Welcome to this episode of Sister Sidebar with Barb McQuaid and me, Kim Atkins

Store. If you have a question for us, please email us at sisters-in-law at politicon.com. Or you can tag us

on social media and ask your questions there.

But don't forget, we don't just have to, you know, take what you type.

We can hear what you say.

Just record a voice note on your phone and send it to Sisters-in-law at politicon.com.

And we may play your question in your voice right here on sister

sidebar. We want to hear you. It's like you're having a conversation with us. So try that as well.

So let's get started. Barb, I'm going to start with you with a question from Lindy.

Hello, sisters. Love the shows. This is Lindy from the Chicago suburbs. My question reflects my confusion about the Fifth Circuit Court's ruling requiring an in-person visit to a health

care provider to obtain Methapristone and the Supreme Court's temporary stay of that ruling. I thought an earlier

Supreme Court ruling had limited the lower court's power to issue nationwide injunctions. Could you

explain how all this fits together? Thank you. Lindsay, that is such a good question. In fact, when

this decision came down, I had the same question myself,

which is, wait a minute, I thought the Supreme Court has struck down universal or nationwide injunctions.

How is that still a thing? But the answer is, in that case, that was the CASA case, it was an early

iteration of the birthright citizenship case, this procedural issue.

What they said is that ordinarily there should not be nationwide or universal injunctions

unless they are necessary to provide full relief that is sought by the plaintiffs in that

particular case. And so here, this did meet that exception

because the state of Louisiana was suing to block the Food and Drug Administration

from what it claims is an unlawful regulation. That is the rule that allows the distribution

...