Connect with us

Healthcare

Rand Paul: Fauci is wearing a mask ‘because it’s one of his noble lies to convince everybody to wear masks’

Published

on

Screen Shot 2021 03 19 at 10.18.24 AM

Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul joined “Fox & Friends” Thursday to defend his earlier statements at Wednesday’s coronavirus hearing.

At the hearing, Paul challenged infectious disease expert Dr. Anthony Fauci’s stance on immunity and asked him to provide evidence on why people who have been vaccinated need to continue wearing masks.

“That’s the science of vaccines. When you get an infection or you get the vaccination, you develop immunity. Yet [Fauci] keeps moving the goal post saying, ‘well you might get this variant from South Africa.’ My point to him is: show us the evidence. Show us the scientific evidence that people who have already have Covid, people who have already had the vaccine, are getting it again,” Paul said on Fox & Friends.

“If they’re getting it in large numbers and they’re getting ill and going to the hospital and dying, we should know that. But it’s not true. It’s his conjecture. He says we might get it, therefore we need to wear the mask for another year.”

“It’s a ridiculous notion not based on science and what he is doing is theater and it goes against the science of vaccines. Dr. Fauci has immunity, he can’t get it again. He’s wearing a mask because it’s one of his noble lies to convince everybody to wear masks, but it’s not true.”

Paul went on to say that as an incentive for those who have been vaccinated, they should be allowed to not wear a mask.

“It should be the incentive for people to go out and get vaccinated,” Paul said.

Fauci said he “totally disagrees” with Paul and explained that new, highly contagious variants could pose a threat to people who have recovered from Covid or who have been vaccinated.

Fauci has said the U.S. is in a race against virus variants and he is concerned the country will “declare victory” over the virus too soon.

“I’m concerned that if we pull back in our enthusiasm for the fact that vaccines are rolling out, and things look good, if we pull back prematurely, we may trigger another surge. And that would really set us back in all the things that we’re trying to do,” Fauci said at the hearing Thursday.

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