The Los Angeles Times reports today on the strange tale of methotrexate:
Methotrexate is a cheap, common drug prescribed to millions of Americans.... Many have rheumatic illnesses. Others take it to treat inflammatory bowel disease, psoriasis or cancer.... In low doses, it has proved to be one of the safest, least expensive and most effective treatments for roughly a dozen autoimmune conditions, from juvenile idiopathic arthritis to Crohn’s disease.
“It’s one of the most common medications that I prescribe,” said Dr. Grant Schulert, a pediatric rheumatology specialist at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. “It’s really a mainstay of our practice.”
Sounds great. So what's the problem?
Methotrexate is a folate antagonist, which can cause miscarriage at high doses. Although it is not used in medication abortion, it is the preferred treatment for ectopic pregnancy, a rapidly fatal complication that affects about 100,000 patients per year in the U.S.
....Those patients represent about 2% of the 5 million Americans who take methotrexate. Yet this uncommon, off-label use is the basis for tight new restrictions on a medication that is disproportionately prescribed to women and girls of reproductive age.
In states that have banned abortion, methotrexate is also banned. Even in some states that haven't banned abortion, methotrexate is either banned or extremely difficult to get.
This is thanks to a few lunatics who think that somehow it's possible to treat an ectopic pregnancy instead of ending it. All because there have been something like four or five cases of a fetus surviving an ectopic pregnancy out of 3 billion pregnancies over the past couple of decades.
For that, millions of women will be denied methotrexate for a wide range of autoimmune diseases. Fucking idiots.
Now this is a law they could try passing at the federal level. It should at a bare minimum
1. Protect abortions in the cases of rape, incest, or to severe endangerment of a mother's health.
2. Provide a safe harbor from prosecution or litigation for doctors who perform the above.
3. Provide a safe harbor for doctors and pharmacists who prescribe medication that might cause miscarriage for other purposes.
1) Democrats should definitely do what you suggest.
2) We should all expect the Supreme Court to find a BS pretext to strike down such a law (some type of states' right thing, though they'll obviously steer wide of such language).
But that got me thinking: Article 3 plainly gives Congress the power to limit the jurisdiction of courts. Why isn't this done more often? Or it ever done at all? Did Congress way back when just lose its balls when it comes to the courts?
Paging Mitch...
There is a very thoughtful discussion of how the Court can be limited by an active Congress. The Court doesn't have the last word. https://slate.com/podcasts/amicus/2022/07/the-history-and-tradition-of-political-hackery-at-the-supreme-court
What we need is a bolder, more united Democratic Party, and more Democrats in Senate and House.
Demonstrations alone will not solve this problem.
No, but I hope that they stir up more people who don't always vote in midterms to GOTV.
Millions of women, you say. Denied proper medical treatment, you say. I can't help but wonder, are these millions of women eligible to vote?
It's not as if a lot of women haven't been voting regularly, especially Black women. But it is increasingly difficult to elect good candidates in the many states where Republicans have been taking over legislatures & then increasing the gerrymandering &voter suppression methods to block the effects of Democratic votes. Having had the experience of a poll worker trying to block me, I won't simply insist the next time,but will contact authorities right then & there for the ouster of the person. Yes, they are "volunteers" - but paid ones.
I was under the impression that women were not only allowed to vote, but also to run for office. If you don't have good candidates to vote for, find some. "Millions of women" ought to be enough to turn at least a few elections even in gerrymandered districts. And by the way, men also suffer from autoimmune disorders and cancer, so if methotrexate is banned, that affects them too.
Many years ago I heard about an election in Chicago in which the incumbents were coasting to an easy victory. Then a snowstorm hit and it took a few days to clear the streets. People were so incensed that they voted the incumbents out of office. If a temporary inconvenience can do that, what should we expect from legislation that has a permanent adverse effect on many people's health?
Something about this does not compute. I keep reading about the dire effects of banning abortion, not just on pregnant women but on just about every woman of child-bearing age. And quite a few people who are not women of child-bearing age have daughters, wives and girlfriends who are. Yet legislature after legislature if passing these laws, apparently with no worries whatever about electoral consequences. How can that be? Too many people are affected for gerrymandering and vote suppression to be the explanation.
I'm surprised & puzzled that you began with needlessly pointing out that if we lack good women candidates, worn may run for office! And neither those insights nor pointing out that some men also suffer from conditions for which this medication is prescribed was in response to anything that I said.
Perhaps mentioning the actual difficulties encountered by some of us - men & women alike- in many states didn't register with you as an overwhelming aspect of why my are experiencing minority rule, but I can't apologize for that. It is an immense block to more reasonable & liberal voters being able to elect qualified legisators instead of those without any desire to represent all of their constituents in a reasonable manner.
Too bad that it's not as easy to overcome today's politicians, judges & justices who violate all norms as easily as people angered about snow removal or gas prices decide to base their votes on those issues - or as "easily" as the Republican Party persuaded Nixon to resign, but we are living in a different era & extreme circumstances.
I'm not denying that there are obstacles to voting. However, in red states, and those that are gerrymandered to ensure Republican dominated legislatures, voter suppression is mostly aimed at people who are likely to vote for Democrats. But it seems to me that it's not just Democratic women of child-bearing age who are affected, but many Republican women as well, not to mention Republican husbands, fathers, and mothers of such women. It should be that at least some of them might be willing to vote the other way, at least once. Enough to flip a few districts, anyway. You might need to connect the dots for these people so that they see the relation between what's happening and who's doing it. But it does seem to be a good opportunity for pro-choice people and Democrats (they're more or less the same these days) to expand their base. As Kevin Drum has said, several times, in other contexts, the structure of American government is such that if you can't win more often in currently red states, you're doomed.
Oh and by the way, you only need to win one statewide election (Governor and legislature) to undo the gerrymandering as well as the vote suppression. And you don't need to win in every red state. Just a few will tip the scales.
Have you actually lived in a southern "Republican" state for long? Those people often vote against their own best interests (yes, "owning the libs" is a lot of their incentive). And I do not expect gerrymandering to be overturned by simply electing Democrats next time, given that a full change will not occur before the next census. And I knew without you or Kevin Drum saying it, that we need to "win more often in red states." Easier said than done, if it isn't obvious to all as even availability of drop boxes & mail-in ballots are being
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have Republican legislatures but have Democratic governors and voted for Biden. The first two have pre-Roe abortion bans on the books that could be repealed if they had a Democratic legislature. Pennsylvania only needs a Republican governor to pass an abortion ban. None of them are Southern states.
Georgia has a Republican governor and legislature but voted for Biden and elected two Democratic Senators. It just passed a six week abortion ban. Arizona has a Republican governor and legislature and a pre-Roe abortion ban, but it voted for Biden. North Carolina has a Democratic governor and has been trending Democratic, although Biden narrowly lost in 2020. However it has a Republican legislature. I could go on. Texas is Republican but it has a lot of Democratic voters, and it just passed one of the most abusive abortion laws in the country.
It seems to me that at least a few seats in a few of those legislatures could potentially be flipped. But maybe I'm wrong. Anyway, if you're absolutely convinced that nearly all of the people who would need to change their vote would rather die of cancer or be crippled by rheumatoid arthritis than vote against a politician who is determined to force that result on them, I can't blame you for giving up.
@Keith B
Thanks to the superstitions of many "conservative" American voters, they think Democrats are in league with Satan. I'm not joking or exaggerating about this. They really believe it, which is why they seem to be voting "against their own interests." They think they are voting against Lucifer himself, and if it means they can't get methotrexate, well, so be it.
Undoubtedly true of many people. However, some may be reachable, and a few percentage points can make a huge difference. You need to make a showing even in areas where you don't think you have much of a chance. You can't predict when the opposition will nominate someone so bad (like Roy Moore) that even Alabama might elect a Democrat. I never expected Georgia to elect two Democratic senators, but here they are.
(Continued) are being overtured
Hi we all voted for Hillary Clinton but we had to listen to paunchy pasty white poster guys for ED drugs and Matt Lauer tell the world how she doesn't inspire anyone and then we had to listen to unemployed dope smoking walking venerial diseased brogressives tell us how Bernie woulda won.
“Then a snowstorm hit and it took a few days to clear the streets.”
This sounds like total bullshit to this former resident of Chicago. In over a decade of living there, the city shutdown exactly once for snow, and that was for a single day not “days.”
I believe the actual story is that a mayor one time in perhaps the 1980s failed to clear the streets within 24 hours after a particularly bad snowstorm, and they were voted out the next general election in November partially because of that.
It was much more than a decade ago. I didn't remember, but I managed to find it. The winner was Jane Byrne, first female mayor of Chicago, and it was in 1979. You can read about it here:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/nation-world/chi-chicagodays-byrne-story-story.html
There's also a Wikipedia article on Byrne that discusses the 1979 blizzard and election:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Byrne
1979?
That anecdote is older than "Democrats in disarray", which was taken from an article about the 1980 Democrat Convention on August 24, 1980.
There's a potentially interesting effect inherent in the mathematics of gerrymandering. To put it very simply, the party benefitting from gerrymandering does so because they win lots of districts by relatively small margins while the disadvantaged party wins less districts but by much larger margins. That means that a relatively small swing in voter preferences in favor of the disadvantaged party can cost the other party lots of seats.
Whether looking at districts here or elsewhere, I don't see much chance of Democrats winning over enough of the opposition in any districts to turn them "blue" for even one election cycle, but course hope springs eternal - or so some say! In this state, i wish to never again visit a friend there (someone from the UK, impervious to the locals' biases) or attend a friend's graduation (someone from another state). Very unfriendly to visitors, too many nasty bumper stickers & guns. Warner picked up some votes there to win the governor's race long ago, but only with a willingness to go for NRA supporters - not advisable.
If they're white, they'll just suffer their ailments if the People of Color have it worse.
Yes, and the public opinion polls since Dobbs say that there is a substantial shift in favor of the Democrats.
I've never been persuaded that the upcoming mid-terms favored the Republicans as much as the pundits have been saying; since Dobbs, I can see a blue wave coming, especially if inflation continues to moderate.
I take Methyltrexate as an adjunct to my Remicade infusion, it helps suppress the antibodies created to diminish the primary drug. I had no idea about it’s place in abortions and live in CA, so. I danger here, but it actually exposes the weaker flank of the anti abortion crowd
Can Congress pass a law that forbids state legislators making medical decisions in legislation?
This is just one small side effect of the influence of that group of religious fundamentalists but devastating and not just for women of fertile age. Your Congress is paralyzed due to your nonfunctional Constitution and that’s why they are able to turn the clock back to 1789
Peering through the mists of time, the current right-wingnut majority of your Supreme Court sure can divine the original ideas of some very dead upper class slave owners
Which brings us to one of their last decisions in a very long list of reactionary and repressive opinions last month….their willingness to hear arguments about the fringe notion that state legislatures can set their own rules for federal elections. That includes picking whoever they want for president disregarding the results of the election if the result doesn’t please them. Also remember that state legislature’s rules on federal elections cannot be vetoed by the governor and they cannot be reviewed by state or federal courts
This just happens to have been the big wet dream of one Donald Trump in the weeks after he definitively lost the presidential election of 2020.
Who needs messy democracy when you can just have Republican rule?
This will be a piece of cake in 2024 for the Republicans since many of the state legislatures have been gerrymandered into huge Republican majorities – and the electoral college skews power towards smaller states
Have a nice day from your Swedish friend
Too true. The really horrific part is where, once an organized, single-minded party takes control, it can override all the so-called "checks'n'balances" and perpetuate its own rule. Gerrymandering. Supreme Court decisions. Blocking all legislation they don't like, while ramming through things that perpetuate their own power and kneecap their enemies.
It's like when ants invade the kitchen. Just try to get 'em all out. The Federalist Papers thought that nearly everyone running for office would be a good man (this was 1789), and that the voters wouldn't elect a bad man, at least, not often. Even then, the traditions and customs of the democratic government would soon remove them from power.
The guys who drafted the Constitution didn't really consider "political parties" very seriously, even though parties instantly formed. They certainly didn't plan for one of the parties going all-in on corruption. This generation has learned better, but due to the structure of the 1789-vintage Constitution, it seems near impossible to amend it anymore -- because the evil men are de facto in charge, in spite of the other side nominally having the majority.
"For that, millions of women will be denied methotrexate for a wide range of autoimmune diseases. Fucking idiots."
Unless I'm misunderstanding something, isn't the article stating that this drug will now be banned/harder to get for everyone, not just women?
Only women can get pregnant, so there would not be any restrictions on male users.
I have a solution though, (a) require all women who need the medication to endure an internal ultrasound examination by the State, to make sure there is not already a Citizen in that womb, (b) followed by a State mandated chastity belt for as long as the birthing machine (aka woman / girl) is taking the meds.
Those with an ectopic pregnancy will simply have to sacrifice their lives for the infinitesimally small chance that the fetus will survive.
According to the LA Times article some doctors and pharmacies have decided to stop prescribing the drug altogether.
Guys will start selling their drugs on the street--you can never be too careful.
Calling them lunatics is too kind.
If they were ordinary people outside the protected status of Supreme Court justices they could be sued or jailed outright for causing this much injury.
Careful! The Kavanaugh simps will start swatting efforts against you if you pushback too much.
If you were/are similarly wondering about the "disproportionate" bit there in what Kevin has included, and how it is juxtaposed with uncommon, the next paragraph in the article may help clear things up:
Eh, people will just find a way to blame Biden for making it impossible to get their meds. Republicans are simply bathed in political teflon -- they pay no price for anything no matter how horrible they are.
Then make them pay the price.
This one seems like a no-brainer to jump on. I think as long as we don't have to clear brogressive purity bars for what constitutes valuable activism and legislation, we can fight back with a million cuts.
I honestly lose sleep lately over wondering when my daughter's meds will be outlawed for women of child bearing age. It seems a long shot but if I read the fine print on her meds, its clear that they are not indicated for pregnancy as they may not support normal fetal development. And she knows that if she would like to get pregnant, like, you know, on purpose because she is, like, in a stable relationship with some economic security, she has to go off these meds and pay out the whazoo for a high risk ObGyn. Well, she doesn't know that yet because she is only 18, but I know it for her.
My question is do we focus on methotrexate, or do we focus on what the anti-methotrexate laws suggest-that women are vessles for fetuses (or the domestic supply of infants) and are therefore not allowed to make any health or medical decisions just in case they are passively impregnated which I guess is something that they are not allowed to control. By the way, thanks a lot to anyone that didnt vote in the 2010 midterms and couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton because something something donor class something something $12.50 something Iraq.
The Progressive Case for Withholding Medical Treatment from Women.
by Elizabeth Bruenig
My mother had an ectopic pregnancy, it nearly killed her as she was living in the bush of Alaska at the time. It rendered her sterile.
My sister (she and I were both adopted) also had an ectopic pregnancy. It was so noteworthy that pictures of her insides are now in medical books (anonymously of course). The fetus implanted on her small colon.
So...I have no patience for people who outlaw treating this. None. They want to kill my mother and my sister.