Connect with us

Healthcare

Hospital in McAllen overwhelmed with COVID-positive migrants

Published

on

DelRio2 childrenwomenmigrants

[brid autoplay=”true” video=”845480″ player=”23886″ title=”Joe%20Bidens%20superspreader%20Border%20Crisis%20Reaches%20New%20High” duration=”400″ description=”Monthly border apprehensions hit 212,000 in July 2021, the highest in two decades. Fox News contributor Sara Carter and former senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller join ‘Hannity’ with reaction.” uploaddate=”2021-08-14″ thumbnailurl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/thumb/845480_t_1628938828.png” contentUrl=”//cdn.brid.tv/live/partners/18168/sd/845480.mp4″]


By Jenny Goldsberry

Dr. Marc Siegel uncovered the story of the McAllen Hospital in Texas that is overwhelmed with COVID-19 cases. But the majority of their patients aren’t locals, they are migrants who just crossed the border.

Now, Dr. Ivonne Lopez-Lopez of the hospital says the surge is due to the unvaccinated patients. Nearly all of their patients are unvaccinated. Even fellow vaccinated doctors have contracted the virus.

“They’re coming in because they want a better opportunity,” Lopez-Lopez said. “I try to hear them out, right because they are coming in with an idea, a dream, and they end up sick.”

As a result, The White House recently sent 8.5 million vaccine doses to Mexico, 1.5 million to Honduras and 1.5 million to El Salvador. Meanwhile, border patrol agents are also suffering, some contracting the virus and even dying.

In Siegel’s opinion, the COVID-19 response needs to evolve with the times. “The biggest mistake of the whole pandemic is rigidity,” he tweeted, “not acknowledging that you are shooting at a moving target, not acknowledging the latest research (on masks, on schools, on vaccines) as it emerges, not altering your thinking even when the whole game changes.”

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