Latest news with #UniversityofCalifornia
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Politics
- Business Recorder
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation – again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration 'parole' for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of 'temporary protected status' for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. 'This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country,' said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history 'has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process,' Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. US says it will start revoking visas for Chinese students 'President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises,' White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants 'notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster,' the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. 'The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law (including that) the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil,' said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court 'has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States.' A wrongly deported man In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's 'more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies' without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. 'I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance,' said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. 'But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field.' That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. 'Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected,' Mukherjee said. 'Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives.' Travel ban ruling Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called 'Dreamers' - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called 'third countries' be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. 'I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country,' Johnson said.
Hindustan Times
11 hours ago
- Politics
- Hindustan Times
Trump gets key wins at Supreme Court on immigration, despite some misgivings
* Court lets Trump end migrants' humanitarian legal status * Justices yet to decide on birthright citizenship rollback * Court highlights Constitution's guarantee of due process May 31 - The U.S. Supreme Court swept away this week another obstacle to one of President Donald Trump's most aggressively pursued policies - mass deportation - again showing its willingness to back his hardline approach to immigration. The justices, though, have signaled some reservations with how he is carrying it out. Since Trump returned to the White House in January, the court already has been called upon to intervene on an emergency basis in seven legal fights over his crackdown on immigration. It most recently let Trump's administration end temporary legal status provided to hundreds of thousands of migrants for humanitarian reasons by his Democratic predecessor Joe Biden while legal challenges in two cases play out in lower courts. The Supreme Court on Friday lifted a judge's order that had halted the revocation of immigration "parole" for more than 500,000 Venezuelan, Cuban, Haitian and Nicaraguan migrants. On May 19, it lifted another judge's order preventing the termination of "temporary protected status" for more than 300,000 Venezuelan migrants. In some other cases, however, the justices have ruled that the administration must treat migrants fairly, as required under the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of due process. "This president has been more aggressive than any in modern U.S. history to quickly remove non-citizens from the country," said Kevin Johnson, an immigration and public interest law expert at the University of California, Davis. No president in modern history "has been as willing to deport non-citizens without due process," Johnson added. That dynamic has forced the Supreme Court to police the contours of the administration's actions, if less so the legality of Trump's underlying policies. The court's 6-3 conservative majority includes three justices appointed by Trump during his first term as president. "President Trump is acting within his lawful authority to deport illegal aliens and protect the American people. While the Supreme Court has rightfully acknowledged the president's authority in some cases, in others they have invented new due process rights for illegal aliens that will make America less safe. We are confident in the legality of our actions and will continue fighting to keep President Trump's promises," White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Reuters. The justices twice - on April 7 and on May 16 - have placed limits on the administration's attempt to implement Trump's invocation of a 1798 law called the Alien Enemies Act, which historically has been employed only in wartime, to swiftly deport Venezuelan migrants who it has accused of being members of the Tren de Aragua gang. Lawyers and family members of some of the migrants have disputed the gang membership allegation. On May 16, the justices also said a bid by the administration to deport migrants from a detention center in Texas failed basic constitutional requirements. Giving migrants "notice roughly 24 hours before removal, devoid of information about how to exercise due process rights to contest that removal, surely does not pass muster," the court stated. Due process generally requires the government to provide notice and an opportunity for a hearing before taking certain adverse actions. The court has not outright barred the administration from pursuing these deportations under the Alien Enemies Act, as the justices have yet to decide the legality of using the law for this purpose. The U.S. government last invoked the Alien Enemies Act during World War Two to intern and deport people of Japanese, German and Italian descent. "The Supreme Court has in several cases reaffirmed some basic principles of constitutional law the due process clause applies to all people on U.S. soil," said Elora Mukherjee, director of Columbia Law School's immigrants' rights clinic. Even for alleged gang members, Mukherjee said, the court "has been extremely clear that they are entitled to notice before they can be summarily deported from the United States." A WRONGLY DEPORTED MAN In a separate case, the court on April 10 ordered the administration to facilitate the release from custody in El Salvador of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant who was living in Maryland. The administration has acknowledged that Abrego Garcia was wrongly deported to El Salvador. The administration has yet to return Abrego Garcia to the United States, which according to some critics amounts to defiance of the Supreme Court. The administration deported on March 15 more than 200 people to El Salvador, where they were detained in the country's massive anti-terrorism prison under a deal in which the United States is paying President Nayib Bukele's government $6 million. Ilya Somin, a constitutional law professor at George Mason University, said the Supreme Court overall has tried to curb the administration's "more extreme and most blatantly illegal policies" without abandoning its traditional deference to presidential authority on immigration issues. "I think they have made a solid effort to strike a balance," said Somin, referring to the Alien Enemies Act and Abrego Garcia cases. "But I still think there is excessive deference, and a tolerance for things that would not be permitted outside the immigration field." That deference was on display over the past two weeks with the court's decisions letting Trump terminate the grants of temporary protected status and humanitarian parole previously given to migrants. Such consequential orders were issued without the court offering any reasoning, Mukherjee noted. "Collectively, those two decisions strip immigration status and legal protections in the United States from more than 800,000 people. And the decisions are devastating for the lives of those who are affected," Mukherjee said. "Those individuals could be subject to deportations, family separation, losing their jobs, and if they're deported, possibly even losing their lives." TRAVEL BAN RULING Trump also pursued restrictive immigration policies in his first term as president, from 2017-2021. The Supreme Court gave Trump a major victory in 2018, upholding his travel ban targeting people from several Muslim-majority countries. In 2020, the court blocked Trump's bid to end a program that protects from deportation hundreds of thousands of migrants - often called "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children. Other major immigration-related cases are currently pending before the justices, including Trump's effort to broadly enforce his January executive order to restrict birthright citizenship - a directive at odds with the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution as conferring citizenship on virtually every baby born on U.S. soil. The court heard arguments in that case on May 15 and has not yet rendered a decision. Another case concerns the administration's efforts to increase the practice of deporting migrants to countries other than their own, including to places such as war-torn South Sudan. Boston-based U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy required that migrants destined for so-called "third countries" be notified and given a meaningful chance to seek legal relief by showing the harms they may face by being send there. Murphy on May 21 ruled that the administration had violated his court order by attempting to deport migrants to South Sudan. They are now being held at a military base in Djibouti. The administration on May 27 asked the justices to lift Murphy's order because it said the third-country process is needed to remove migrants who commit crimes because their countries of origin are often unwilling to take them back. Johnson predicted that the Supreme Court will side with the migrants in this dispute. "I think that the court will enforce the due process rights of a non-citizen before removal to a third country," Johnson said.
San Francisco Chronicle
15 hours ago
- Health
- San Francisco Chronicle
Score a bonus with these video gaming tips: Extra life in the real world
In video games, all players usually need to do to stay healthy is to drink the occasional healing potion or perhaps grab a floating heart. Avoiding zombies and killer aliens helps, too. In real life, deadly monsters may be less common, but maintaining health is trickier. Luckily, it doesn't take a secret hack to stay well while playing, experts say – and some of their advice might even help you level up your game. Gaming has its benefits Some aspects of gaming can be good for you, said Dr. Joanne Donoghue, director of clinical research at the New York Institute of Technology College of Osteopathic Medicine in Old Westbury. "There's definitely a plus side," said Donoghue, who has led several studies on professional gamers' health. Some action video games have been shown to improve reaction time and may help with multitasking, she said. And unlike gamers from earlier eras, modern players sitting with their headphones and microphones are "live and interacting with a lot of people at one time. So there is a social component." Dr. Jason Nagata, an associate professor of pediatrics at the University of California, San Francisco, has studied the effects of screen time, including video games, on children and adolescents. He said digital media is "not inherently good or bad. There are some risks but also some benefits." The risks from gaming are both broad and specific. For starters, there are only 24 hours in a day, and "if you're sitting on a couch playing your video game for however many hours, that's basically time that you're not outside, walking, being physically active," or doing anything else that's good for your physical or mental health, Nagata said. Excessive video game time also can be associated with lack of sleep and poor nutrition, he said. That can affect heart health. Donoghue's research published in 2019 in BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Medicine showed that competitive gamers, also called esports athletes, frequently report problems such as eye fatigue and neck, back, hand and wrist pain. Donoghue led another study, published in April in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, that showed men who were competitive gamers had significantly higher body fat levels and significantly less muscle mass than noncompetitive gamers with the same body mass index, or BMI. "When you're sedentary, and you're not putting in the hours of exercise or strength training, essentially your muscles are atrophying," she said. Meanwhile, players' heart rates can soar in an unhealthy stress response. Combining stress with immobility may raise the risk of a type of dangerous blood clot called deep vein thrombosis, which typically forms in the legs, arms or pelvis. "Gamer's thrombosis" has been documented in players as young as 12 years old. In 2004, a 24-year-old South Korean who played a game for 80 hours straight died after a blood clot traveled to his lungs. Prolonged sitting at a computer at least 10 hours in a 24-hour period and at least two hours at a time without getting up has been associated with nearly triple the risk of developing dangerous blood clots, and the risk can rise for each hour seated without getting up. Video games are linked to mental health as well. Nagata led a review of data collected by the Adolescent Brain Cognitive Study that looked at the effects of screen time and social media use, including video games, on more than 11,000 adolescents. The analysis by Nagata and his colleagues was published in the journal Current Opinion in Pediatrics in April. The ABCD study showed that greater screen time is associated with depression, anxiety and other problems, he said. The social nature of gaming can also expose teens to problems such as cyberbullying. And while video game addiction is not an official diagnosis, Nagata said, psychologists acknowledge that some gamers can show signs of addiction, including withdrawal symptoms when not playing, loss of interest in other activities and "a general loss of control related to video gaming." Luckily, six simple steps can help prevent many gaming-related problems, Nagata and Donoghue said. 1. Move something besides your thumbs A little exercise can make a difference, Donoghue said. Donoghue and her colleagues have measured the effects of taking an hourly 6-minute walking break on a small group of competitive gamers. In one study, published in 2024 in the American Journal of Physiology-Heart and Circulatory Physiology, gamers who took such a break saw significant improvement in their blood flow volume and velocity. Wearing sock-like compression sleeves also provided a small benefit. In that study, about two-thirds of the participants believed that the break had helped their gaming performance. In a separate study Donoghue led, published in 2021 in BMJ Open Sport and Exercise Medicine, competitive players who took a walk break improved cognitive performance, with shorter planning and solution times on problem-solving tasks. Other researchers, who published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise in 2020, found that a short bout of intense exercise improved video game performance. Which all underpins Donoghue's advice to gamers: Set a timer, take breaks and stay active. "You've got to get the exercise in. You've got to move your body. The body is meant for motion, and muscles atrophy, no matter what age you're at." Federal physical activity guidelines call for at least 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity aerobic exercise or 75 minutes a week of vigorous aerobic activity, or a combination of both. The guidelines also discourage people from being sedentary and suggest they participate in moderate- to high-intensity activities to strengthen muscles at least two days per week. 2. Fuel up carefully In research on young adolescents, more time gaming has been associated with a less nutritious diet and a higher BMI, Nagata said. "Some of the potential reasons for that are that if you are eating while you're distracted, you're more likely to eat junk foods," he said. "You're also less likely to pay attention to your hunger or fullness cues, so you might eat more than you otherwise would if you were not distracted in front of screens." So avoid mixing eating and gaming, he said. High-caffeine energy drinks have become part of gaming culture, Donoghue said, but such drinks have been linked to a risk of a variety of health problems, including heart rhythm issues and cardiac arrest. A consortium of health groups, including the American Heart Association and American Academy of Pediatrics, issued recommendations in January that say caffeinated beverages are not recommended for children younger than 18. 3. Try active games Some games do encourage motion, Nagata said. These "exergames" can help players avoid being sedentary. "And some of those associations that we see related to weight gain and poor eating are probably not the case when you're exergaming or moving around a little bit more," he said. 4. Turn off screens before bed "When people play video games at night right before bedtime, that can take away from the time they have to sleep," Nagata said. In a 2024 survey by the Pew Research Center, 41% of teens said video games had hurt their sleep. A study published in March in Frontiers in Psychiatry found that among Norwegian college students, an hour of screen time before bed was associated with a loss of 24 minutes of sleep. The AAP recommends turning off screens an hour before bedtime and keeping video games in common areas to help parents keep an eye on use. 5. Monitor and get buy-in Parents need to be aware that some games just aren't suitable for kids, Donoghue said. "I don't think they realize how interactive they are and how toxic they can become." Parents should pay attention to ratings, which can help keep inappropriate games away from children, she said. Nagata said it's important to get buy-in from children on restrictions, though. "You have to pick your battles," he said. For him, the most important health-related limits would be limiting games at meals and bedtime. The AAP recommends having a family media plan, which Nagata described as "a set of guidelines that is individualized to your household and that can take into account your kids' ages, what devices you have" and other factors. It should involve regular conversations and check-ins with the whole family. Parents can start by modeling good behavior, he said. Parents' own media use is a big predictor of video game time in kids. "If you are going to make rules about household screen use, it's important that you follow them and act as a good example for your kids." 6. Have fun, but check yourself Video games are about entertainment, leisure and recreation, Nagata said. "If they are fun for you, and it's not displacing other things, then it's fine to play them in moderation." But every so often, he said, ask yourself how you're feeling. If your reply is, "Oh, wow, the last hour has passed – I don't know what happened, and I kind of feel tired and cranky," then it might be time to also ask, "What else could I be doing? Maybe go outside. Maybe take a walk or meet up with some friends in person."
Yahoo
a day ago
- General
- Yahoo
Abortion opponents are coming for mifepristone using what medical experts call 'junk science'
Using flawed studies and scientific journal publications, abortion opponents are building a body of research meant to question the safety of the abortion pill mifepristone, a key target for the movement. The effort comes as federal officials have expressed a willingness to revisit the drug's approval — and potentially impose new restrictions on a medication used in the vast majority of abortions. Mainstream medical researchers have criticized the studies, highlighting flaws in their methodology and — in the case of one paper published by the conservative think tank Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) — lack of transparency about the data used to suggest mifepristone is unsafe. The vast body of research shows that the drugs used in medication abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol, are safe and effective in terminating a pregnancy. 'There's a proliferation of anti-abortion propaganda right now. I think it is a coordinated attack on mifepristone,' said Ushma Upadhyay, an associate professor at the University of California, San Francisco who studies medication abortion. Released in April, the EPPC paper suggests that mifepristone results in serious adverse events for 1 in 10 patients — substantially higher than the widely accepted figure of .3 percent complication rate most research has attributed to the pill. The paper appears to count what other researchers say are non-threatening events, such as requiring follow-up care to complete the abortion, or visiting an emergency room within 45 days of an abortion — even if the patient did not end up requiring emergency care — as serious adverse effects. That paper also did not go through peer review, a standard process for scientific research in which other scholars review a study's findings and methodology before it can be published. Another paper, a commentary piece published this week in the journal BioTech, challenges the commonly cited statistic that mifepristone has a lower complication rate than acetaminophen, or Tylenol, tracing the history of the comparison and arguing that it is mathematically flawed. The paper's author, Cameron Loutitt, is a biomedical engineer by training and director of life sciences at the Charlotte Lozier Institute, a research arm of the anti-abortion group SBA Pro-Life America. 'My hope is that this paper sparks action in my peers in the research and medical community to more critically evaluate these unfounded claims regarding abortion drug safety,' Loutitt said in a statement. Days later, a group of researchers from the institute published another study, this one arguing that emergency rooms are likely to identify medication abortions as miscarriages, which they say increases the risk of needing hospital care. A miscarriage and a medication abortion are medically indistinguishable, and patients will sometimes visit an emergency room to ensure the drugs worked, or if they suspect possible complications. In places where abortion is illegal, patients may also tell health care providers they experienced a miscarriage to minimize their legal risk. Studies like the Lozier Institute paper suggest complications from medication abortions are being undercounted. That study was rejected by another journal on April 12 before being published this week, noted Upadhyay, who had served as a peer reviewer in that rejection process. A similar paper written by many of the same researchers behind the Lozier Institute's was retracted a year ago by the journal that published it, along with two others suggesting mifepristone was unsafe. 'They keep trying to publish the same junk science,' Upadhyay said. James Studnicki, the Charlotte Lozier Institute's director of data analytics, who led the second of its new anti-abortion papers and the study retracted last year, did not respond to a request for comment. But a spokesperson for the institute said the organization is challenging last year's retraction through an arbitration process. This March, Studnicki said in a statement that the retraction placed 'politics over publication ethics.' These studies and papers all fall outside the scientific consensus. More than 100 studies over decades of research have found that mifepristone — and the medication abortion regimen as a whole — has a low complication rate and is very safe to use for abortions. Papers like these aren't new, and their scientific accuracy has long been questioned. But the bevy of new reports and analyses comes at a moment when abortion opponents may have more influence in shaping public policy. Mifepristone restrictions are a top priority for the anti-abortion movement. About two-thirds of all abortions in the United States are now done using medication. Even in states with abortion bans, pregnant people have increasingly turned to abortion medication, which they receive from health providers in states with laws protecting abortion. Nationwide, about 1 in 5 abortions are now performed using telehealth; almost half of those are for people in states with bans or restrictions. Mifepristone is currently approved for use through 10 weeks of pregnancy. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before a Senate committee that he has directed the Food and Drug Administration to review the approval of mifepristone, citing the EPPC paper specifically. Jim O'Neill, who is nominated for a deputy secretary role, has also said he is in favor of a 'safety review' of the drug — a move that could result in new restrictions on how it is prescribed. Meanwhile, physicians and researchers are highlighting the rigor of the FDA approval process. 'FDA approval of mifepristone must reflect the rigorous clinical evidence that has proven unequivocally that it is safe and effective for use in medication,' 13 reproductive medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, said in a statement after Kennedy indicated the drug may undergo a new FDA review. 'Mifepristone has been used for decades for abortion and miscarriage management by millions of patients, and complications are exceedingly rare, minor, and most often easily treatable.' The International Institute for Reproductive Loss, an anti-abortion nonprofit, has explicitly prioritized the publication of research that supports restrictions on medication abortion. Presenting at an anti-abortion conference last September, that organization's science director, Priscilla Coleman, highlighted strategies that she said could help result in the retraction of studies showing mifepristone's safety, such as finding 'agenda-driven, poorly developed and conducted studies published in peer-reviewed journals' and writing to journal editors. Coleman did not respond to a request for comment. Though no scientific consensus has changed, anti-abortion lawmakers have rallied around the suggestion that complications are common. In a private Zoom meeting reported on by Politico, abortion opponents cited the EPPC paper as a potential tool to justify further restrictions on mifepristone — even while acknowledging that the report is 'not a study in the traditional sense' and 'not conclusive proof of anything.' Sen. Josh Hawley, a Republican from Missouri, cited the EPPC paper in a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary, who had only a day before the report's publication indicated openness to reviewing mifepristone's approval if new evidence emerged. 'The time to act is now. It is time to revisit and restore the FDA's longstanding safety measures governing mifepristone,' Hawley wrote. His office did not reply to a request for further comment. 'They're producing this terrible 'science' because they don't have any real science that backs them up. And all they've gotten from the administration is, 'Yeah, we'll study it,'' said David Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University who has advised state legislatures on crafting abortion-protetctive laws. Through the courts and Trump administration, abortion opponents have pushed to reverse a 2021 FDA decision allowing mifepristone to be distributed via telehealth. In addition to calling for the in-person requirement to be reinstated, abortion opponents are asking for restrictions such as the dispensation of the drug to require three in-person visits, and for mifepristone to only be approved for use only in the first seven weeks of pregnancy. Many have also argued the drug should be taken off the market entirely. The Trump administration said on the campaign trail that it would leave abortion policy up to the states. So far, there has been little indication from the federal government that such changes are imminent. 'Pills are kind of just spreading, as we predicted, without almost any restriction and so far the anti-abortion movement hasn't figured out what to do,' Cohen said. The post Abortion opponents are coming for mifepristone using what medical experts call 'junk science' appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Time of India
a day ago
- Politics
- Time of India
‘India already has wide support, should not have sent delegations'
Jitendra K Tuli moved to the USA in 1966 and is currently a resident of the USA. Jitendra has engineering degrees from India, France and the University of California, Berkeley. He is the President of Economic & Technical Consultants, Inc and has been involved with the Indian Politics since childhood and then got involved with the politics of the USA, Pakistan and Bangladesh. LESS ... MORE In the recent war between India and Pakistan, the ceasefire has been implemented by both the countries. In the news media of both the countries, there have been a number of news stories, some of which are fake, related to the war and the ceasefire. Even after the ceasefire, these news are continuing. Both countries have sent delegates to different countries to present their sides, which I feel India should have not done. As will be discussed, sending delegations is a political blunder. Before the recent war is discussed, a brief history of some of the major encounters between the two countries will be discussed. To date there have been several major wars and encounters between India and Pakistan, all of which were started by Pakistan. In late 1947 Pakistan attacked Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Maharaja of J&K had not yet acceded with India and his army was unable to resist Pakistan's army which captured most of J&K. The Pakistani army was about to capture Srinagar and its airport. Then J&K Maharaja acceded to India and India immediately deployed its Army and Air Force to J&K which were able to push back the Pakistan Army out of two thirds of J&K. Unfortunately, then Prime Minister Pandit Nehru, at the insistence of the Governor General Mountbatten, agreed to a ceasefire. In 1965, again Pakistan attacked J&K. India counter responded militarily in J&K and also in Punjab. While Pakistan was able to capture a part of the Indian territory. India was able to capture much more of Pakistani territory. India's forces had reached the outskirts of Lahore. This war ended with a treaty executed at Tashkent initiated by Russia. In 1971, Pakistan refused to honor the national assembly election results and did not allow Shaikh Mujibur Rahman, whose party Awami League, had won the election, to become Pakistan's Prime Minister. Instead, Pakistan imposed martial law in Bangladesh. Mr. Rahman and a large number of other Bangladeshis were arrested and thousands of Bangladeshis were killed. Bangladeshis were opposed to martial law and formed a Mukti Bahni which, with the help of India's Army, started a fight against Pakistan's army in Bangladesh. In response, Pakistan started a war on the Western front also which was opposed by the Indian Army. The Indian Army captured a large part of Pakistan's territory and freed Bangladesh from Pakistan's control. Pursuant to Simla agreement, India released Pakistan's army personnel captured in Bangladesh and vacated the land captured in the Western Pakistan. In 1999, when India and Pakistan were ready to negotiate a peace deal, the Pakistan army, without the knowledge of the Pakistan government, attacked Kargil in J&K and occupied parts of the Kargil Districts. India successfully repulsed the Pakistani army from Kargil. As a result of this aggression, India refused to continue any negotiations. In 2014, India and Pakistan reached another peace agreement, which resolved all the issues including Pakistan's acceptance of J&K's status quo; Pakistan's inspired terrorists attacked Air Force bases in Pathan Kot and Uri. As a result, India refused to execute the treaty. On August 5, 2019, India revoked Article 370 and converted J&K into a centrally controlled Union Territory. Pakistan encouraged J&K Muslim residents to start a violent retaliation against the actions of the Indian government. However, this never happened. Pakistan could not adjust to the change of the J&K status and started encouraging the terrorists to engage in the killing of the J&K residents including tourists, pilgrims, and migrant labor. The latest attack was on April 22, 2025, when Pakistan's inspired terrorists killed 26 tourists for no reason which shook India. PM Modi issued a stern warning to Pakistan and terrorists. In the beginning, some Indians were proposing to pursue the diplomatic course of action against Pakistan. However, PM Modi and the Indian Army decided to pursue a military action against Pakistan. After careful analysis, specific targets were selected in POK and Punjab and air strikes were conducted on the night of May 7. The time between April 22 and May 7 perhaps gave sufficient time to Pakistan to prepare for a response. As usual, claims by India and Pakistan have been exaggerated. However, the fact is that India did hit more targets and damaged more areas in Pakistan than was done by Pakistan. There is no doubt that due to the use of Chinese and Turkish drones, the extent of Pakistan's response was unexpected. This conflict has given a new life to Pakistan's army which had become very unpopular because of its treatment of Imran Khan. Is the current conflict over now? No. Though not frequently, the cross-border firings may continue. However, Pakistan will reduce to some extent its support to the terrorist activities in J&K. The Indian government may target some terrorist residing in Pakistan as India had done in the past which I described in my article 'Tit for Tat, India's aggressive policy against terrorism' posted on January 10, 2024, in Times of India. Pakistan's main worry is the Indus Water Treaty. Pakistan would try every means including the appeasement of the Indian government. This war as well as India's ban on all business with Pakistan and suspension of the Indian Water Treaty ('IWT') would have an adverse effect on Pakistan's fragile economy. If India reduces the water flow to Pakistan, it could cause famine type situation in Pakistan. Due to its fragile economic situation, Pakistan realized that a long-term war would seriously damage its economic situation. After claiming a victory, Pakistan approached a number of countries including the U.S. for a ceasefire. Finally, the U.S. government decided to persuade both countries for a ceasefire. The news about Mr. Trump's threat that the refusal to a ceasefire would affect trade deals with India and Pakistan, is not correct. Pakistan did not need any threat as it was very willing to a ceasefire and no threat against India would have worked. The ceasefire occurred because of calls from the US Vice President Vance to Pakistan PM Sharif and India FM Jai Shankar. First Pakistan decided to send the delegations to a number of countries to present its version of the war and position on Kashmir and other issues. Then India also decided to send delegations of Members of Parliament to the USA and other countries to brief them about India's position and the war. India is a superpower and does not need to do any briefing. Sending delegations is a gross wastage of the taxpayer's money. The delegation will not change anything as India already has a wide support. Israel does not send delegations. Pakistan definitely needs to explain its position to the world, but India does not need to. Sending delegations got India into Pakistan's trap of reviving the Kashmir issue which the other countries have forgotten. Some Indian leaders condemned IMF for granting loans to Pakistan and expressed displeasure about India abstaining from the IMF's voting for loan and not opposing it. IMF's rules only allow voting for a resolution or abstaining and there is no provision for voting against any resolution. Some Pakistani sources and Indian opposition parties have claimed that Trump has placed both Pakistan and India on the same level. This is nonsense. First, India and U.S. business is at a much higher level than that with Pakistan. After India's independence, all U.S. Presidents have invited Indian Prime Ministers to White House which, with one exception, has not happened in the case of Pakistan. During his first term, President Trump imposed a unique restriction on the Staff of Pakistan Embassy in Washington, DC which prohibited them travelling more than 20 miles from Washington, DC. Such a ban on any country was unprecedented. In fact, India itself has put herself at Pakistan's level by sending delegations. Should the current situation continue forever? Absolutely not. If Pakistan softens its rhetoric related to India and J&K and support of terrorists, India may allow visas to family members, friends, tourists, sportsmen, artists, and scholars. It may be advisable for India to open the businesses and other communication channels including medical tourism. Several rich Pakistanis use Indian medical facilities and doctors. Nawaz Sharif's wife got her knee replaced in India. If all things go well, both countries can proceed to have a normal relation with each other. It should be pointed out that the younger educated Pakistanis do not care about Kashmir and are proud of their Hindu heritage. Many Pakistanis like Indian movies. Hopefully, one day Pakistan will shed her historical animosity toward India and a good relationship will be established between India and Pakistan. Facebook Twitter Linkedin Email Disclaimer Views expressed above are the author's own.
