Latest news with #Swearingen
Yahoo
08-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Ohio bill offers protection for off-label prescriptions
COLUMBUS, Ohio (WCMH) — A discussion about off-label drugs is back in the spotlight in Ohio after a similar effort failed last year. House Bill 12 would generally allow a doctor to prescribe any drug, even if it is for off-label use, and require a pharmacist to dispense it. An off-label drug is when it is prescribed for a purpose that is not explicitly approved by the FDA. May 2025 primary election results for central Ohio 'It stems from a lot of the criticisms we've heard surrounding COVID response,' Ohio Rep. DJ Swearingen (R-Huron), the bill's sponsor, said. 'Doctors who felt like they had an idea of how they wanted to handle that disease and wanted to go one way with it and were kind of outcasts in some sort of sense.' Off-label drug prescriptions have been used in more cases than just COVID-19 and Ivermectin. Executive Director of the Ohio Pharmacist Association David Burke said it is most prevalent today, for example, in diabetes drugs, like Ozempic, being used for weight loss. 'Currently, today, off-label prescribing and dispensing occurs unencumbered,' Burke said. Swearingen said that if an off-label prescription can work in the best interests of a patient, then physicians and prescribers should 'have the freedom to pursue that option.' He said there is little 'medical free speech' and this bill would protect that. 'So, if a doctor gives an opinion in a medical setting that they can do that without threat of retaliation from a regulatory board or a licensing board for something along those lines,' Swearingen said. Black smoke rises from Sistine Chapel chimney, conclave doesn't elect pope in first vote Burke argued that there is a different standard of free speech when it comes to medical professionals. 'Physicians don't have free speech for personal opinion on how drugs are to be used, they use scientific background just like pharmacists do or nurses do, and they administer care to a patient,' Burke said. Burke said he worries that under this legislation, pharmacists will have little ground to push back when they think a prescription will be harmful to a patient. He said often, pharmacists have information about certain drugs before a prescriber might. 'This returns us to the days of Dr. Smith's medicine wagon, where he has a liquid that will cure your rheumatism,' Burke said. 'That's where we're going. That's who this empowers.' Burke said while he believes most prescribers do act with care, he worries about places like medical spas and the prescriptions that come from those establishments. 'We've got folks writing prescriptions for any valid reason to which they think a patient could use without scientific background,' Burke said. 'That's going to cause a lot of harm to patients and bypasses the current system that just allows an individual opinion rather than a scientific opinion.' Which school issues central Ohio voters approved in May 2025 election Swearingen said the bill already has a liability portion, and does not leave the prescriber completely immune should the drug cause harm to the patient and not meet the standard of care. He said that at the heart of the bill is wanting 'medical providers to seek the truth.' 'Also have a dialogue about what they believe to be best practices and what they believe to be in the patient's best interest without threat of retaliation,' he said. The bill had its third hearing on Wednesday afternoon, which featured opponent testimony. Fifty-eight people against the bill either submitted written testimony or appeared in person. During the bill's proponent testimony hearing, 42 people supported it. The bill failed to pass the Ohio Statehouse last year, in a last-minute move, but Swearingen said he is hopeful it will get through this time. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to NBC4 WCMH-TV.
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pueblo County commissioners urge Colorado governor to veto semiautomatic gun control bill
The Pueblo Board of County Commissioners passed a resolution April 1 opposing Colorado Senate Bill 3, which would ban the manufacture and drastically restrict the sale of certain semiautomatic firearms that accept detachable ammunition magazines. SB-3 would prohibit Coloradans from buying most semiautomatic rifles as well as some semiautomatic shotguns and pistols, unless they get approval from the local county sheriff and complete up to a dozen hours of training administered by Colorado Parks and Wildlife. The bill passed the Colorado Legislature by a vote of 19-15 on March 28, with three Democrats, including Sen. Nick Hinrichsen of Pueblo, joining every Senate Republican in opposition to the bill, according to the Colorado Sun. Hinrichsen told the Chieftain Wednesday he opposed the bill because he feels it's the wrong approach to the problem of gun violence. "We have a high-capacity magazine ban that's been in existence for about 12 years now -- I support that, and I think we have a mechanism to enforce that now that didn't exist in the past, with the CBI and licensing bill that was passed last year," he said. "I think that is the appropriate way of addressing the issue of the types of firearms we're seeing used in mass shootings without infringing Second Amendment rights." Hinrichsen said SB-3 took a "haphazard, arbitrary" approach in which traditional hunting firearms would be exempted from the new law, and said he believes there are "gaps" in the training element, such as how active-duty or honorably discharged veterans and law enforcement officers, despite past training on the safe use of firearms, would not be exempted from the requirement. "I think there are just so many gaps if you're going to go this route. It's costly and unnecessary, and for those reasons I was opposed," Hinrichsen said. The local BOCC resolution, spearheaded by Republican Board Chairman Zach Swearingen, urged Gov. Jared Polis to veto the bill on several grounds, including violation of the Second Amendment, an undue burden on local gun stores, and a burden to the sheriff in enforcement, as the sheriff would be required to fingerprint and conduct background checks on applicants to determine if they meet the criteria to receive a firearms course card without any additional funding or resources. The bill would also cost the state an estimated $1.4 million in the first year and $500,000 per year after to maintain, according to Swearingen's resolution. Swearingen argued that the bill would drive many gun stores out of business or out of state, and would require "law-abiding citizens to jump through hoops and pay significant fees in order to exercise their Second Amendment rights." "There's a lot of unconstitutional pieces to (SB-3)," Swearingen said. "It is already hurting mom-and-pop gun shops, I've already heard several have moved out of state. By our Constitution, (gun ownership) is a right. You are forcing people to take a test for a right. And that's a slippery slope." Swearingen stated he believed the bill, if signed by Polis, would likely be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court, but it would likely take four to five years to get there, at which point the damage would already be done. He further argued that the Second Amendment was "not intended for hunting," but for people to defend themselves and their families, including from the government. Fellow Republican board member Paula McPheeters also supported the resolution. "As a fellow gun owner, I know I can't rely on anyone coming to protect me, and that's inherent in the Constitution," McPheeters said. "The Second Amendment states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Federal law always supersedes state law, and state law is trying to supersede the Second Amendment... As a gun owner, as a citizen, a commissioner, and a woman, I oppose any infringement on my right to firearms, so I support this and will be a yes vote." Commissioner Miles Lucero, the board's lone Democrat, said he opposed SB-3, but also opposed the resolution as written, stating that even as a gun owner himself, he believes the Second Amendment can be regulated. "It's crazy to me to say that the founding fathers wrote the Second Amendment of the Constitution with the knowledge that we'd have these horrific killing machines at the disposal of the public," Lucero said. "If we want to revise this resolution to say it's a significant cost at a time when the state doesn't have money, if there's implementation hurdles, there's going to be legal challenges, all of that is true." "I'm not fully on board with the idea that exemptions don't apply to law enforcement officials or honorably discharged veterans," Lucero continued. "I don't think they should have to go through these training courses. And to be abundantly clear, this bill doesn't say you can't own these firearms, it says you have to take a course to do so." Lucero pointed out that firearms are the leading cause of death for U.S. children under the age of 19 since 2020. After some additional back and forth, commissioners passed the resolution 2-1 along party lines. In a statement to the Chieftain, Pueblo County Sheriff David Lucero also expressed his opposition to the bill. "I opposed this bill as it places another level of bureaucracy on county sheriffs," Lucero said. "It is also disparate because to purchase a firearm, you would now have to pay the sheriff to run a background check and pass and then the sheriff must issue a permit which would be valid for five years. Then, you have to go purchase the firearm and pay for another background check through Instacheck before you can purchase it. "A firearm itself is already cost-prohibitive and expensive, so this adds multiple levels of financial impacts in order to possess or own a firearm," he said. "It is almost like you have to be part of a special, exclusive club to have a firearm. This bill doesn't do anything for law-abiding citizens who want to legally own a firearm, instead, it has the potential to fuel black market sales for criminals, who won't follow this law anyway. Law-abiding citizens in Pueblo County love their firearms, and this is yet another layer that doesn't strengthen public safety but puts more restrictions on them." More in local news: What to know about fentanyl in Pueblo and the health department's efforts to track it Questions, comments, or story tips? Contact Justin at jreutterma@ Follow him on X, formally known as Twitter, @jayreutter1. Support local news, subscribe to The Pueblo Chieftain at This article originally appeared on The Pueblo Chieftain: Pueblo leaders urge Colorado governor to veto gun control bill
Yahoo
26-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Pueblo commissioners approve additional $20,000 to fund sheriff's lawsuit against Colorado
Pueblo County Commissioners voted 2-1 on Feb. 25 to approve an additional $20,000 to continue funding a lawsuit by Pueblo County Sheriff David Lucero. The county has previously spent $25,000 to fund the suit filed by Lucero against the state, the union that represents PCSO deputies, and others, in which the sheriff argues he cannot lawfully engage in collective bargaining, as it may affect his ability to keep the peace. Commissioners Zach Swearingen and Paula McPheeters, both Republicans, voted to continue funding the lawsuit, while Miles Lucero, the lone Democrat, opposed additional funding. "I think the intent of the law was 100% to qualify sheriff's deputies as county employees, and I think we are fighting a losing battle," Lucero stated in a brief debate before the vote. "If the sheriff wants to seek clarity in the law, it is not our obligation as a board to make that happen and fund that pursuit of clarification in the law." McPheeters disagreed and emphatically supported continued funding for the sheriff's legal bills, agreeing with the sheriff that the 2022 Collective Bargaining by County Employees Act (COBCA) conflicts with a sheriff's constitutional role. "We are not the judge, we don't get to decide if it's valid or not. How the union is operating is not our decision, but there is a conflict in the law, and we need an answer so we can move forward. COBCA is a poorly written bill, or we wouldn't be having this issue," she said. Swearingen made similar comments, arguing his belief that there is "deserved clarification" on the bill and that there should be a "legislative fix" for the issue. "The legislation was written in a non-clear way that provides a lot of room for interpretation, otherwise we wouldn't be sitting here," he said. Lucero's lawsuit came after the state's Division of Labor Standards and Statistics denied his appeal of an earlier finding he engaged in an unfair labor practice by refusing to participate in collective bargaining with the International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) Local 837. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser recently filed a motion to dismiss a portion of the lawsuit, in which Lucero asked for a declaratory judgement by a Denver court in the matter. When pressed by Miles Lucero about how much money his two Republican colleagues were willing to approve in the future to fund the lawsuit, neither commissioner would give a dollar amount. Swearingen indicated he did not feel comfortable stating an exact number, although he said he had "assurances that everyone was trying to be fiscally responsible." "I wouldn't want to pull the rug out from this if we're within (range of a resolution)," he said. Swearingen continued that he did not believe the matter would cost "hundreds of thousands of dollars" and that at some point, the commissioners would have to "look after the budget." He also acknowledged that the county has already spent a "good chunk of money" on the lawsuit. Meanwhile, McPheeters stated that the board does not get to tell other elected officials how to run their departments and said she would "support the sheriff in his capacity as (she) would any other elected official in the county." "Our job is not to be oversight of every elected official, our job is to support their budget," she said. A collection of unions held a silent protest prior to the meeting to "raise awareness of the union's struggle and show solidarity," according to IBPO 837 President Brad Riccillo. Jared Miner, vice president of the Southern Colorado Labor Council, stated it was important to show solidarity with the IBPO, and to attempt to stop the county from spending an additional $20,000 to fund the lawsuit. "That is a lot of money that could be spent somewhere else," he said. In public comments after the commissioners' vote, Miner stated he was concerned with the continued allocation of funds to what he described as "union-busting lawsuits." "As sheriff, it is his duty to abide by the law and respect the rights of all workers. As a Democrat, the sheriff should be supporting his employees' right to collective bargaining," he said. "How much longer should we continue to spend taxpayer dollars on these fruitless lawsuits, which have already proven to be unsuccessful?" Not everyone who spoke in public comment supported the union. Lt. Bethany Solano, an investigator for the PCSO, stated she had witnessed members of the union "mock, harass, and bully" the sheriff. Meanwhile, she said Lucero has fought for his office, including securing an additional $900,000 in pay for workers. Devin Flores, a private citizen and taxpayer, expressed that the matter of character on either side was irrelevant and had nothing to do with the matter at hand. "What's relevant is the law and what the law says," Flores said. "Personally, as a taxpayer, I do not care how nice the sheriff is. I don't care. But I do have concerns about spending an additional $20,000 when money is tight. "Why can't we just follow the lead of other counties? Why do we have to bring this to the same courts again and again? It's pointless," he said. While disappointed by the board's decision, Riccillo said the union will "keep fighting." "We are after a fair and equitable contract in the best interest of all sides. We'll keep moving, we have negotiations on Friday and we will continue to bargain in good faith," he said. Despite the ongoing legal battle, progress has been made at the bargaining table, with 14 out of 31 articles raised by the union now resolved, including five in the past week, Riccillo said. "This lawsuit is completely independent of the contract itself. We never intended to stop negotiating, and to their credit, neither did they. That's a very positive thing," he said. However, Riccillo noted that contract negotiations began in February 2024, meaning a full year has passed. He also expressed concern that he does not know how much funding will continue to be provided to fund the lawsuit. "They could continue to give and give money, but where does it stop? I fear that his intent was always to go to the Supreme Court," he said. David Lucero expressed his gratitude to commissioners for continuing to support him, telling the Chieftain all he wants is judicial clarification on the matter. "For me, it's all about getting people their pay, and (getting) an answer one way or another," he said. "I would think that the union would want an answer about the gray areas that are debatable at this point as much as I do." Lucero stated he too believes COBCA is a poorly written law and wants clarification. However, he stated he can't rule out the possibility of appealing the matter if the eventual decision favors the union, as that would "depend on what the judge says and considers for material facts." More local news: 'A simple question': Pueblo City Council approves ballot language for ditching Black Hills Questions, comments, or story tips? Contact Justin at jreutterma@ Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @jayreutter1. Support local news, subscribe to The Pueblo Chieftain at This article originally appeared on The Pueblo Chieftain: Pueblo commissioners approve more money for sheriff's lawsuit
Yahoo
07-02-2025
- Yahoo
Couple facing child porn and sexual contact with an animal related charges
JACKSON COUNTY, Fla. (WMBB) – A Cottondale couple is behind bars and facing 11 felony counts of child sexual abuse material, as well as additional counts of sexual contact with an animal. According to FDLE, the investigation began in November when they received several cyber tips from the Nation Center for Missing and Exploited Children. The tips depicted the sexual abuse of children being uploaded to an online storage platform. BCSO and FDOH utilize House Bill 197 to crack down on several local massage parlors Investigators said they identified 31-year-old Mark Swearingen as the account user. FDLE served a warrant at his residence and seized several electronic devices, a preliminary analyst found multiple files showing sexual abuse of children as young as 1-year-old. Officials said they also found a video depicting 20-year-old Mackenzie O'Bryan engaging in a sexual act with an animal. She was charged with an additional count of sexual contact with an animal, and Swearingen was charged with an additional count of possession of an image/video depicting sexual contact with an animal. O'Bryan and Swearingen were booked into the Jackson County Jail on February 6. The Office of State Attorney, 14th Judicial Circuit will prosecute the case. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
