Connect with us

Healthcare

Dr. Fauci says he wore a mask to avoid ‘giving mixed signals’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 05 18 at 12.58.58 PM scaled

National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Fauci appeared on “Good Morning America” Tuesday, to say he only wore a mask after being vaccinated to maintain his image. This comes after the Center for Disease Control and Prevention announced that vaccinated persons are not required to continue wearing a mask.

Anchor George Stephanopoulos asked Fauci how he’s changed his personal mask policy. And the response was something many have thought all along: for theater. He said he had been wearing a mask despite being vaccinated because of his position.

“I didn’t want to look like I was giving mixed signals,” Fauci said. “But being a fully vaccinated person, the chances of my getting infected in an indoor setting is extremely low.”

“That’s why in indoor settings now, I feel comfortable about not wearing a mask,” he admitted.

Just in March, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) accused Fauci of such during a hearing. “You parade around in a mask for show,” Paul said to Fauci.

RELATED: Rand Paul: ‘Dr. Fauci needs to put up or shut up’

“You have the vaccine and you’re wearing two masks, isn’t that theater?” Paul asked Fauci

“Here we go again with the theater,” Fauci replied, sounding frustrated. He ended the discussion by reiterating: “Let me just state for the record masks are not theater. Masks are protective.”

But now he’s changed his tune. Paul, for his part, contracted the virus last year. Ever since, he’s refused to get a vaccine, one of three U.S. senators that remain unvaccinated. He also reportedly walks around maskless in the Capitol.

You can follow Jenny Goldsberry on Twitter @jennyjournalism

Continue Reading

Healthcare

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

Published

on

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

Trending