Connect with us

Healthcare

Fauci struggles to explain why vaccinated Americans should not travel

Published

on

Anthony Fauci

President Joe Biden’s chief medical advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared on CNN’s “New Day” Tuesday morning, one year after the World Health Organization declared the Covid-19 outbreak a pandemic, and attempted to explain why the Biden administration has yet to say it’s safe to travel again.

Host John Berman asked Fauci to explain the science behind why the CDC has not said it’s safe for people who have been vaccinated to travel.

“We know from the Biden administration that they say it will make its decisions based on science. What’s the science behind not saying it’s safe for people who have been vaccinated, received two doses, to travel?” Berman asked.

Fauci said the CDC is “headed in that direction,” but it is a multi-step process.

Fauci went on to note the guidelines that were released Monday by CDC Director Rochelle Walensky that stated that fully vaccinated people can meet indoors without masks.

“That was the first in a multi-step process that they are going to be rolling out,” Fauci told Berman.

“They’re being careful, understandably. They want to get science. They want to get data. And then when you don’t have the data and you don’t have the actual evidence, then you’ve got to make a judgment call,” Fauci continued.

“I think that’s what you’re going to be seeing in the next weeks. You’re going to see little by little, more and more guidelines getting people to be more and more flexible,” Fauci added, noting there’s currently no data suggesting travel is not safe after receiving the vaccination.

“The first installation of this is what can vaccinated people do in the home setting? Obviously, the next one is going to be what you’re asking. What about travel? What about going out? What about getting a haircut? What about doing things like that? That’s all imminently going to be coming out,” he concluded.

Follow Annaliese Levy on Twitter @AnnalieseLevy

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