#Northern District of Texas

[nationallawreview]

Down to the Wire for Employers and FTC Noncompete Ban

Compliance Deadline Approaches Employers are running out of time to comply with the FTC’s purported regulatory ban on non-competition agreements. The ban – announced on April 23, 2024 – is scheduled to take effect on September 4. 2024. By that date, the regulation requires that employers notify all employees subject to noncompetes that the agreements will no longer be enforced. The only…

[titles-for-tangents]

Goodness gracious, why that sure sounds like a CONFLICT OF INTEREST

X terms specify Northern District, where Judge Reed O'Connor is a Tesla investor.

[covid-safer-hotties]

Also preserved on our archive (Daily updates!)

Weird how this "endemic" German strain is poised to dominate worldwide... That almost sounds like a pandemic :O

By Ahjané Forbes

KP.3.1.1 is still the dominant COVID-19 variant in the United States as it accounts for nearly 60% of positive cases, but the XEC variant is not far behind, recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data shows.

"CDC is monitoring the XEC variant," Rosa Norman, a CDC spokesperson told USA TODAY. "XEC is the proposed name of a recombinant, or hybrid, of the closely related Omicron lineages KS.1.1 and KP.3.3."

The variant, which first appeared in Berlin in late June, has increasingly seen hundreds of cases in Germany, France, Denmark and Netherlands, according to a report by Australia-based data integration specialist Mike Honey.

The CDC's Nowcast data tracker, which displays COVID-19 estimates and projections for two-week periods, reflected that the KP.3.1.1 variant accounted for 57.2% of positive infections, followed by XEC at 10.7% in the two-week stretch starting on Sept. 29 and ending on Oct. 12.

KP.3.1.1 first became the leading variant between July 21 and Aug. 3.

The latest data shows a rise in each variant's percentage of total cases from Sept. 15-28, as KP.3.1.1 rose by 4.6%, and XEC rose by 5.4%. Previously, the KP.3.1.1 variant made up 52.6% of cases and XEC accounted for 5.3% from Sept. 15-28.

Here is what you need to know about the XEC variant and the latest CDC data.

COVID-19:Your free COVID-19 at-home tests from the government are set to expire soon. Here's why.

Changes in COVID-19 test positivity within a week Data collected by the CDC shows a drop in positivity rate across the board, while the four states in Region 10 had the biggest decrease (-2.7%) in positive COVID-19 cases from Sept. 29, 2024, to Oct. 5, 2024.

The data was posted on Oct. 11.

Note: The CDC organizes positivity rate based on regions, as defined by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Here's the list of states and their regions' changes in COVID-19 positivity for the past week:

Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont): -2% Region 2 (New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands): -1.9% Region 3 (Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia): -1.3% Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee): -0.6% Region 5 (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin): -2% Region 6 (Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas): -0.8% Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska): -1.7% Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming): -1.2% Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, and Republic of Palau): -1.3% Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington): -2.7% The CDC data shows COVID-19 test positivity rate was recorded at 7.7% from Sept. 29 to Oct. 5, an absolute change of -1.8% from the prior week.

COVID-19 symptoms The variants currently dominating in the U.S. do not have their own specific symptoms, the CDC says..

"CDC is not aware of new or unusual symptoms associated with XEC or any other co-circulating lineage of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19," Norman said.

The government agency outlines the basic symptoms of COVID-19 on its website. These symptoms can appear between two and 14 days after exposure to the virus and can range from mild to severe.

These are some of the symptoms of COVID-19:

Fever or chills Cough Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing Fatigue Muscle or body aches Headache Loss of taste or smell Sore throat Congestion or runny nose Nausea or vomiting Diarrhea The CDC said you should seek medical attention if you have the following symptoms:

Trouble breathing Persistent pain or pressure in the chest New confusion Inability to wake or stay awake Pale, gray, or blue-colored skin, lips, or nail beds

[darkeagleruins]

Judicial Bombshell: Federal Judge Forces FDA to Release Over a Million Pages of Pfizer’s COVID-19 Trial Documents They Wanted to Keep Hidden for 75 Years

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Lisa Needham at Public Notice:

It’s been barely a week since conservatives on the US Supreme Court radically upended the balance of power between the branches of government, giving the federal courts the exclusive power to interpret statutes rather than deferring to agency experts. And we’re already seeing impacts on the ground. Right-wingers have been in the habit of running to their preferred courts to get regulations overturned, but the decision in Loper Bright v. Raimondo, which officially destroyed agency deference, will make it easier — even routine — to block every Biden administration rule they don’t like.  Lawsuits to invalidate specific rules had been proceeding through the federal courts before Loper Bright, generally arguing that agencies exceeded their authority in promulgating a rule. These lawsuits exist in no small part because the Supreme Court made it clear they would destroy Chevron deference for years now, with Justice Neil Gorsuch having led the way well before his appointment to the Court. 

Trump appointee Sean Jordan, who sits in the reliably hard-right Eastern District of Texas, was so eager to block a Biden administration’s overtime rule that he dropped his decision the same day Loper Bright came out. It runs 36 pages and mentions Loper Bright multiple times, which means either Jordan was so confident of the Supreme Court decision that he either wrote it in advance or he hurried to stuff Loper Bright into his already-written opinion. Jordan’s opinion also rests heavily on dictionary definitions rather than expertise from the Department of Labor, which issued the rule. So now, the rule that would have made 4 million more Texas workers eligible for overtime, and thus more pay, is blocked thanks to a hurried read of a SCOTUS opinion and Webster’s Dictionary. 

What this mean is that anytime a business doesn’t like a federal rule, it can just sue. It promises to be a free-for-all. Three hospitals in New Jersey sued HHS the day Loper Bright came down, saying the agency’s interpretation of a statute governing Medicare reimbursement is unlawful. In another case, filed before Loper Bright, a trucking company challenging the Biden administration’s rule that addressed misclassification of independent contractors filed a memorandum on July 2 arguing that Loper Bright means the court should not defer to the Department of Labor’s interpretation of the law. The next day, Trump appointee Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas enjoined enforcement of the Biden administration’s rule prohibiting non-compete agreements but limited the injunction to the plaintiffs, which are various pro-business groups like the Chamber of Commerce. 

[...]

Bigotry from the bench

Unsurprisingly, much of the assault on administration rules relates to any regulation that would protect transgender people. Four days after Loper Bright was handed down, another Trump appointee, Judge John W. Broomes in Kansas, enjoined the Department of Education from enforcing its Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Sex in Education Programs rule in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming. The Department of Education spent two years finalizing the rule, which would have prohibited discrimination based on gender identity under Title IX.  The unofficial text of the rule, which runs 1,577 pages with supporting material, is jam-packed with legal analysis. Hundreds of pages are spent explaining how the DOE considered and addressed public comments and the document details the mental health impact of discrimination against LGBTQ students. 

Broomes’s expertise is in natural resource law, a background that does not lend itself to a detailed understanding of Title IX, sex discrimination, or gender identity. But none of that matters. His opinion sneers about “self-professed and potentially ever-changing gender identity” and insists that things like using correct pronouns for students and allowing them to use the bathroom that conforms with their gender identity is an issue of “vast economic” significance. Given that the only costs of the rule are things like updated administrative guidance and perhaps hiring additional Title IX staff, the idea it is a vast economic question is, to put it politely, a reach. Instead, Broomes sided with the conservative plaintiffs, including Moms for Liberty and an Oklahoma student who asserted that using the correct pronouns for other students violated her religious beliefs. Because of this mix of conservative state litigants, private anti-trans groups, and an Oklahoma student, the extent of Broomes’s injunction is even weirder than the patchwork blocking of the HHS rule.

Besides blocking the rule entirely in four states, the rule is also blocked for the schools attended by the members of two private plaintiffs, Young America’s Foundation and Female Athletes United, and all schools attended by the children of members of Moms for Liberty. So now, if you are a transgender student unlucky enough to attend school anywhere in the country where a child of a Moms for Liberty student also attends, you’re out of luck. If your school is free of children of book-banners, you get the protection of the federal rule — unless you live in Kansas, Alaska, Utah, and Wyoming, in which case it doesn’t matter what school you go to.  Over at Law Dork, Chris Geidner has a good rundown of not just how the courts are sledgehammering LGBTQ rights, but also how having courts, rather than regulators, make these decisions results in an uneven patchwork of rulings over a Health and Human Services rule that prohibited health care providers from discriminating based on gender identity. Only five days after Loper Bright was issued, three separate federal courts issued rulings blocking parts of the HHS rule. There’s no chance that William Jung, a Trump appointee to the federal district court for the Middle District of Florida, hadn’t already written most of his decision before Loper Bright was issued, but the case gave him far more ammunition. Fung’s ruling in Florida v. Department of Health and Human Services blocked part of the Nondiscrimination in Health Programs and Activities rule from going into effect — but only in Florida. 

The Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling by the judicial activist MAGA Majority on the Supreme Court is having devastating consequences.

[inthemaelstrom]

What the everloving fuck?

“'Remote dispensing of abortion drugs by mail, common carrier, and interactive computer service is depressing expected birth rates for teenaged mothers in Plaintiff States,' the attorneys allege in the complaint, which was filed before forced birth enthusiast Judge Matt Kacsmaryk in the Northern District of Texas’s Amarillo Division. They claim that decreased births constitute '“'a sovereign injury to the state in itself,” and causes downstream injuries like “losing a seat in Congress or qualifying for less federal funding if their populations are reduced.' In other words, uteri are state slush funds, and girls owe the state reproduction once they are capable of it." Also known as farming teenage girls.

[printedword]

The Supreme Court said on Friday that it would take up a challenge to a part of the Affordable Care Act that requires insurance companies to cover some kinds of preventative care at no cost. The law, President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, has survived three major earlier encounters with the court. The new challenge is directed at a task force that decides which treatments are covered. It has determined that insurers must pay for, among other things, screenings to detect cancer and diabetes; statin medications to reduce the risk of heart disease and strokes; physical therapy for older adults to prevent falls; and eye ointment for newborns to prevent infections causing blindness. The law’s requirement of coverage for lung cancer screenings alone saves more than 10,000 lives each year, the Biden administration told the justices. Several Texas residents and two small Christian-affiliated businesses that provide health insurance to employees sued to contest the way the task force had been appointed, saying it violated the Constitution. The plaintiffs objected to the task force’s decision to cover medication preventing H.I.V. infection in some at-risk people, saying the drugs “encourage and facilitate homosexual behavior.” Judge Reed O’Connor, of the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Texas, agreed, ruling that the United States Preventive Services Task Force had not been properly appointed by Congress and so did not have the constitutional authority to decide what services a health insurer must cover. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, affirmed that ruling, saying the task force had too much independence. In its petition seeking review of that decision, the Biden administration said the appeals court’s “legal rationale would inflict immense practical harms.” “Millions of Americans,” the petition added, “rely on insurance coverage for preventive services without cost sharing. If allowed to stand, the decision below would call into question the legal duty of insurance issuers and group health plans to cover” the task force’s recommendations. In their response, the challengers agreed that the Supreme Court should hear the case. Their brief objected to some forms of preventive care, including “a highly controversial pronouncement that compels private insurance to cover all F.D.A.-approved contraceptive methods, including contraceptive methods that some regard as abortifacients.”

[the-cimmerians]

A federal judge in Texas recently blocked a new Federal Trade Commission rule that would have prohibited new employee non-compete agreements starting September 4. Judge Ada Brown of the Northern District of Texas ruled on August 20 that the FTC lacked the power to prevent employers from requiring even entry-level fast food workers to enter into really stupid contracts that prohibit them from getting better jobs at competing businesses. And maybe, given recent Supreme Court rulings, the FTC has no power to regulate anything at all, you never know.

Noncompete agreements were supposedly needed to keep executives and industrial secret-havers from stealing important “trade secrets” — like “Arby’s Arby-Q barbecue sandwiches contain no more than 30 percent roadkill” — and giving them to competing businesses. But for workers below the management level, the agreements all too frequently suppressed wages and kept people from changing jobs or starting their own businesses. That’s why Joe Biden started calling for an end to the damn things since his 2023 State of the Union address.

Backers of the FTC rule argued that existing intellectual property laws do a fine job of protecting genuine trade secrets, and that for the vast majority of folks, noncompete agreements amounted to cartel-style barriers to competition. The agency estimated the rule could potentially increase wages by as much as $488 billion over the next decade, amounting to a $524 annual wage increase for the average worker.

But businesses of all sorts, mostly Big, and the US Chamber of Commerce objected, arguing that stifling competition is the American way, and that the FTC has no business interfering with how they break their workers’ spirits and keep wages down. Judge Brown held that the FTC “exceeded its statutory authority,” that the rule was “arbitrary and capricious,” an attitude that is reserved solely for petty dictator jackwad bosses, and that the rule would “cause irreparable harm” to said jackwad plaintiffs.

When the rule was introduced in April, FTC Chair Lina M. Khan argued that the “freedom to change jobs is core to economic liberty and to a competitive, thriving economy,” and that noncompete agreements unfairly limited workers’ freedom to seek higher wages and better work conditions, and that noncompetes were bad for business too, “depriving businesses of a talent pool that they need to build and expand.”

The ruling is pretty much guaranteed to go to the US Supreme Court, because in July, a different federal judge in Pennsylvania upheld the FTC rule, noting in that case that “The FTC's substantive rulemaking authority has been confirmed by circuit courts interpreting the FTC Act, as well as by Congress when it enacted its 1975 and 1980 Amendments to the Act,” which sounds convincing enough until you remember that was a long time ago and the Supreme Court now believes businesses can do almost anything they want.

If we’re lucky, the case may eventually be resolved without the Supremes deciding that indentured servitude is also legal again.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Emily Yoffe

Published: Jan 25, 2025

The courageous Texas surgeon was facing a decade in federal prison for blowing the whistle about gender surgery for minors. Trump just dismissed the case.

Until this afternoon, Dr. Eithan Haim, 34, was facing a potential decade in federal prison for revealing publicly that Texas Children’s Hospital was continuing to perform gender transitions on children even after declaring a moratorium on the controversial practice. For this, Haim, a Texas surgeon, became the target of the Biden Department of Justice, which indicted him for allegedly violating patient privacy laws.

There was no violation of patient privacy. What Haim blew the whistle on were surgeries to insert hormonal devices that prevent children from going through puberty. The records he revealed about these interventions carefully redacted identifying information about the patients. What’s more: He had caught the hospital in a bald-faced lie about the very existence of the program. Most dangerous for Haim was that he had run afoul of the Biden administration’s unquestioning support of medical transition of young people distressed about their gender.

“Eithan Haim was the only person with the courage to stand up for what was right,” Haim’s wife, Andrea, wrote on X about her husband taking on the powerful children’s hospital, the country’s largest. “For him, it wasn’t even a decision. Kids were being harmed, and he had to stop it.”

It came with a high price. The couple lost close friendships, all their savings, and their peace of mind. But they never budged.

On Friday came vindication.

At around 2:30 p.m. on Friday, Haim received notice that the Trump DOJ issued a dismissal of all charges against him, with prejudice—meaning the charges cannot be refiled. In a conversation with The Free Press, while he and his wife were celebrating over champagne, he said, “We didn’t think it was going to happen. We took on the federal leviathan and we won.” He added, “This is epic. This is like Lord of the Rings.”

Although Haim had raised more than $1.2 million in a GiveSendGo account, mounting a case to stay out of federal prison has cost $2 million. “We’ll be paying legal bills for 20 years,” he said.

Andrea knows about federal indictments. She herself is an assistant U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas—her husband was indicted in the Southern District. Andrea, who gave birth to their daughter four months ago, said of their ordeal, “I haven’t had a good night’s sleep in a year without worrying my husband would be in prison and I would be raising our daughter alone. We are now going back to normal life.”

As the Trump administration got underway, Haim had an upcoming jury trial on the Biden-era indictment. “I was facing a kangaroo court in a few weeks,” he said.

Marcella Burke, Haim’s attorney, said she and his other lawyers began to ask everyone they knew with any connection to the new administration to make the dismissal of Haim’s case a priority. But she said she had no warning that their efforts had been successful.

“We thank everyone who helped along the way to bring this massive injustice to light, and we are grateful to secure this victory on behalf of our client,” Burke said in a statement. “The fight against the evils he exposed continues, but this dismissal represents a repudiation of the weaponization of federal law enforcement and the first step in accountability for the misdeeds we have all witnessed in this case.”

Missouri senator Josh Hawley went on X Friday afternoon to tout the effectiveness of his lobbying to get the charges against Haim dismissed. He wrote, “Following my call this morning, I am delighted to report the Trump DOJ is now moving to DISMISS this illegitimate prosecution.”

Andrea Haim wrote on X that the couple had no regrets. “[I]f you ask either of us, we would do it again in a heartbeat. Because of Eithan, the world is a better place for children, including our daughter. There is no greater gift we can give her than the knowledge that her daddy is a hero.”

To support Eithan Haim and his family, please click here.

[ Via: https://archive.today/eS9WS ]

==

Somehow, blowing the whistle on gender lobotomies is a crime, but illegally performing gender lobotomies is not.

🤷‍♂️🤷‍♀️

[we-are-not-a-number]

On this day in history, January 22nd, 1973: The US Supreme Court issued a decision in the landmark case Roe V. Wade. The case had originated in the US District Court for the Northern District of Texas in 1970. It was a 7-2 decision in McCorvey's favor, holding that the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides a fundamental "right to privacy", which had protected the right to abortion. It had held that a right to an abortion was not absolute but must be balanced with the government's interest in protecting women's health and prenatal life.

May we do better for future generations freedoms.

[nationallawreview]

Update on FTC Noncompete Ban: Court Challenges Begin

On April ­­23 we reported on the Federal Trade Commission’s vote to ban almost all non-competition agreements in the United States. Within hours of that vote, Ryan LLC, a global tax consulting firm headquartered in Dallas, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the FTC’s authority to issue such a rule. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has been…

[mariacallous]

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments in a challenge to abortion pill access across the country, including in states where abortion is legal. The stakes for abortion rights are sky-high, and the case is the most consequential battle over reproductive health care access since Roe v. Wade was overturned in 2022.

At the center of this fight is mifepristone, a pill that blocks a hormone needed for pregnancy. The drug has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for more than two decades, and it’s used to treat some patients with Cushing’s syndrome, as well as endometriosis and uterine fibroids. But its primary use is the one contested now—mifepristone is the first of two pills taken in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy for a standard medication abortion, along with the drug misoprostol.

If the justices side with the antiabortion activists seeking to limit access to mifepristone, it could upend nationwide access to the most common form of abortion care. A ruling that invalidates mifepristone’s approval would open the door for any judge to reverse the FDA approval of any drug, especially ones sometimes seen as controversial, such as HIV drugs and hormonal birth control. It could also have a chilling effect on the development of new drugs, making companies wary of investing research into medicines that could later be pulled from the market.

Pills are now the leading abortion method in the US, and their popularity has spiked in recent years. More than six in 10 abortions in 2023 were carried out via medication, according to new data from the Guttmacher Institute. Since rules around telehealth were relaxed during the Covid-19 pandemic, many patients seeking medication abortions have relied on virtual clinics, which send abortion pills by mail. And it keeps getting more popular: Hey Jane, a prominent telemedicine provider, saw demand increase 73 percent from 2022 to 2023. It recorded another 28 percent spike comparing data from January 2023 to January 2024.

“Telemedicine abortion is too effective to not be in the targets of antiabortion folks,” says Julie F. Kay, a longtime reproductive rights lawyer and director of the advocacy group Abortion Coalition for Telemedicine.

Tomorrow’s argument comes after a long, tangled series of legal disputes in lower courts. The Supreme Court will be hearing two cases consolidated together, including FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, in which a coalition of antiabortion activists filed a suit challenging the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, asking for it to be removed from the market. The Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a right-wing Christian law firm that often takes politically charged cases.

Despite decades of scientific consensus on the drug’s safety record, the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine has alleged that mifepristone is dangerous to women and leads to emergency room visits. A 2021 study cited by the plaintiffs to back up their claims was retracted in February after an independent review found that its authors came to inaccurate conclusions.

In April 2023, the Trump-appointed judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the Northern District of Texas issued a preliminary ruling on the FDA case invalidating the agency’s approval of mifepristone. The ruling sent shock waves far beyond the reproductive-rights world, as it had major implications for the entire pharmaceutical industry, as well as the FDA itself; the ruling suggested that the courts could revoke a drug’s approval even after decades on the market.

The US 5th Circuit Court of Appeals narrowed Kacsmaryk’s decision a week later, allowing the drug to remain on the market, but undid FDA decisions in recent years that made mifepristone easier to prescribe and obtain. That decision limited the time frame in which it can be taken to the first seven weeks of pregnancy and put telemedicine access, as well as access to the generic version of the drug in jeopardy.

Following the 5th Circuit ruling, the FDA and Danco Laboratories sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, asking the justices to preserve access until it could hear the case. In its legal filing, Danco aptly described the situation as “regulatory chaos.”

SCOTUS issued a temporary stay, maintaining the status quo; the court ultimately decided to take up the case in December 2023.

As all this was unfolding, pro-abortion-rights states across the country were passing what are known as shield laws, which protect medical practitioners who offer abortion care to pregnant patients in states where abortion is banned. This has allowed some providers, including the longtime medication-abortion-advocacy group Aid Access, to mail abortion pills to people who requested them in states like Louisiana and Arkansas.

Though the oral arguments before the Supreme Court begin on Tuesday, it will likely be months before a ruling. Court watchers suspect a decision may be handed down in June. With the US presidential election in the fall, the ruling may become a major campaign issue, especially as abortion access helped galvanize voters in the 2022 midterms.

If the Supreme Court agrees with the plaintiffs that mifepristone should be taken off the market, some in the pharmaceutical industry worry that it will undermine the authority of the FDA, the agency tasked with reviewing and approving drugs based on their safety and efficacy.

“This case isn't about mifepristone,” says Elizabeth Jeffords, CEO of Iolyx Therapeutics, a company developing drugs for immune and eye diseases. Jeffords is a signatory on an amicus brief filed in April 2023 that brought together 350 pharmaceutical companies, executives, and investors to challenge the Texas district court’s ruling.

“This case could have easily been about minoxidil for hair loss. It could have been about Mylotarg for cancer. It could have been about measles vaccines,” Jeffords says. “This is about whether or not the FDA is allowed to be the scientific arbiter of what is good and safe for patients.”

Greer Donley, an associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh and an expert on abortion on the law, doesn’t think it’s likely that the court will revoke mifepristone’s approval entirely. Instead, she sees two possible outcomes. The Supreme Court could dismiss the case or could undo the FDA’s decision in 2023 to permanently remove the in-person dispensing requirement and allow abortion by telehealth. “This would be an even more narrow decision than what the 5th Circuit did, but it would still be pretty devastating to abortion access,” she says.

The Supreme Court could also decide that the plaintiffs lack a right to bring the case to court, says David Cohen, a professor of law at Drexel University whose expertise is in constitutional law and gender issues. “This case could get kicked out on standing, meaning that the plaintiffs aren't the right people to bring this case,” he says. “If most of the questions are about standing, that will give you a sense that that's what the justices are concerned about.”

As the current Supreme Court is considered virulently antiabortion, reproductive-health-care workers are already preparing for the worst. Some telehealth providers have already floated a backup plan: offering misoprostol-only medication abortions. This is less than ideal, as the combination of pills is the current standard of care and offers the best results; misoprostol on its own can cause additional cramping and nausea. For some providers who may have to choose between misoprostol-only or nothing, it’s better than nothing.

Abortion-rights activists have no plans to give up on telehealth abortions, regardless of the outcome of this particular case. “Let us be clear, Hey Jane will not stop delivering telemedicine abortion care, regardless of the outcome of this case,” says Hey Jane’s CEO and cofounder, Kiki Freedman.

“They’re not going to stuff the genie back in the bottle,” Kay says.

[darkmaga-returns]

Press Release.24.12.2024

1.PRM calls for the immediate formation of a Special People's Task Force consisting of 20 medical experts selected from the Ministry of Health Malaysia and another 20 independent international medical experts to investigate the book "Pfizer Papers: Pfizer's Crimes Against Humanity" edited by Naomi Wolf & Amy Kelly in 2024.

Based on primary source Pfizer clinical trial documents that have been revealed through court order, the Pfizer Papers have revealed that the Pfizer Covid-19 mRNA clinical trial was DEEPLY FLAWED; that Pfizer knew from November 2020 that the Covid-19 mRNA "vaccine" was not safe or effective; knew from February 2021, that Covid-19 mRNA injections can cause various serious side effects including death; knew from April 2021 that Covid-19 mRNA injections can cause damage to the hearts of young people;

3. The order of US District Judge in the Northern District of Texas Mart T Pittman in disclosing Pfizer's clinical trial documents including Pfizer's post-marketing documents shows the people that the public disclosure of Pfizer documents is very important; "A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy"; "A nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

4. PRM urges that all forms of mRNA "vaccines" or any "vaccines" for the use of Malaysians must be discontinued pending the investigation and decision of the People's Special Task Force later.

5. This People's Special Power Position is important to restore the People's Trust Deficit towards Public Health Policy which has been seen to have committed negligence, fraud and medical malpractice on a large scale since the Covid-19 Pandemic and the country needs the scientific community from within and outside the Government to respond to the serious current issue regarding the use of mRNA "vaccines" especially since the Covid-19 Pandemic and also any future national vaccine immunization program.

[profeminist]

"U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily blocked lower court rulings that imposed tighter restrictions on the abortion pill mifepristone.

U.S. Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk of the U.S. Northern District of Texas suspended the Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone last week.

The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals blocked that part of Kacsmaryk’s order and kept the FDA approval in place. But the appeals court temporarily re-imposed tighter restrictions on how mifepristone is used and distributed, which would make it more difficult for women to access the drug."

Read the full piece here: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/04/14/supreme-court-temporarily-blocks-abortion-pill-restrictions.html

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Harry Litman at Talking Feds:

It reflects the brutality of the constitutional attack that Trump has unleashed during his first two weeks in office that conduct resembling the actions that led to two impeachments four years ago has barely registered among the dizzying blitzkrieg of assaults. The episode that I have in mind took place last week, but originates from a (meritless) lawsuit that he filed against CBS as a private citizen last October. The outlandish $10 billion lawsuit alleged that CBS edited an interview with Kamala Harris in a biased fashion. The interview was part of the traditional campaign sit downs with both candidates. Trump declined to participate, but he wound up complaining bitterly about an answer Harris gave concerning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump’s beef was that the network aired one version of the answer on “Face the Nation” and a different (he alleged better) version that evening on “60 Minutes.”

In a screed dressed up as a legal complaint, Trump launched scattershot charges such as “CBS and other legal legacy media organizations have gone into overdrive to get Kamala elected… [n]otwithstanding her well documented deep unpopularity even with her own Party.” He asserted that CBS engaged in malicious distortion to “tip the scales” in favor of the Democratic ticket. Trump brought the case under Texas state law against deceptive business practice. Why Texas state law? Well for starters, there’s no viable lawsuit based on federal law. More importantly, the state law theory permitted Trump to bring the case in the Amarillo division of the federal court in the Northern District of Texas, because the constitution allows parties to bring state law cases in federal courts where the parties are from different states (aka diversity jurisdiction). What’s so special about Amarillo? It meant that he was virtually guaranteed to get the federal judge who sits there. That would be Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The name will likely ring a bell. Known for his ardent devotion to conservative social causes, Kacsmaryk is the judge who suspended the FSA’s approval of mifepristone, among many other highly controversial rulings. Trump was engaging in naked forum shopping, exploiting a gaping design defect in the system that needs to be corrected. At the time Trump brought the lawsuit, CBS described it as “completely without merit” and pledged to defend itself vigorously. It said that the Harris interview was edited solely for time constraints on “60 Minutes”—routine editorial stuff—and they denied Trump’s charge that the tape had been doctored.

[...] As soon as he took office, Trump appointed Brendan Carr, a Republican ally whom he appointed to the Commission during his first term, as FCC Chair. In a way that is highly unusual for a regulatory appointee, Carr has been an outspoken advocate for Trump and conservative causes. He has accused Adam Schiff of overseeing a "secret and partisan surveillance machine." He has continuously leveled accusations against the media for supposed bias against Trump. In an interview with Lou Dobbs, he alleged that "[s]ince the 2016 election, the far left has hopped from hoax to hoax to hoax to explain how it lost to President Trump at the ballot box." Most notably, Carr authored the FCC section of Project 2025, which proposed lower legal shields to lawsuits and other policies to bolster conservative speech. Trump in turn has called Carr a “warrior for Free Speech.” Translated, that means a willing henchman in Trump’s shakedown efforts to force media into more favorable coverage and muddle over of his endless stream of lies. Immediately after assuming the Chair, Carr revived the investigations that the FCC had dismissed against CBS, ABC, and NBC (but not Fox). Then last Thursday he launched new investigations into PBS and NPR, both of which Project 2025 calls to defund. Those moves were already high-handed and likely unlawful: The Communications Act of 1934 affirms (and the First Amendment already provides) that the FCC cannot impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters. The FCC has no right to order what the Washington Post and LA Times have of late done voluntarily: gentler (and less honest) coverage of Trump.

On Wednesday, the FCC sent CBS a “Letter of Inquiry” seeking the full unedited transcript and camera feeds from the Harris interview. Like other networks, “60 Minutes” normally doesn’t release interview transcripts to avoid public second-guessing of its editing process. Moreover, the move was nonsensical and highly intrusive: it suggested that the FCC wants to pass judgment not only on what CBS broadcasted but what it didn’t broadcast and how it edited the material it collected for the story. There is no plausible, much less tenable, theory of FCC power that would countenance any scrutiny of that internal process. It was, in fact, a kneecap move. And the kneecap in question is the application of CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, for a merger with Skydance Media, the film studio run by the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. The merger is an $8 billion deal in its closing stages that will create a new company worth about $28 billion.

[...] In its essential structure, Trump’s tactics are no different from his attempted shakedowns of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as his effort to enlist the Department of Justice to help him steal the 2020 election. With Zelenskyy, Trump, in what he has never varied in describing as a “perfect conversation,” tried to hold aid hostage to the Ukrainian president’s agreement to falsely certify corruption by Joe and Hunter Biden. The first articles of impeachment alleged that Trump had abused his power and obstructed Congress for personal political benefit, as was essentially undeniable. (Importantly, Congress had already appropriated the aid that Trump was using to bribe Zelensky; his actions are echoed in his recent effort to freeze nearly all aid and grants, which critics contend violates the anti-impoundment principle of the constitution.) Lead House manager Adam Schiff presciently told the country in closing argument that if Trump were not removed, he would violate the Constitution again. Trump tried to pull the same swindle in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Conspiring with a hand-picked mid-level DOJ official Jeff Clark, whom he proposed to make the Acting Attorney General, Trump tried to manipulate the Department of Justice into sending a letter to Georgia officials suggesting falsely that the Department had found fraud in the election results. As Trump said to the actual Acting Attorney General, Jeff Rosen, "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” But in a dramatic standoff in the Oval Office, Rosen and other Department officials threatened a mass resignation that forced Trump to back down. Trump and Carr’s shakedown of CBS is structurally identical to these two first term outrages. Trump is seeking to force CBS to pay off his lawsuit that he brought as a private citizen based on a claims that have no possible connection to his official responsibilities.

[...] In fact, Trump tried a similar caper in his first administration, trying to strong arm Time Warner, parent company of CNN, based on its proposed merger with AT&T. But since it was clear at the time (as it is now, despite the FCC’s will assertions otherwise) that the FCC merger review doesn’t take account of CNN’s editorial practices, AT&T and Time Warner were able to successfully push back on Trump’s attempts to intervene. This almost certainly is not the end of Trump’s war on the media, whom he has assailed with the same furor he reserves for DEI and illegal immigrants. Trump has called for ABC to lose its license. He has said NBC should be investigated for treason. He crowed in a campaign rally about forcing journalists to reveal their sources by throwing them in jail, saying “When this person realizes that he’s going to be the bride of another person shortly, he will say ‘I’d very much like to tell you exactly who that was.’” And, along with other recent moves like pardoning the January 6 rioters and withdrawing security detail from his political enemies, Trump’s demonization of the media threatens violence. Numerous studies have found increased threats of physical violence, as well as actual violence, against journalists, and anecdotal evidence confirms harassment is rampant at Trump rallies. After the election, a former Marine was arrested for attempting to strangle a Pacific Islander TV news reporter while taunting, “Are you even a US citizen? This is Trump’s America now.” The bottom line is that the kind of behavior every bit as corrupt as what led to the two impeachments, and that poses a grave threat to freedom of the press, now passes by as a page 3 story easily overlooked in the avalanche of outrages with immediate tangible impact, such as the OMB’s recent effort to halt nearly all federal assistance, or unelected mischief maker Elon Musk’s infiltration of the US Treasury’s payment system.

Tyrant 47 doing the same stuff he got impeached for twice in his first go. It’s time to impeach 47! #Impeach47

[madamepestilence]

USA: VOTE IN YOUR 2024 PRIMARY ELECTION NOW

Heya folks, if you live in the US, your time to vote is coming up NOW

You may be recommended to vote Uncommitted to show you don't support Biden, but there's a MUCH better alternative! Primary elections determine what presidents will be eligible for ballot during the presidential election!

Get Dr. Cornel West, Ph.D. on your presidential ballots for November by voting for Cornel West (write it specifically as Cornel West, don't include his title) in your primary elections!

Unfamiliar with Dr. Cornel West, Ph.D.? As a TLDR, Dr. Cornel West, Ph.D. is the most vocal presidential candidate speaking explicitly for a free Palestine, not a false, "two-state," solution, and is seeking to significantly improve the quality of life for Americans, and is a real socialist philosopher, unlike poseur Bernie Sanders.

Learn more here: A video essay I made about the 2024 US election, a detailed Tumblr thread I made about it, Dr. Cornel West, Ph.D.'s official presidential platform

Note: Dr. Jill Stein is just a backup - please vote for Dr. Cornel West, Ph.D.. Claudia de la Cruz is not a viable option, as information has come out that her party, the PSL, has a Conservative 5th Column, and has frequent discrimination issues.

Upcoming voting dates:

(Includes US territories and abroad. Listed alphabetically.)

Primary Elections

Caucus Election? Check follow up post.

Alabama (D/R): Mar 5 Alaska (D): Apr 6 Arizona (D/R): Mar 19 Arkansas (D/R): Mar 5 California (D/R): Mar 5 Colorado (D/R): Mar 5 Connecticut (D/R): Apr 2 Delaware (D/R): Apr 2 Democrats Abroad: Mar 12 District of Columbia (D): Jun 4 District of Columbia (R): Mar 3 Florida (D/R): Mar 19 Georgia (D/R): Mar 12 Illinois (D/R): Mar 19 Indiana (D/R): May 7 Kansas (D/R): Mar 19 Kentucky (D/R): May 21 Louisiana (D/R): Mar 23 Maine (D/R): Mar 5 Maryland (D/R): May 14 Massachusetts (D/R): Mar 5 Michigan (D/R): Feb 27 Minnesota (D/R): Mar 5 Mississippi (D/R): Mar 12 Missouri (D): Mar 23 Montana (D/R): Jun 4 Nebraska (D/R): May 14 New Hampshire (D/R): Jan 23 New Jersey (D/R): Jun 4 New Mexico (D/R): Jun 4 New York (D/R): Apr Nevada (D): Feb 6 North Carolina (D/R): Mar 5 North Dakota (D): Mar 30 Northern Mariana (D): Mar 12 Ohio (D/R): Mar 19 Oklahoma (D/R): Mar 5 Oregon (D/R): May 21 Pennsylvania (D/R): Apr 23 Puerto Rico (D): Apr 28 Puerto Rico (R): Apr 21 Rhode Island (D/R): Apr 2 South Carolina (D): Feb 3 South Carolina (R): Feb 24 South Dakota (D/R): Jun 4 Tennessee (D/R): Mar 5 Texas (D/R): Mar 5 Utah (D): Mar 5 Vermont (D/R): Mar 5 Virginia (D/R): Mar 5 Washington (D/R): Mar 12 West Virginia (D/R): May 14 Wisconsin (D/R): Apr 2