Latest news with #vs.Wade
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Health
- Yahoo
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. Read more: Hiltzik: MAHA report's misrepresentations will harm public health and hit consumers' pocketbooks 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." Read more: Q&A: The FDA says the abortion pill mifepristone is safe. Here's the evidence 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." Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
10-05-2025
- Business
- Los Angeles Times
Watch for even small shifts in Texas politics. Sometimes tectonic movements follow
Waskom, Texas, is an old railroad town of about 2,000 nestled at the midway point between Dallas and Shreveport, La. According to the city's website, Waskom became a significant player in America's east-to-west trade during the 1880s because J.M. Waskom, a director of the Southern Pacific Railroad, 'led the way in bringing the railroad to East Texas.' That's largely how Waskom got the nickname 'Gateway to Texas.' In 2019 Waskom adopted a new nickname, 'sanctuary city for the unborn,' after an all-male city council voted to make Waskom the first municipality in America to ban abortion since the Roe vs. Wade decision in 1973. Versions of Waskom's 'sanctuary city for the unborn' ordinance quickly spread to more than 70 municipalities in a handful of states as the Supreme Court was preparing to hear arguments on the case that would eventually lead to Roe's overturning. The railway was planned. The legal assault on reproductive care was planned. Both turned out to be part of tectonic shifts in society. So, while everything is bigger in Texas, don't overlook the smaller things happening in the Lone Star State. Recent history suggests it's the small things that are going to have the biggest impact. Last month a driverless truck developed by an autonomous vehicle company out of Pittsburgh made its first delivery run — frozen pastries between Houston and Dallas. Round trip that's about a hair under 500 miles or roughly an eight-hour workday for a truck driver. The company plans to expand freight operations to El Paso and Phoenix in time for the holidays. There are similar companies based in Texas planning to unveil driverless freight options to include San Antonio. The future is now. And just as one anti-abortion ordinance out of one small town in Texas became a much larger movement nationwide, one driverless truck dropping off frozen baked goods in Dallas is a sign of something far more significant for the rest of the country. The administration's tariff policies have reportedly ushered in a decline in port traffic, endangering trucking and dock jobs in the process. One recent study found a decline of 1% in cargo traffic in the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach could threaten as many as 4,000 jobs. However, what's going to eliminate those positions entirely is the kind of automation that quietly hit the Texas roads in late April. Keep an eye on the small things. Without long-term planning about the consequences — or in these cases, even short-term planning — the effects can be catastrophic. I wonder if the administration is discussing what new skills displaced workers in the logistics industry will need to be employable going forward. Or will local officials be forced to wing it as we did in the immediate aftermath of Roe being overturned? Remember some states started reaching back to ordinances from the 1800s to ban reproductive care without even passing new legislation. Without designs and public funding to retrain America's workers, the negative effects of tariffs and automation on employment are likely to quickly overtake the societal benefits (if there are any). It would be a small thing to make skills training a priority in certain communities at this moment in history, but the effects could be significant — preventing a disaster. There's danger in overlooking those opportunities. We saw one outcome in a recent election 250 miles south of Waskom, in the Houston suburb of Katy, one of the state's fastest-growing cities. In the Katy Independent School District, leaders have their hands full just trying to keep up with growth and serve the rising number of students, projected to hit 100,000 by 2028. However, during the recent campaign, the incumbent board president was focused on banning transgender athletes and other conservative talking points. His opponent, an educator and school administrator for three decades, focused on what teachers need in order to provide for the growing population. Wouldn't you know it, the candidate who actually wanted to fix long-term problems in the district won. In fact, a number of pro-education candidates in Texas won seats in last week's election on school boards previously held by folks responsible for banning books and the like. It's noteworthy that voters in conservative pockets of the state want leaders who are more focused on solutions than they are on slogans. I know it's not significant nationally, but given the history of small things in Texas growing, this trend gives me hope. @LZGranderson
Yahoo
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Letters to the Editor: U.S. chief justice could easily refute the partisan criticism contained in Hammer's latest commentary
To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been part of many rulings I wasn't happy about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to name two ("The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court's free fall," March 21). That said, I believe he takes his job seriously and truly cares about the court and the country. That's what made this commentary decrying his laudable, necessary rebuke to Trump and the rabid right for jump-starting the impeach-every-Judge-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided. Now that Congress is gutless and ruled by fear of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering trying to deal with nonstop assaults on reality, decency and the law, only the judicial branch has stood up to the unconstitutional, cruel, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are applying the law and they, not the executive, are the arbiters of legality. Roberts was completely right to call Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This article could've been pasted together from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Times. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don't see eye-to-eye with, but appreciate. Hammer isn't one of them. Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles ... To the editor: Hammer's rant failed to present a conservative balance to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: 'wildly-out-of-line criticism,' 'mercifully,' 'clumsy,' 'ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,' 'outburst' and more. The only cognitive take-away is that Hammer just does not like Roberts. Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills .. To the editor: I submit that The Times, whatever its aims, is not standing up for balance when it publishes Hammer; it's just sacrificing credibility. Truly conservative voices would be welcome, but views like Hammer's are hardly conservative or even logical. He stands with Trump in the president's megalomania: forget about the rule of law and due process in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anyone who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court decisions that hamper the president are based on 'paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.' Roberts showed some spine in reminding the president that a call for impeachment is not an appropriate response to an adverse court ruling. Hammer calls federal Judge James Boasberg a 'rogue' and considers impeachment fitting. What public service is The Times performing in giving such views a platform? Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: Once again, Hammer is using ridiculous, arcane references to make his point. His rationale to impeach Boasberg and why Roberts is "dead wrong" for suggesting that the remedy for rulings you don't like is by appeal, misses the point. Boasberg argued that Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans — a country we are not at war with — was simply a means to avoid due process and likely unconstitutional. Roberts is right. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can appeal; his "remedial legal lesson" is on the line. Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
Los Angeles Times
26-03-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Letters to the Editor: U.S. chief justice could easily refute the partisan criticism contained in Hammer's latest commentary
To the editor: U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been part of many rulings I wasn't happy about — the overturning of Roe vs. Wade and giving President Trump unbridled immunity, to name two ('The chief justice is to blame for the Supreme Court's free fall,' March 21). That said, I believe he takes his job seriously and truly cares about the court and the country. That's what made this commentary decrying his laudable, necessary rebuke to Trump and the rabid right for jump-starting the impeach-every-Judge-we-disagree-with bandwagon, so maddening and misguided. Now that Congress is gutless and ruled by fear of a demagogue, and Democrats are floundering trying to deal with nonstop assaults on reality, decency and the law, only the judicial branch has stood up to the unconstitutional, cruel, random actions of Elon Musk and Trump. Judges are applying the law and they, not the executive, are the arbiters of legality. Roberts was completely right to call Trump and his flunkies on their lynch-mob mentality. This article could've been pasted together from extremist posts on X and is unworthy of the L.A. Times. This paper has hosted the views and well-written insights of many conservative voices I don't see eye-to-eye with, but appreciate. Hammer isn't one of them. Fuzzbee Morse, Los Angeles ... To the editor: Hammer's rant failed to present a conservative balance to progressive rhetoric. His bias was underscored by his parade of adjectives: 'wildly-out-of-line criticism,' 'mercifully,' 'clumsy,' 'ham-handed and self-aggrandizing,' 'outburst' and more. The only cognitive take-away is that Hammer just does not like Roberts. Louis Lipofsky, Beverly Hills .. To the editor: I submit that The Times, whatever its aims, is not standing up for balance when it publishes Hammer; it's just sacrificing credibility. Truly conservative voices would be welcome, but views like Hammer's are hardly conservative or even logical. He stands with Trump in the president's megalomania: forget about the rule of law and due process in summarily expelling non-citizens; regard anyone who disagrees with the president to be at fault and deserving of pursuit; court decisions that hamper the president are based on 'paroxysms of frothing Trump-hatred.' Roberts showed some spine in reminding the president that a call for impeachment is not an appropriate response to an adverse court ruling. Hammer calls federal Judge James Boasberg a 'rogue' and considers impeachment fitting. What public service is The Times performing in giving such views a platform? Grace Bertalot, Anaheim .. To the editor: Once again, Hammer is using ridiculous, arcane references to make his point. His rationale to impeach Boasberg and why Roberts is 'dead wrong' for suggesting that the remedy for rulings you don't like is by appeal, misses the point. Boasberg argued that Trump's application of the Alien Enemies Act to deport hundreds of Venezuelans — a country we are not at war with — was simply a means to avoid due process and likely unconstitutional. Roberts is right. If Hammer disagrees with him, he can appeal; his 'remedial legal lesson' is on the line. Shawn Donohue, Thousand Oaks
Yahoo
05-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
GOP representatives want to ask Missouri voters again about abortion
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — Lawmakers heard legislation Tuesday to reverse what voters approved in November as GOP members are trying to make abortion illegal in the state again. Missouri was the first state to ban abortion following the overturning of Roe vs. Wade. Then, in November, voters approved Amendment 3, lifting the ban. Since then, Republicans have said they will use this legislative session to push back against the referendum, this time by taking the question back to voters. 'This is not politicians making decisions for you, your doctor and your healthcare,' Rep. Jamie Gragg, R-Ozark, said. 'This is actually letting you guys make that decision again.' On Tuesday, a long-debated political issue took center stage in the state capitol. 'They presented false information to people who voted for Amendment 3,' Susan Klein, Missouri Right to Life, told the committee. 'The opposition is going to say voters didn't understand what they voted for but we believe that Missourians are smarter than that; they knew exactly what they were voting for,' executive director for Abortion Action Missouri Mallory Schwarz said. Close Thanks for signing up! Watch for us in your inbox. Subscribe Now For hours, lawmakers heard testimony about legislation that would case voters if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape, incest or medical emergencies. In those cases, law enforcement would have to sign off on the rape or incest report and then abortion would only be legal for up to 12 weeks. 'Twelve weeks is simply not grace or empathy for survivors,' House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City, said. 'I would argue that under Amendment 3, which was passed by the voters, we do give much more grace to survivors by allowing them the time and the space to understand what's happening physically and emotionally.' Rep. Melanie Stinnett, R-Springfield, is sponsoring the legislation, House Joint Resolution 54. 'I think when we have concerns, it is our job as state representatives to, as we're having today, a discussion and consider changes that modify, clarify the language,' Stinnett said. Back in November, Amendment 3 won with nearly 52% approval. Even though the state's abortion ban was overturned, the procedure still isn't being offered inside Planned Parenthood clinics, as both sides await a judge's ruling to overturn the ban. 'Millions of Missourians made it clear by a statewide vote that we support access to crucial reproductive care,' Collins Chetwin said in opposition to the bill. 'Your job is to uphold the will of the people and defend our rights but instead you are attacking and eroding our bodily autonomy.' Last month, House Speaker Jon Patterson, R-Lee's Summit, said he didn't think a complete repeal of the referendum would be possible. 'I think we're all trying to come up with a plan, as I've said, that makes Missouri the most pro-life state it can be,' Patterson said in January. 'It's hard because we want to make it as pro-life as possible but I don't think the voters would pass a repeal, so we have to find something that's in between.' Edmonds speaks out after leaving Cardinals broadcasts Patterson stated that he established a working group to determine the specifics of the plan, acknowledging the challenges ahead and anticipating a debate on the initiative later in the session. 'Whatever we do has to go back to the voters,' Patterson said. 'We just don't know what that vehicle is yet and I think things will coalesce during the middle of session and then the finale will happen at the end of session.' This legislation also includes a provision prohibiting public funds from being used to pay for surgeries, hormones or drugs for transgender minors. 'Unfortunately, I think this is just the beginning; I don't think this is the last attack we will see this session on Amendment 3, the right to reproductive freedom. I think we will see more creative and different attacks, but the bottom line: they are unconstitutional under the right that we voted for and enshrined in the Missouri Constitution and the people of Missouri will continue to show up to prove that,' Schwarz said. The committee did not take any action on the legislation Tuesday. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
