Connect with us


CNN Faults Trump For COVID-19 NY Nursing Home Deaths, Omits Cuomo’s Order



Screenshot 2020 03 10 14.31.09

A CNN report Thursday revealed the devastation COVID-19 had on New York nursing home workers, blaming the federal government for failing to protect them. That story, “Nursing home worker deaths going unscrutinized by federal government,” however, failed to mention anything about the State’s Governor, Andrew Cuomo, and his executive order mandating that those facilities take in recovering COVID-19 patients, which was a policy that’s likely responsible for thousands of elderly deaths in the State.

Instead, CNN reporters chose to take swings at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for allowing worker deaths to be ‘underreported’ when the origin of the virus couldn’t be traced to the nursing home and for leaving the facilities without proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE).

“Even when deaths or imminent dangers are reported to OSHA, and federal or state regulators launch an investigation, the agency has taken few actions to improve working conditions for other employees or hold employers accountable — leaving countless workers around the country exposed to unsafe working conditions,” said the CNN report.

Cuomo’s name was not mentioned once in the article.

What CNN readers didn’t see is alarming. Cuomo’s order was made with knowledge that the elderly were one of the most vulnerable populations to the novel coronavirus. That was known from day one.

If it wasn’t known to Cuomo from expert guidance, it was clearly put by the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) in early March. At the time, CMS advised States to protect the elderly. Cuomo evaded that guidance and moved forward with his order in late March.

Fox News Senior Meteorologist Janice Dean, who lost her mother and father-in-laws to the deadly virus in a New York nursing home, has been outspoken against Cuomo’s order and his failure to own up to his mistakes. In a recent op-ed for USA Today, Dean wrote that initially, she accepted her family members’ deaths as a devastating toll of a pandemic difficult to contain, but, when she learned of Cuomo’s order, that thinking changed.

“At first, we didn’t blame anyone for their deaths,” Dean wrote. “This is a pandemic, and the virus is particularly dangerous for the elderly. Then we learned about the Cuomo administration’s March 25 order that recovering coronavirus patients be placed into nursing homes. The mandate also barred nursing homes from requiring incoming patients ‘to be tested for COVID-19 prior to admission or readmission.’”

Continue Reading


Supreme Court rules anti-abortion doctors lack standing to sue FDA



Supreme Court

In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that the anti-abortion doctors who challenged the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) approval of the abortion pill mifepristone lack the standing to sue the federal agency. This ruling preserves the FDA’s existing approval of the drug.

The opinion, authored by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, emphasized that the plaintiffs presented “several complicated causation theories to connect FDA’s actions to the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries in fact.” However, none of these theories were sufficient to establish Article III standing, which requires a personal stake in the dispute.

National Review reports the lawsuit was filed in November 2022 by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) on behalf of the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine and four pro-life doctors. The plaintiffs claimed that the FDA had no authority to approve the two-pill chemical-abortion regimen under Subpart H, a federal code section allowing expedited approval for drugs treating “serious or life-threatening illnesses.” They argued that pregnancy is not an illness but a normal physiological state.

The plaintiffs also challenged the FDA’s 2016 and 2021 decisions to relax restrictions on mifepristone, such as increasing the gestational age for its use, reducing required office visits, allowing non-doctors to prescribe the pills, and permitting mail delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Abortion opponents expressed disappointment with the decision. Erin Hawley, a lawyer with ADF, criticized the FDA for allegedly endangering women by allowing the use of mifepristone without in-person medical supervision. Ingrid Skop from the Charlotte Lozier Institute and Katie Daniel from Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America echoed similar sentiments, stressing their concerns about the safety of mail-order abortion drugs.

President Joe Biden, however, applauded the decision, highlighting the ongoing risks to women’s rights to necessary medical treatment in many states.

Justice Kavanaugh’s opinion stated that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a direct injury that would force them to participate in abortion procedures against their conscience. He added that concerns about the potential for increased emergency room visits did not justify legal standing.

Kavanaugh noted that doctors and citizens opposed to FDA regulations should seek changes through legislative and executive branches rather than the courts. This decision aligns with a previous lower court ruling that found the legal challenge was filed too late, beyond the statute of limitations.

Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, suspending the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. This decision was subsequently overturned by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, which restored access to the drug. The Supreme Court’s stay ensured that the drug remained available while legal proceedings continued.

Democratic lawmakers welcomed the Supreme Court’s ruling. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley described it as a “major relief & victory for anyone who has ever or will ever need essential medication abortion care.” Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the challenge as baseless and underscored the safety and effectiveness of chemical-abortion pills. She warned of ongoing efforts by Republicans to impose a nationwide abortion ban and called for continued protection of reproductive freedom.


Continue Reading