Journalist: abortion and politics. Cofounder @autonomynews.co. Seen in The New Republic, The Guardian, Slate, Mother Jones, MSNOW, Jezebel. WGAE Council. From PA, now in BK
[email protected]
Signal susanrinkunas.73
@nicholasgrossman.bsky.socialReposted by @susanrinkunas.comOssoff is acting like Trump/MAGA/GOP and what they’ve done to the country is Actually Bad. Charismatic and well spoken, which sure helps. But no “my friends across the aisle,” no acting like the imaginary “Baileys” are the only ones who matter, no “don’t talk values, only kitchen table.” That’s it.
@garnethenderson.com
@elizabethjacobs.bsky.social
@bradmossesq.bsky.social
@jakemgrumbach.bsky.social
@dsc250.bsky.social
@nbedera.bsky.social![screenshot from Louisiana v FDA complaint, filed October 6, 2025
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952.1.0_3.pdf
13. Defendants recently admitted that there was a “lack of adequate consideration” of the safety risks “underlying the prior REMS approvals,” including the decision to “remov[e] the in-person dispensing requirement.”4 Defendant Secretary Kennedy went so far as to concede that the “Biden administration removed mifepristone’s in-person dispensing rule without studying the safety risks.”5
14. Second, as Judge Ho recognized in Alliance II, the 2023 REMS also is contrary to law because it “violate[s] the Comstock Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1461–62, and [thus is] ‘not in accordance with law’ for that reason as well.” Id. at 267 (Ho, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). Among other things, the Comstock Act prohibits the mailing of “[e]very article or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” 18 U.S.C. § 1461. The Act also prohibits the use of “any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service” for “any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion.” Id.
§ 1462. Each one of these provisions covers, of course, precisely the mailing of mifepristone that the Biden Administration intentionally sought to facilitate through the 2023 REMS. So for that additional reason, the Court need only cite Judge Ho’s concurrence to “set aside the [2023 REMS] because it
4 Ex. 110, Letter from Robert F. Kennedy, Secretary of Health and Human Services, to Attorneys General at 1 (Sept. 19, 2025).
link to letter https://democracyforward.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Fda_Hhs_Letter-1.pdf
5 Ex. 108, Secretary Kennedy (@SecKennedy), X (Oct. 2, 2025, 5:44 PM), perma.cc/Q2SA-BJKS](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4fdfjfnhhyeo4hsmoxpeazsg/bafkreidvewv7oweo37xweewxh5qahmsdqr4ddlplglcls4ui32bjhor3ty@jpeg)
![ruling from Judge David Joseph on 4/7/26 pausing the Louisiana case until the completion of the FDA review and ordering an update on progress in six months, ie 10/7/26.
The Alliance III court’s reasoning is therefore due strong consideration in weighing Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits.
Further, HHS Secretary Kennedy and FDA Commissioner Makary essentially acknowledged APA [Administrative Procedure Act] procedural deficits with respect to mifepristone in their September 19, 2025, letter, stating that FDA’s intention to review the mifepristone... [page break]
regulatory framework was precipitated by “the **lack of adequate consideration** underlying the prior REMS approvals” and recent safety concerns. [Doc. 1-110]. Thus, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits of their 2023 REMS challenge.
[Not shown in screenshot] the FDA said in a filing this week they expect data in by December and review to be complete "not later than March"
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952/gov.uscourts.lawd.213952.278.0.pdf
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/fda-says-will-complete-safety-review-abortion-pill-march-rcna602161](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4fdfjfnhhyeo4hsmoxpeazsg/bafkreigyzsf73bfsfyey25el3uorehrmq5hoqgtd3uiafr3iy7odqixkqm@jpeg)
![screenshot of heavily redacted email chain about a letter that RFK Jr and former FDA Commissioner Marty Makary would send to Republican Attorneys General.
email sent on September 3, 2025 at 11:17 am from someone at EOP. “EOP” stands for “Executive Office of the President” and “eop.gov” is the email address for the White House.
Subject: RE: Reevaluation of Mifepristone
Hi all,
Please see attached edits from [name redacted]. Let me know if we need to discuss - can do a call this evening.
I would also like to request a briefing on the status of the FDA study design and proposed timelines. Thank you!
Best,
[name redacted]
HHS staffer replies to EOP address at 10:52 pm:
Thank you [name redacted]. We are reviewing this and will get this letter out asap. [name redacted], could you suggest some times for next week to meet with [name redacted]; the study. [name redacted] and I will do our best to accommodate.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4fdfjfnhhyeo4hsmoxpeazsg/bafkreiamv2hnrabbxmx5pl7ba24fe4xemt7ts4oeohseguzklopjo33spy)
![screenshot with some text highlighted in yellow
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
WHOLE WOMAN’S HEALTH ALLIANCE, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:23-cv-00019-RSB
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY MEMORANDUM IN FURTHER SUPPORT OF
RETAINING JURISDICTION PENDING REMAND TO FDA
Defendants do not dispute that this Court has the authority to retain jurisdiction over this case pending the completion of FDA’s mifepristone review. See ECF Doc. 101 at 4–5 (citing cases). Nor do they dispute that it would be improper for FDA to disregard the statutory factors that should guide its mifepristone review in favor of political considerations. Instead, **Defendants disparage Plaintiffs’ concern about political interference with FDA’s review as “unfounded speculation.”** ECF Doc. 102 at 4. **Far from it — Plaintiffs have the receipts.**
Last week, in response to a FOIA request, Plaintiffs’ counsel received a production of FDA documents that included **a September 3, 2025 email from an “eop.gov” email address asking FDA and HHS for “a briefing on the status of the FDA [mifepristone] study design and proposed timelines.” Exhibit A. “EOP” stands for “Executive Office of the President” and “eop.gov” is the email address for the White House.** An HHS employee agreed the agencies would “do our best to accommodate.” Id. This document confirms that the threat of political interference with FDA’s review of the scientific evidence is very real. This Court should exercise its authority to retain...
full docket
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67347356/whole-womans-health-alliance-v-united-states-food-and-drug-administration/?order_by=desc](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_fullsize/plain/did:plc:4fdfjfnhhyeo4hsmoxpeazsg/bafkreibuwvhboa5r7w25yinzg642ifjkeafamn2dcevu55xmkquw7vr4yy)