Latest news with #Roevs.Wade
Los Angeles Times
2 days ago
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
California petitions FDA to undo RFK Jr.'s new limits on abortion pill mifepristone
California and three other states petitioned the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Thursday to ease its new restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone, citing the drug's proven safety record and arguing the new limits are unnecessary. 'The medication is a lifeline for millions of women who need access to time-sensitive, critical healthcare — especially low-income women and those who live in rural and underserved areas,' said California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta, who filed the petition alongside the attorneys general of Massachusetts, New York and New Jersey. The petition cites Senate testimony by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last month, in which Kennedy said he had ordered FDA administrator Martin Makary to conduct a 'complete review' of mifepristone and its labeling requirements. The drug, which can be received by mail, has been on the U.S. market for 25 years and taken safely by millions of Americans, according to experts. It is the most common method of terminating a pregnancy in the U.S., with its use surging after the Supreme Court overturned Roe vs. Wade in 2022. The Supreme Court upheld access to the drug for early pregnancies under previous FDA regulations last year, but it has remained a target of anti-abortion conservatives. The Trump administration has given Kennedy broad rein to shake up American medicine under his 'Make America Healthy Again' banner, and Kennedy has swiftly rankled medical experts by using dubious science — and even fake citations — to question vaccine regimens and research and other longstanding public health measures. At the Senate hearing, Kennedy cited 'new data' from a flawed report pushed by anti-abortion groups — and not published in any peer-reviewed journal — to question the safety of mifepristone, calling the report 'alarming.' 'Clearly, it indicates that, at very least, the label should be changed,' Kennedy said. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) on Monday posted a letter from Makary to X, in which Makary wrote that he was 'committed to conducting a review of mifepristone' alongside 'the professional career scientists' at the FDA. Makary said he could not provide additional information given ongoing litigation around the drug. The states, in their 54-page petition, wrote that 'no new scientific data has emerged since the FDA's last regulatory actions that would alter the conclusion that mifepristone remains exceptionally safe and effective,' and that studies 'that have frequently been cited to undermine mifepristone's extensive safety record have been widely criticized, retracted, or both.' Democrats have derided Kennedy's efforts to reclassify mifepristone as politically motivated and baseless. 'This is yet another attack on women's reproductive freedom and scientifically-reviewed health care,' Gov. Gavin Newsom said the day after Kennedy's Senate testimony. 'California will continue to protect every person's right to make their own medical decisions and help ensure that Mifepristone is available to those who need it.' Bonta said Thursday that mifepristone's placement under the FDA's Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy program for drugs with known, serious side effects — or REMS — was 'medically unjustified,' unduly burdened patient access and placed 'undue strain on the nation's entire health system.' He said mifepristone 'allows people to get reproductive care as early as possible when it is safest, least expensive, and least invasive,' is 'so safe that it presents lower risks of serious complications than taking Tylenol,' and that its long safety record 'is backed by science and cannot be erased at the whim of the Trump Administration.' The FDA has previously said that fewer than 0.5% of women who take the drug experience 'serious adverse reactions,' and deaths are exceedingly rare. The REMS program requires prescribers to add their names to national and local abortion provider lists, which can be a deterrent for doctors given safety threats, and pharmacies to comply with complex tracking, shipping and reporting requirements, which can be a deterrent to carrying the drug, Bonta said. It also requires patients to sign forms in which they attest to wanting to 'end [their] pregnancy,' which Bonta said can be a deterrent for women using the drug after a miscarriage — one of its common uses — or for those in states pursuing criminal penalties for women seeking certain abortion care. Under federal law, REMS requirements must address a specific risk posed by a drug and cannot be 'unduly burdensome' on patients, and the new application to mifepristone 'fails to meet that standard,' Bonta said. The states' petition is not a lawsuit, but a regulatory request for the FDA to reverse course, the states said. If the FDA will not do so nationwide, the four petitioning states asked that it 'exercise its discretion to not enforce the requirements' in their states, which Bonta's office said already have 'robust state laws that ensure safe prescribing, rigorous informed consent, and professional accountability.'
Perth Now
27-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Perth Now
Dame Helen Mirren warns women against society's 'desire to repress'
Dame Helen Mirren warns there is still a "desire to repress women". The 79-year-old British actress has revealed her "fear" for women in the United States, especially after the decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade in 2022, overturned in 2022, which left millions in the US without the constitutional right to abortion. She told WWD: 'My great fear is that with the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and what's happening in America in general, you realise that lurking in the back is always this need, this desire to repress women. 'You think of the way women were treated under Stalin, under Hitler. It was 'get back there, have babies, and shut up. Be pretty, be sexy, have babies, and then shut up about everything else'. 'I keep thinking it can't take over, because women have come so far." The Hollywood veteran isn't fazed by aging, but she wishes she would "live longer" to experience the full impact of change she waited decades for. She explained: 'The one reason I do wish I was younger is I would like to live longer to see, because I've waited 50 years for the changes to happen that I thought should happen when I was 16 or 17 years old.' Helen also wants to continue to see change in the film industry, despite acknowledging "a desire to see youth and beauty". She said: 'There will always be a desire to see youth and beauty on the screen. I mean, I feel the same, quite honestly. 'But I think it's the broadening of the stories that we tell. Casting then follows. "People are living longer, and as people live longer, they have stories to tell. Between 50 and 100 years old, there are obviously roles for men and women.' She insisted progress has been made in recent years, with more varied stories being told beyond "a man's eyes". She added: 'For all of my life, up to like 20 years ago, if I went to the movies, I only ever saw a vision of the world and culture and human relationships and stories and romance and adventure that was seen through a man's eyes. 'Now we're seeing women's view of the world about us. I think it's really surprising a lot of people. "I think they thought women would just make movies about romance and dogs or something. They are doing amazing, challenging, difficult, shocking stuff. It's great.'
Yahoo
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: There's no neutral language to describe horrific actions
Language is far less neutral than we usually think it is: Questions can be leading and words can be biased, and they are more likely to be biased the more controversial the topic. In general, attempts to manufacture neutrality in language result in the opposite effect. If something horrific is happening, describing it with euphemisms becomes an endorsement of the horror itself. In recent months, the second Trump administration has become notorious for sending masked plainclothes agents without warrants to apprehend U.S. residents outside the judicial system, and for sending them overseas and claiming to have no authority to bring them back when ordered by the Supreme Court to do so. In cases like these, then, what's a neutral observer to do? How can someone like a journalist or a judge aim to be apolitical rather than partisan when discussing these actions? Some words and phrases can be neutral and unbiased, such as 'prime number.' There's really only one term for a prime number because its meaning (a number divisible only by one and itself) couldn't be more straightforward or innocuous. There isn't more than one take on what makes a number prime, so we don't need more than one term for the concept. At the other end of the spectrum are issues so volatile that neutral language is almost impossible. There are many terms for supporters of the rights that were guaranteed by Roe vs. Wade, and many terms for those who opposed the ruling. The label 'pro-choice' implies others are 'anti-choice'; the label 'anti-abortion' implies others are 'pro-abortion.' Linguists and philosophers who study meaning have long appreciated that any given word has a literal or explicit meaning alongside a more elusive, implicit meaning. The original example from German philosopher Gottlob Frege contrasted 'dog,' a neutral term, with 'cur,' a sort of canine slur. Other pairings have positive implications for one and negative for the other: Is that task a 'challenge' or a 'slog'? Are those demonstrators 'fostering' an uprising or 'inciting' one? Word choices can also be used to reinforce or undermine the legitimacy of government, because when it comes to acts of force, we generally have certain terms that we use when we consider the act to be lawful (such as 'arrest' and 'execution') and other terms when we consider the act unlawful (such as 'kidnapping' and 'killing'). None of these terms are neutral; they all carry a legal judgment, and it's very hard to find a way to characterize acts of force that doesn't. The philosopher H. Paul Grice observed that directness of form corresponds to directness of meaning; the use of a roundabout euphemism to replace a direct word amounts to shifting from a direct meaning to an indirect one, not shifting from a direct meaning to a neutral one. Direct words like 'kill' or 'break' often imply directness of action, possibly because their indirect, wordy counterparts ('cause to die' or 'cause to break'), by virtue of their indirectness, imply the act was done accidentally. This is one reason the euphemism 'officer-involved shooting' is widely and plausibly interpreted as nonneutral wording that often inaccurately eliminates any suggestion of agency on the part of the officer. So language is full of biased terms, especially pertaining to controversial topics, and attempts to avoid these terms result in their own bias. What are the linguistic options for someone who wants to remain morally or legally neutral while describing or reporting controversial acts such as the federal government's recent immigration actions? How can one do so without emphasizing the administration's lawlessness (as a Trump critic might), or without playing down the lawlessness (as a Trump defender might)? The simple answer, from the point of view of semantics, is that such a thing is practically impossible: Language generally does not afford us the ability to describe controversial and high-stakes circumstances without also implicitly weighing in on them. Different languages differ in their lexical inventory, sure — there are languages that have innovated words for concepts that other languages generally don't have — but there is also a general tendency toward biased terms for controversial topics. This is not a necessary property of language, but a reflection of how we tend to think about the world. This message is nothing new: Journalists have long been warned that objectivity is an impossible ideal, and there has been support from social movements and political science scholars for the claim that being 'apolitical' amounts to a political stance in support of existing power imbalances and injustices. As with most things in life, choosing to not take a side amounts to taking a side, and the same is true with language use. The sooner we can come to terms with this linguistic reality, the sooner we can start to grapple with our sociopolitical reality, which is in shambles. Jessica Rett is a professor of linguistics at UCLA. Her research investigates the meaning of words and how they contribute to the meanings of sentences, either in isolation or in broader contexts. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
23-04-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
There's no neutral language to describe horrific actions
Language is far less neutral than we usually think it is: Questions can be leading and words can be biased, and they are more likely to be biased the more controversial the topic. In general, attempts to manufacture neutrality in language result in the opposite effect. If something horrific is happening, describing it with euphemisms becomes an endorsement of the horror itself. In recent months, the second Trump administration has become notorious for sending masked plainclothes agents without warrants to apprehend U.S. residents outside the judicial system, and for sending them overseas and claiming to have no authority to bring them back when ordered by the Supreme Court to do so. In cases like these, then, what's a neutral observer to do? How can someone like a journalist or a judge aim to be apolitical rather than partisan when discussing these actions? Some words and phrases can be neutral and unbiased, such as 'prime number.' There's really only one term for a prime number because its meaning (a number divisible only by one and itself) couldn't be more straightforward or innocuous. There isn't more than one take on what makes a number prime, so we don't need more than one term for the concept. At the other end of the spectrum are issues so volatile that neutral language is almost impossible. There are many terms for supporters of the rights that were guaranteed by Roe vs. Wade, and many terms for those who opposed the ruling. The label 'pro-choice' implies others are 'anti-choice'; the label 'anti-abortion' implies others are 'pro-abortion.' Linguists and philosophers who study meaning have long appreciated that any given word has a literal or explicit meaning alongside a more elusive, implicit meaning. The original example from German philosopher Gottlob Frege contrasted 'dog,' a neutral term, with 'cur,' a sort of canine slur. Other pairings have positive implications for one and negative for the other: Is that task a 'challenge' or a 'slog'? Are those demonstrators 'fostering' an uprising or 'inciting' one? Word choices can also be used to reinforce or undermine the legitimacy of government, because when it comes to acts of force, we generally have certain terms that we use when we consider the act to be lawful (such as 'arrest' and 'execution') and other terms when we consider the act unlawful (such as 'kidnapping' and 'killing'). None of these terms are neutral; they all carry a legal judgment, and it's very hard to find a way to characterize acts of force that doesn't. The philosopher H. Paul Grice observed that directness of form corresponds to directness of meaning; the use of a roundabout euphemism to replace a direct word amounts to shifting from a direct meaning to an indirect one, not shifting from a direct meaning to a neutral one. Direct words like 'kill' or 'break' often imply directness of action, possibly because their indirect, wordy counterparts ('cause to die' or 'cause to break'), by virtue of their indirectness, imply the act was done accidentally. This is one reason the euphemism 'officer-involved shooting' is widely and plausibly interpreted as nonneutral wording that often inaccurately eliminates any suggestion of agency on the part of the officer. So language is full of biased terms, especially pertaining to controversial topics, and attempts to avoid these terms result in their own bias. What are the linguistic options for someone who wants to remain morally or legally neutral while describing or reporting controversial acts such as the federal government's recent immigration actions? How can one do so without emphasizing the administration's lawlessness (as a Trump critic might), or without playing down the lawlessness (as a Trump defender might)? The simple answer, from the point of view of semantics, is that such a thing is practically impossible: Language generally does not afford us the ability to describe controversial and high-stakes circumstances without also implicitly weighing in on them. Different languages differ in their lexical inventory, sure — there are languages that have innovated words for concepts that other languages generally don't have — but there is also a general tendency toward biased terms for controversial topics. This is not a necessary property of language, but a reflection of how we tend to think about the world. This message is nothing new: Journalists have long been warned that objectivity is an impossible ideal, and there has been support from social movements and political science scholars for the claim that being 'apolitical' amounts to a political stance in support of existing power imbalances and injustices. As with most things in life, choosing to not take a side amounts to taking a side, and the same is true with language use. The sooner we can come to terms with this linguistic reality, the sooner we can start to grapple with our sociopolitical reality, which is in shambles. Jessica Rett is a professor of linguistics at UCLA. Her research investigates the meaning of words and how they contribute to the meanings of sentences, either in isolation or in broader contexts.
Los Angeles Times
16-04-2025
- Health
- Los Angeles Times
3 Irvine city officials honor Planned Parenthood after chamber rescinds award
The Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce was all set in January to recognize organizations, businesses and individuals whose innovative work makes a meaningful difference in healthcare and patient outcomes, when a mysterious last-minute edit to the event's program was made. One of the recipients due to be honored — Planned Parenthood of Orange and San Bernardino Counties — was quietly removed from all public mention associated with the Jan. 16 ceremony. Irene Salazar, senior vice president of community education and outreach for the Orange-based nonprofit, said members of her team were 'devastated' to hear the news on the day of the event. 'At first I was a little bit shocked. We thought maybe it was a safety issue,' she said of the organization whose Costa Mesa health center was the scene of a 2022 firebombing attempt that spurred the need for a security presence at public occasions. 'Then we found out it was something completely different.' Held at the Hilton Irvine, the chamber's Excellence in Healthcare and Innovation award had intended to pay tribute to Planned Parenthood's 'Equal Voices' and Male Involvement programs — two initiatives that provide education, support and a forum for students with intellectual disabilities and young men in the justice system, respectively. Instead, officials were told by the Irvine chamber's chief executive Dave Coffaro their removal from the night's program was 'a business decision,' though no additional information was provided. They were offered the chance to receive the award in private, so long as they did not post about it in social media or share the news publicly. They declined. Representatives of the Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce, including Coffaro, did not respond Tuesday to requests for comment on the matter. Sadaf Rahmani, who oversees public affairs for PPOSBC, said some wondered at the timing of the chamber's decision, just days before Donald Trump's second presidential inauguration and amid increasing rhetoric about the dismantling of educational programs aligned with diversity, equity and inclusion standards. 'Being Planned Parenthood, it's easy to see what they may have meant by 'business decision,' especially given the environment we're in right now with the current administration,' Rahmani said. 'So, we were disappointed but not necessarily surprised by this.' Still, the snubbing was unsettling given that, in June 2022, the Irvine City Council passed a resolution formally opposing the U.S. Supreme Court's overturning of Roe vs. Wade and encouraging residents to 'continue to support efforts to protect reproductive freedom, through education and advocacy.' The declaration was proposed by then-Mayor Farrah Khan and adopted on a 3-2 vote, with former Councilman Anthony Kuo and current Councilman Mark Carroll opposed. Now, a contingent of relatively new Irvine City Council members have stepped up to show their support for Planned Parenthood's programs and impact on the local community — and to deliver the recognition they say the group and its staff deserve. During an April 7 summit hosted by the Public School Defenders Hub, an initiative of the Anaheim-based nonprofit Contemporary Policy Institute, Irvine council members Kathleen Treseder, Melina Liu and William Go presented a certificate of recognition as a gesture of appreciation for Planned Parenthood's local outreach programs. Liu, who attended the Greater Irvine Chamber of Commerce award ceremony in January, initially had no idea of the rescinded award and was stunned to hear from others what had happened. 'I reached out to our government relations person and tried to see if there was anything we could do to give them the proper recognition,' she said. 'I find their services invaluable, as far as what they've done [to assist] our low-income population and what they've done to educate young men and women. That's a very indispensable part of what they do.' Treseder said she reached out to Irvine Mayor Larry Agran, who had backed the 2022 council resolution supporting reproductive freedom, to see whether officials might present some formal recognition to Planned Parenthood in a council meeting presentation, but he wasn't interested. So, she teamed up with Liu and Good, and the trio was made aware of the April 7 summit in their communications with the nonprofit. 'I think Planned Parenthood deserves all the recognition in the world,' Treseder said Tuesday. 'They're working with folks who might not otherwise be able to get healthcare. In addition, I'm really relying on them to beat the drum for reproductive freedom for our young women. [They're] on the front lines and they don't back down — we need them.' Rahmani said she and her colleagues are grateful to the Irvine City Council members for rectifying the situation. 'We're certainly not going to be silenced, whether it's providing care in health centers or the education team working out in the community,' she added. 'We're always going to be loud and proud of the service we provide and the work that we do.'
