristone,
which again, is one of two drugs used during the abortion process.
If a woman wants to go the route of taking medication as opposed
to having the procedure done in a clinic.
Now, U.S District judge Matthew Kacsmaryk a Trump appointee,
as I mentioned earlier, ordered a hold on federal approval of mifepristone in
a decision that overruled decades, literally decades of scientific approval.
The abortion drug has been widely used in the United States
since securing FDA approval.
And there is essentially no precedent for a lone judge overruling the medical
decisions of the food and drug administration.
Now, there was a conflicting ruling that I wanna get to because I think that
conflicting ruling by another federal judge really throws this
issue in the air and which direction the Biden administration is willing to go in
is really, really interesting.
But for those who wonder how did this even come about?
Well, there was a lawsuit in the Texas case that was filed by
the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is a hilarious name and
obviously not at all what this group wants.
They don't want freedom, they wanna strip women of their reproductive rights.
They were also involved in the Mississippi case that led to the reversal of
Roe V Wade.
At the core of that lawsuit is the allegation that the FDA's
initial approval of mifepristone was flawed because it
allegedly did not adequately review its safety risks.
So the judge completely agreed with that saying the court does not
second guess FDA's decision making lightly, but
here FDA acquiesced on its legitimate safety concerns.
In violation of its statutory duty based on plainly unsound reasoning and
studies that did not support its conclusions.
Now, if you're wondering, is, is this drug unsafe?
Well, mifepristone has been used by millions of women over the past 23 years,
and complications from it occur at a lower rate than that seen with wisdom,
teeth removal, colonoscopies, and other routine medical procedures.
Medical groups have recently noted.
Cenk.
>> Yeah, it's actually also safer than Tylenol and Viagra.
So, are we going to reverse the FDA ruling on Tylenol?
On Viagra?
God forbid, of course not.
Don't be ridiculous that affects men not women, who cares about women?
So, but look guys, the ruling is preposterous.
So one judge anywhere in the country, and by the way will not stand,
there's no way it stands and I'll tell you why.
But one judge in the country, Liberal or Conservative,
Extreme left, Extreme, right, it doesn't matter, can say, all right,
the entire executive branch is wrong.
But they didn't use the studies to see if they got it right,
they've got teams of science etc.
I don't care, I'm a religious sell up pretending to be smart,
by the way, a bunch of words solid there that didn't actually make any sense.
>> Right, exactly.
>> Okay, though he used the words wrong.
So he's like, I am a sophisticated Jeff.
No, you're not, you're just a religious zealot who wants to ban abortion and
will do these absurd precedents.
So, hey, right wingers, you want any left wing judge in the country to be able to
overturn any Republican executive branch actions?
Okay, no, this is gonna devolve really quickly.
So, it's absurd what he's done here and the reason that it won't stand,
because then leftist judges, right wing judges on vaccines, etc.
Can start banning all sorts of drugs all on their own.
Okay, I don't need scientists, I don't need anything.
I don't like it, no, I don't like it.
Okay, I'm gonna ban it.
Well, guess what's gonna happen then?
The drug companies are gonna descend on Washington and go,
you better remove those judges cuz this is now interfering with corporate rule and
corporate rules this country.
So, >> That's actually the only argument that
gives me a little bit of relief.
>> There's no way the drug companies allow this to stand.
>> That's exactly right because look, it's not about what's right or wrong.
I don't think our politicians give a damn about that.
>> No way.
>> Right?
But they do give a damn about their donors and pharmaceutical companies, big pharma,
happens to be one of the top donors for both Democrats and Republicans.
There's no way in hell they're gonna allow this to stand.
>> No nationwide, it's pharma's number one donor in Washington.
Okay, so you think they're gonna let the politicians let this stand?
There's no way they're telling all their dogs as we speak now,
get that guy under control.
That's why you're seeing Republicans like Nancy Mays going on TV, going,
maybe we shouldn't listen to this ruling.
Really?
Interesting.
Yeah, no way, big business is gonna kill this.
And I don't agree with big business running our country.
I hate it, but it will be a slight silver lining in this case.
>> And we'll get to Nancy Mays a little later.
But I wanted to give you some more information about this,
including Republicans on one hand, pretending that the reproductive fights
have everything to do with states rights, and then turning around and pushing for
exactly what would essentially ban certain forms of abortion nationally.
So let's go back to Representative Tony Gonzales because Dana Bash asked him
about the whole state's rights argument and
he really had difficulty answering any of her questions.
Let's watch.
>> I believe in state rights.
Here in Texas, we have a heart bill, a heartbeat bill that was passed.
And I think it's important that states dictate their futures and
we have to have the courts uphold these.
>> He said that you want this to be states' rights.
But isn't a federal judge saying on a national level that a bill
cannot be administered the opposite of states' rights?
>> Well, the states started this, the states had their ruling and
now the federal government is coming in and dictating theirs.
I think it's important that we have to get back and allow our institutions to lead.
We can't undermine them when we don't agree with things that are there,
whether it's on the state level.
Look, I'm from Texas, we don't have marijuana here.
Marijuana is in California and other places.
If those are the kind of things that your community wants,
then work it through your state, work it through the federal level.
But we have to uphold our institutions.
It's dangerous when we erode them.
>> Yeah, except he didn't answer the question at all and
pretended, like moving over to the pot argument.
Yeah, some states have legalized it, whether it's for medicinal use or
recreational use.
This decision by a federal judge in Texas would outlaw
the use of mifepristone nationwide.
So it's not a states' rights issue for the right wing.
They've been working real hard to ban abortion throughout the country, period.
And this is a good example of that.
>> It wasn't just a non answer.
It was the exact wrong answer.
>> Yeah, I know.
>> So when the federal judge in this case says, I'm gonna ban this drug,
not just in states that have passed laws against abortion, but
also in places like California that have different laws that allow for abortion.
He's saying I don't give a goddamn about your state's rights, I'm banning it
nationwide and blue states are not allowed to have states' rights anymore.
This knucklehead comes on here and goes, well,
look, if California wants to do something, let them do it, right?
Marijuana, but we're not doing it here in Texas.
You're making the opposite argument, idiot.
>> I know he's just not very bright.
>> No, I'm telling you, man.
>> It's pretty incredible.
Now, I wanna also know this incredibly important statistic.
So you really comprehend how much of an impact this is gonna have on women
all across the country if this federal judges ruling remains in place.
So the Kaiser Health Foundation found that 54%, more than half of abortions
in this country are in fact conducted through medication abortion, right?
So 54% more than half of the women who rely on the medication
in order to abort their pregnancies will no longer have that ability,
that option will not be available.
And the so called,
I don't even wanna call them pro-life because they're clearly not pro-life.
And a lot of what they push for actually causes harm both to women and children.
But aside from that, let me just note, they wanna do away with both drugs.
So right now,
they succeeded with mifepristone with this one federal judge's decision.
They're going after the second drug as well.
So they're going full steam ahead, they're not pausing at all.
This is something that they've been fired up about and I'm curious to see how it
plays out cuz there is a conflicting ruling by another federal judge and
I wanna go to this next video that gives you more details on that.
Here's Sarah Varney, who's the senior correspondent for Kaiser Health News.
>> The other decision came from Washington State, and
this was actually a challenge brought by Democratic attorneys general essentially
saying that mifepristone was in fact overregulated.
And the judge there in Washington State, a federal judge said that he didn't
necessarily agree with the attorneys general that it was over restrictive.
But he did say the FDA had to continue to provide mifepristone at the status quo in
those states in which the attorneys general represented.
>> So since there are two very conflicting rulings,
it's really up in the air what happens in the coming weeks.
And more importantly what the Democratic Party is planning to do to fight back.
Okay, and there's some interesting proposals that we'll get to.
But Cenk, thoughts on that.
>> So first of all, the reason that Tony Gonzales put in the States
rights argument is because they do mad lib with these things,
their consultants to teach these idiot politicians, hey, when abortion comes up
either try to change the conversation but don't say it out loud, dumb ass.
Number two is states claim states rights, but in this case, States rights is in
the opposite direction, but he can't tell cuz he's not that bright, right?
So he just does the mad lib argument of states' rights and gets busted on it.
But it's kind of true for all of their arguments.
So when you say like in this case,
you don't remember what the right wing was saying.
Freedom, when it came to vaccines.
You all, my body, my choice, I don't want that inside of me.
You could, the government can't make me do it, right?
Now, they're saying, you wanna take a pill?
No, not your body, not your choice.
The government should decide what goes in your body and
what doesn't not you personally.
The fact that they can't see that that's hypocritical is amazing to me.
>> Yeah, but let's go even further Cenk because the vaccine,
I agree with that argument that you just made but
something that's even less invasive and I don't think the vaccine was.
But even less meaning that you don't put anything in your body was the mask, right?
Wearing a mask was, my God, the biggest violation of personal autonomy,
an agency over your own body.
People are freaking out about it.
But a lot of those same politicians now turn around and say no, we don't really
care about women having any agency over their own bodies, any autonomy.
We're gonna go ahead and make decisions on their behalf,
which of course has a major lasting impact on these women's lives.
>> 100%, and so that's why you can't really take anything these guys
say seriously because they don't have any principles or ideology.
Their ideology is, and look here,
they even betrayed their core principle of states' rights.
That's the thing they said, that's the one they even won the war,
civil war over states' rights.
It was never about states' rights, back then it was about oppressing black people.
That's about oppressing women.
That's the defining ideology of a right winger is I'm above you.
Anything that says I'm above you, I love it.
It's all about power, it's not about principles or ideology.
So, >> Yeah,
if a Republican politician is speaking, it's probably a good idea to assume
they're lying and the state's rights issue is a perfect example of how they lie.
Now, I wanna go to what happens next, right?
Because the Department of Justice is planning to appeal this ruling,
meaning the federal judge in Texas, not the Washington judge or
the judge based in Washington.
And so this could potentially end in a tragic
way if it works its way through the courts.
Let's watch how.
>> The Texas case now goes to the Conservative Fifth Circuit.
But in the short term, the drug is still available.
It's unclear whether the Washington State ruling, which asks for
the medication to be kept on the market will also be appealed.
If both are heard at the circuit level,
it's unlikely this will be resolved in the courts any time soon.
>> I would not expect there to be much change in the actual law for
at least several months, perhaps upwards of a year.
With the Supreme Court, which currently has a Conservative majority watching to
see how that plays out.
>> What is most likely to happen is that there will be a split in the circuit.
So the fifth circuit will rule one way,
the ninth circuit will rule a different way.
And the Supreme Court will say, now, there is a conflict between two circuits and
that means we should probably hear this case and decide the issue on the merits.
>> I mean, we'd like to think that the soporific makes its way to
the Supreme Court.
We'd like to think that the Supreme Court would rule based on its merits.
I don't believe that the Supreme Court as it stands today.
Really, there are several members that I don't believe rule on merits of cases,
but the pro-corporate flavor that you have in the Supreme Court with
these right wing justices might end up saving us at the end of the day.
But that's really the only thing I see happening.
>> Yeah, look, I'm gonna do a fun prediction here.
I predicted Alito and Thomas say, when it eventually makes it to the Supreme Court,
that the drug should be banned, okay?
Because Clarence Thomas is going to hilariously claim that he knows better
than all the scientists in the country, okay.
And which by the way is a very right wing thing to do.
They don't believe any of the scientists,
any of the doctors ,don't believe any goddamn thing other than Rando,
like Clarence Thomas on his yacht or wherever he is.
Okay, so they're going to rule that way.
But I think Gorsuch and Kavanagh will rule against the Texas judge and
will say that the drug should not be banned.
And the reason for that is because Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are deeply pro-corporate.
And so when the drug companies say, hey,
these stupid ass judges can interfere with our profits, you better get them in check.
I think Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will get them in check,
cuz they're corporate servants.
So now it's a fun prediction, right?
Those are all four of those are very, very right wing like every other reporter in
the country even the ones that cover the Supreme Court say, I can't tell, okay?
Let's see if I'm right or wrong about it, it'll be interesting to watch.
But I think the Supreme Court is not going to side with the right wing judge
in Texas because they were preselected by the federalist society to yes,
be religious zealots.
And that's why you have the leaders and Thomases,.
much more importantly to be in favor of big business and this touches big business
cuz it means any judge can overrule any drug in the country and
they're not gonna let it stand.