Abortion pill access is unchanged after the Supreme Court’s decision. Here’s what you need to know

posted in: News | 0

By MATTHEW PERRONE (AP Health Writer)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Access to the abortion pill mifepristone will not change after the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected an effort Thursday by anti-abortion groups to roll back its availability, a win for abortion rights supporters and millions of women in states where abortion is legal.

Despite the ruling, women’s access to mifepristone still largely depends on a patchwork of state laws, with only about half of states allowing full access under terms approved by the federal government.

“It doesn’t change anything anywhere,” said David S. Cohen, a law professor at Drexel University. “Tomorrow’s the same as today, which is the same as yesterday, which is the same as before this case was filed.”

Here’s a look at what Thursday’s decision does and does not mean for abortion access.

What did the Supreme Court decide?

Essentially, the justices said the anti-abortion doctors who brought the case did not have the legal standing to sue the Food and Drug Administration over the drug’s safety or changes making it more widely available. The FDA approved the drug more than 20 years ago and has reiterated its safety and effectiveness.

The anti-abortion doctors, under the name the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, argued they might have to treat emergency room patients who experience serious injuries after taking mifepristone.

While the decision keeps mifepristone available, legal experts say that other groups or individuals who believe they can show a stronger legal connection to the drug might try to sue along similar lines.

“It’s a win that the status quo is preserved but it doesn’t signal that these are now dead arguments that others aren’t going to try and pursue,” said Rachel Rebouche, a Temple University law professor.

What is mifepristone?

Mifepristone is a prescribed to end pregnancies by dilating the cervix and blocking the hormone progesterone, which is needed to sustain a pregnancy. It is usually taken with a second drug, misprostol, that causes the uterus to cramp and contract. The two-drug regimen is used to end a pregnancy through 10 weeks.

What does the ruling mean for the status of mifepristone?

Mifepristone remains fully approved and available under the current FDA framework, which allows telehealth prescribing and mail delivery to patients. The FDA has also expanded availability to large pharmacy chains and allowed prescribing by nurses and other health professionals.

Those policies have increased the prescribing of mifepristone, which accounted for nearly two-thirds of all U.S. abortions last year.

Access to the pills is restricted across large swaths of the country because of state laws that ban abortion (including medication abortion) outright or impose separate restrictions on the drug’s use.

How do state laws impact access to mifepristone?

Access largely depends on the laws in the state where a patient lives and, in the case of states banning or restricting mifepristone, what steps they are willing to take to circumvent them.

About half of U.S. states allows online prescribing and mail delivery of mifepristone, conforming to FDA’s label for the drug.

Currently, 14 states are enforcing bans on abortion at all stages of pregnancy, including with mifepristone. More than a dozen other states have laws specifically limiting how it can be prescribed, such as requiring an in-person visit with a physician or separate counseling about the potential risks and downsides of the drug.

Those steps are not supported by major medical societies, including the American Medical Association.

How safe and effective is mifepristone?

The FDA and the Biden administration filed multiple legal challenges that reiterated the drug’s safety and effectiveness.

Mifepristone results in a completed abortion 97.4% of the time, according to the FDA label. Like all drugs, the abortion pill is not 100% effective and in 2.6% of cases, a surgical intervention was needed to complete the abortion. Less than 1% of the time, the pregnancy continued.

In rare cases, mifepristone can cause serious complications including excessive bleeding, infections and other emergency problems. Those occur in far less than a fraction of 1% of all patients using the drug, according to the FDA label.

How are medication abortions increasing despite restrictions?

Despite state laws targeting mifepristone, statistics show women in those states continue to receive the drug through the mail because state authorities have little visibility into deliveries by the U.S. Postal Service.

A survey earlier this year found about about 8,000 women a month in states that restrict abortion or place limits on telehealth prescribing were getting the pills by mail by the end of 2023, according to the Society of Family Planning.

What’s next for legal challenges to mifepristone?

Legal experts say other parties could bring new lawsuits.

Idaho, Kansas and Missouri sought to join the case against the FDA and the Biden administration, which Supreme Court rejected — though a conservative Texas judge who initially ruled against the FDA allowed them to intervene in the case in his district. The three states, all led by Republican attorneys general, could try to revive the case at the lower court, according to legal experts.

“They are not physicians who have to show that they actually have some relationship to abortion care,” Rebouche said. “They’re claiming a state interest in the regulation of medicine, so I think that’s the vehicle in which you could see a lawsuit come forward.”

___

Geoff Mulvihill contributed to this story from Cherry Hill, N.J.

___

The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

Other voices: Trump is not the answer to America’s immigration crisis

posted in: Politics | 0

If you think America’s immigration system is broken now, wait until Donald Trump fixes it.

Immigration may be the decisive issue of the 2024 election. Voters consistently cite it as the country’s most pressing problem. Migrant encounters at the border reached an all-time high in December, while cities across the US have scrambled to process and house a surge of undocumented arrivals. Perhaps 11 million unauthorized immigrants were in the country in 2022, according to the Department of Homeland Security. Many more have entered since.

Trump says he’ll simply deport them all. In contrast to some of the more effective policies he pursued in this first term, he now cites a military-style program started by President Dwight Eisenhower in 1954, which the government says resulted in the return of about 1.1 million unauthorized migrants to Mexico. (Some scholars put the number far lower.) That precedent is in fact telling, though not in the way Trump thinks: It was cruel, chaotic and achieved nothing of lasting value. Unlawful border-crossing soon resumed, and it hasn’t stopped since.

Trump’s reprise won’t fare any better. The idea, his advisers say, is to use the National Guard and local law enforcement to help conduct nationwide raids, detain migrants in “vast holding facilities” and eventually deport them en masse, in what one aide dubs “the most spectacular migration crackdown.” Recall that Trump made similar promises in his first term but was undone by the legal and logistical challenges involved. The problem has not grown simpler in the meantime.

Even if they were competently executed, such policies would be very costly. One study found that arresting and deporting all 11 million undocumented migrants would cost hundreds of billions of dollars, take about 20 years and reduce real gross domestic product by roughly $2 trillion. Studies of previous deportation efforts suggest that they would also do significant harm to native-born workers: One analysis found that for every 1 million deportations, about 88,000 Americans would lose their jobs. As with the disastrous family-separation policy of Trump’s first term, this plan is likely to be gratuitously harmful to children, about 4.4 million of whom are US citizens living with an undocumented parent.

On legal immigration, the story is much the same. A Heritage Foundation plan — widely considered a blueprint for a second Trump term — includes an array of dubious gimmicks intended to impede new entrants and make life harder for those already here. It would effectively gut visa programs for temporary workers, for instance, by directing the Department of Homeland Security to not update its list of eligible countries. It would tweak rules for H-1B visas in a way that would make it all but impossible for recent foreign-born graduates to qualify. It would prevent agencies from devoting staff time to paperwork for programs like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. Across myriad programs, it would raise fees, add red tape, create intentional backlogs and otherwise gum up the works of essential services.

To go down this road is to privilege an ideological fixation over the national good. America’s ability to attract legal immigrants is one of its greatest strengths. By one measure, immigrants are responsible for more than a third of aggregate U.S. innovation in recent decades. They’re much more productive than migrants to other countries. They produce patents and win Nobel Prizes at rates out of all proportion to their numbers. Yet a president bent on destroying this salutary system — with enough enablers to see the plan through — would have nearly limitless tools to do so.

To be clear: Immigration is perhaps President Joe Biden’s signature failure. Last week, he took modest steps to address the issue, belatedly acknowledging voters’ concerns. Had he acted more promptly, he might’ve forestalled a crisis and reduced the likelihood of losing the election. As things stand, that latter possibility looks all too likely — which means that Trump’s new plans, in all their ineptitude, may soon become reality.

— The Bloomberg Opinion Editorial Board

Related Articles

Opinion |


Sara Pankenier Weld: We need the humanities today more than ever

Opinion |


Max Hastings: EU populists are blind to the real threat to the bloc

Opinion |


Biden plan to brand Trump a felon is hobbled by son’s conviction

Opinion |


1 in 5 Latino voters are considering a third-party candidate for president, poll indicates

Opinion |


Blinken casts doubt on cease-fire prospects after Hamas responds

Vikings star Justin Jefferson will take center stage on Netflix starting July 10

posted in: News | 0

Vikings star Justin Jefferson is already a household name among diehard fans of the NFL.

Now he will get a chance to reach some of the casual fans with the premiere of the Netflix series “Receiver” set to drop on July 10.

This is more or less the sequel to the Netflix series “Quarterback” that released last summer. The smash hit helped former Vikings quarterback Kirk Cousins endear himself to the masses.

This time around the cameras will chronicle the life of an NFL pass catcher, giving an inside look into the life of Jefferson, Davante Adams, Deebo Samuel, Amon-Ra St. Brown, and George Kittle.

The most interesting part about Jefferson’s storyline is the fact that he spent most of last season rehabbing a hamstring injury. This will be the first time many people get to see the hard work Jefferson put in as he grinded through the recovery process.

You can watch the full trailer below.

Related Articles

Minnesota Vikings |


Where does Vikings rookie J.J. McCarthy stand now that the spring is over?

Minnesota Vikings |


Vikings set their schedule for training camp. Here’s how fans can attend.

Minnesota Vikings |


Vikings star Justin Jefferson is ready to lead the franchise into the future

Minnesota Vikings |


Vikings quarterback Sam Darnold already showing what he can do in new offense

Minnesota Vikings |


Check out the new Vikings alternate uniforms aptly dubbed ‘Winter Warrior’

Supreme Court rules California man can’t trademark ‘Trump too small’

posted in: Adventure | 0

By MARK SHERMAN (Associated Press)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday ruled against a man who wants to trademark the suggestive phrase “Trump too small.”

The justices upheld the government’s decision to deny a trademark to Steve Elster, a California man seeking exclusive use of the phrase on T-shirts and potentially other merchandise. It is one of several cases at the court relating to former President Donald Trump. Last week, the court laid out standards for when public officials can be sued for blocking critics from their social media accounts. These cases were also related to Trump.

The Justice Department supported President Joe Biden’s predecessor and presumptive opponent in the 2024 election. Government officials said the phrase “Trump too small” could still be used, just not trademarked because Trump had not consented to its use. Indeed, “Trump too small” T-shirts can already be purchased online.

Elster’s lawyers had argued that the decision violated his free speech rights, and a federal appeals court agreed.

At arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts said that if Elster were to win, people would race to trademark “Trump too this, Trump too that.”

Twice in the past six years, the justices have struck down provisions of federal law denying trademarks seen as scandalous or immoral in one case and disparaging in another.

Elster’s case dealt with another measure calling for a trademark request to be refused if it involves a name, portrait or signature “identifying a particular living individual” unless the person has given “written consent.”

The phrase at the heart of the case is a reference to an exchange Trump had during the 2016 presidential campaign with Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who was then also running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Rubio began the verbal jousting when he told supporters at a rally that Trump was always calling him “little Marco” but that Trump — who says he is 6 feet and 3 inches tall — has disproportionately small hands. “Have you seen his hands? … And you know what they say about men with small hands,” Rubio said. “You can’t trust them.”

Trump then brought up the comment at a televised debate on March 3, 2016.

“Look at those hands. Are they small hands? And he referred to my hands — if they’re small, something else must be small. I guarantee you there’s no problem. I guarantee you,” he said.