Connect with us

West

Republican states unite with pro-life doctors for SCOTUS abortion pill battle

Published

on

Republican states unite with pro-life doctors for SCOTUS abortion pill battle

Join Fox News for access to this content

Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Please enter a valid email address.

By entering your email, you are agreeing to Fox News Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, which includes our Notice of Financial Incentive. To access the content, check your email and follow the instructions provided.

Three Republican attorneys general have asked to join a lawsuit pending before the Supreme Court that could determine whether women have access to the abortion pill, mifepristone. 

Missouri, Idaho and Kansas on Monday jointly filed a motion to intervene in U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vs. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which, if granted, would allow the states to become plaintiffs in the case. The move is an effort to keep the lawsuit alive if the justices find the pro-life doctors who originally challenged the FDA’s approval of mifepristone lack standing to do so.

Advertisement

“This is one of the most important cases before the Supreme Court this term. We’re fighting to protect women and their unborn children from these dangerous abortion pills,” Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey told Fox News Digital in a statement. 

The Supreme Court last month agreed to consider appeals from the Biden administration and drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories defending deregulation of mifepristone, the abortion pill, as part of an effort to make it easier to access and use the drug since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. 

MISSOURI ATTORNEY GENERAL SUES BIDEN ADMIN FOR APPROVING THE SHIPMENT OF CHEMICAL ABORTION PILLS IN THE MAIL

Attorney General Andrew Bailey outside the Supreme Court on Feb. 28, 2023. Missouri, Idaho and Kansas have asked to join a lawsuit challenging the FDA’s deregulation of the abortion pill, mifepristone. (Valerie Plesch/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

In its landmark June 2022 decision, the court ruled in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the U.S. Constitution does not guarantee the right to an abortion and that the matter should be decided by the states. In the aftermath, 14 states have banned abortion at all stages of pregnancy, with some exceptions, and two others have banned abortion once a fetal heartbeat is detected, which is around six weeks of gestation.

Advertisement

The case now pending before the court concerns pro-life doctors and medical groups that sued the FDA in 2022, alleging that the agency unlawfully approved mifepristone in 2000 and that the drug is unsafe. 

Mifepristone, known by the brand name Mifeprex, is a pill taken with misoprostol in a two-drug regimen that first deprives an unborn baby of hormones it needs to stay alive and then causes cramps and contractions to expel the dead fetus from the mother’s womb.

In a highly controversial ruling, the district court in Texas where the case originated halted the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, triggering an appeals process that has now landed before the Supreme Court. 

20 STATE AGS WARN CVS, WALGREENS THAT DISTRIBUTING ABORTION PILLS VIOLATES STATE, FEDERAL LAW

Mifepristone is typically used in combination with misoprostol to bring about a chemical abortion during pregnancy and manage early miscarriage. (Soumyabrata Roy/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Advertisement

The Biden administration and Danco are asking the high court to reverse an appellate ruling that would cut off access to the abortion pill through the mail and impose other restrictions, even in states where abortion remains legal. The restrictions include shortening from the current 10 weeks to seven weeks the time during which mifepristone can be used in pregnancy. The nine justices rejected a separate appeal from abortion opponents who challenged the FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone as safe and effective in 2000.

The case will be argued in the spring, with a decision likely by late June, in the middle of the 2024 presidential and congressional campaigns.

Before the Supreme Court agreed to hear the appeal, Idaho, Kansas and Missouri moved to intervene in the case in the original district court. Texas U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk allowed the three states to join the lawsuit on Jan. 12, 2024, but by then the Supreme Court had already agreed to hear the case. 

Now, the Republican attorneys general say the Supreme Court should allow them to join the lawsuit as plaintiffs, asserting there are injuries their states have suffered that the pro-life doctors and medical groups are unable to address in court. They claim that abortion rights organizations have shipped abortion pills into their states, with the assistance of the FDA, in violation of state abortion bans.

SUPREME COURT AGREES TO DECIDE ON ABORTION PILL ACCESS, APPROVAL PROCESS

Advertisement

The U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the legal challenges to the FDA’s deregulation of the abortion pill sometime this spring. (AP Photo/Mariam Zuhaib, File)

“FDA’s actions impose substantial monetary and sovereign harm on the States. The private plaintiffs have no capacity to assert the States’ interests. So if this Court denies intervention and holds that the private plaintiffs lack standing, the States may be forced to wait for relief until this Court resolves a future emergency application or certiorari petition by Petitioners,” the states told the court in a legal filing.

Bailey, in the filing, also pointed to data that shows thousands of women have traveled out of state to purchase mifepristone and then return to Missouri. “The Federal Government admits that 5 to 8 percent of these women experience significant complications after returning home,” the filing states. 

“Intervention would also promote efficiency,” the attorneys general argued, observing that their separate challenge to the abortion pill is likely to end up before the court “within months” anyway. 

Should the Supreme Court decline their motion to intervene, the Republicans said they “are happy simply to submit an amicus brief.” 

Advertisement

“I am very pleased the district court in Texas has recognized Idaho’s standing in this case.  We intervened over concerns for the safety of Idaho women and the virtually unregulated access to mail-order abortion pills,” Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador told Fox News Digital in a statement. “The Federal Drug Administration’s recklessness puts the lives of both pregnant women and their unborn children in medical jeopardy.”

“Biden is beholden to the nation’s most radical abortion extremists so the FDA is allowing the shipment of chemical abortion pills,” Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach said. “The FDA lacks the statutory authority to do so. And that’s why Kansas is suing.”

The FDA has defended its approval of mifepristone and said the drug is safe when used correctly.

“The FDA approved Mifeprex more than 20 years ago based on a thorough and comprehensive review of the scientific evidence presented and determined that it was safe and effective for its indicated use,” the FDA’s website states.

Advertisement

Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Erik Baptist, who is representing the private plaintiffs, expressed optimism that the Supreme Court will ultimately come down on their side.

“Women should have the ongoing care of a doctor when taking high-risk drugs,” Baptist said. “The FDA betrayed women and girls when it removed safety standards that it previously deemed necessary for women’s health and well-being. The FDA should do the right thing and protect women and girls. Three courts have already agreed with us, and we are hopeful that the U.S. Supreme Court will also agree.” 

Fox News Digital’s Danielle Wallace, Greg Wehner and the Associated Press contributed to this report.

Read the full article from Here

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

San Francisco, CA

San Francisco voters to decide on dueling measures on Top Executive Pay Tax changes

Published

on

San Francisco voters to decide on dueling measures on Top Executive Pay Tax changes


San Francisco voters weighed in Tuesday on two competing measures that seek to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, with one of the measures also including a change to the Gross Receipts Tax.

Should both measures pass, the one with the most votes will take effect, according to the propositions’ legal text.

Currently, the measures state that most businesses with San Francisco gross receipts up to $5 million are exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax. And businesses that use more than half of their city payroll for in-house administrative and management services pay an Administrative Office Tax instead of a Gross Receipts Tax.

The Top Executive Pay Tax is a tax some large businesses pay if their highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median pay of their San Francisco employees. Businesses that have city gross receipts up to $5 million and are not subject to the Administrative Office Tax are exempt.

Advertisement

Proposition C

Proposition C states it would increase the number of businesses that could be exempt from the Gross Receipts Tax and would stop any further increases to the “Top Executive Pay Tax” after a final rate bump.

The proposed measure says it would raise the Gross Receipts Tax exemption ceiling to $7.5 million. The $7.5 million ceiling would also apply to the Top Executive Pay Tax exemption.

As for changes to the Top Executive Pay Tax, Proposition C states it would implement the 2028 tax rate increase in 2027, but then stop any future increases.

Supporting Proposition C are Rodney Fong, CEO of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce, and Chris Wright, senior vice president of Advance SF, an organization of companies, which includes Bank of America, OpenAI, Waymo, the SF Giants CEO and others.

Fong and Wright, in their argument for the measure, say giving businesses more tax breaks would help keep more employees on payroll and would give companies the ability to “contribute to city services in a predictable and balanced way.”

Advertisement

Critics of Proposition C, such as the San Francisco Tenants Union, slam the measure as “billionaire-backed” and argue it would kill the Top Executive Pay Tax and would hand out more tax breaks to businesses at a time when the city is in a budget deficit and faces cuts to essential services.

Proposition D

Proposition D also seeks to change the Top Executive Pay Tax, which is collected from some large businesses where the highest-paid managerial employee earns more than 100 times the median compensation paid to other employees.

If approved, the measure would change the calculation of the tax using the compensation of all employees, not just employees based in San Francisco. Top Executive Pay Tax rates would also be increased for San Francisco gross receipts and payroll.

Supporters have billed the measure as a way to counteract federal cuts to Medicaid. A report by the City Controller’s Office said the measure could result in $250 million to $300 million in additional revenue.

“Proposition D is the solution to our budget deficit. It asks large corporations — not small businesses, not working families — to contribute a little more,” supporters said in the city’s official voter guide.

Advertisement

The measure has the backing of most of the Board of Supervisors, along with labor unions and Rep. Nancy Pelosi.

Opponents, including Mayor Daniel Lurie and state Sen. Scott Wiener, have argued Proposition D would negatively impact the city’s recovery following the COVID-19 pandemic. 

“San Francisco is already one of the most expensive cities in the country to live and do business. Adding extreme and unpredictable tax increases risks driving employers away just as we are trying to bring jobs, workers, and foot traffic back downtown,” said Supervisor Matt Dorsey in the city’s voter guide.



Source link

Continue Reading

Denver, CO

Denver City Council approves $15.5 million tax break for Rossonian Hotel development

Published

on

Denver City Council approves .5 million tax break for Rossonian Hotel development


Denver will reimburse developers working on reviving the Rossonian Hotel up to $15.5 million in sales and property taxes after the council approved the urban development proposal during its meeting Monday.

The decision comes after Denver Urban Renewal Authority found that the site was “blighted,” meaning there are unsafe living or working conditions and environmental contamination.

DURA recommended the city allow “tax increment financing,” or TIF, to remediate those problems and get the project off the ground.

“This tax increment financing is one of the final pieces that makes the Rossonian possible. Without it, this project does not happen,” said Paul Books, one of the owners of the building. “But with it, we are working through the last remaining steps to break ground this summer.”

Advertisement

The project, in the Five Points neighborhood, is part of the Welton Corridor Urban Redevelopment Plan. The six-parcel property is in the namesake intersection of Welton, 27th and Washington streets.

The building, once called the Baxter Hotel, was a popular event space for jazz performances between the 1930s and 1950s. Performers such as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald and Billie Holiday took the stage there. It is on the National Register of Historic Buildings. The building has been vacant since the 1990s.

Palisade Partners, who purchased the property in 2017, plan to build 126 hotel rooms, a restaurant and an event space. They will also construct a new 8-story building between the Rossonian and the Hooper building as part of the redevelopment.

“We’ve concluded that the project does require assistance in order for it to be delivered as it has been contemplated,” said Bill Pruter, executive director of DURA.

Tax-increment financing, which is essentially a tax break or subsidy, allows developers to freeze how much is paid in property or sales taxes at a base level for up to 25 years, and then reinvest what would be paid above that back into certain elements of their projects.

Advertisement

For this project, the developers will be able to reinvest up to $15.5 million — which would otherwise go to the city’s bank account — into their project.

The city will reimburse the tax dollars for specific project costs mostly related to rehabilitation of the building. That includes up to $6.7 million on the plumbing and HVAC work in the new building and up to $2.3 million on the visible structure of the Rossonian Hotel.



Source link

Continue Reading

Seattle, WA

Melinda French Gates is done ‘cheering on Seattle from the sidelines’ — she’s buying into the bet to bring the Sonics back | Fortune

Published

on

Melinda French Gates is done ‘cheering on Seattle from the sidelines’ — she’s buying into the bet to bring the Sonics back | Fortune


Melinda French Gates, a billionaire philanthropist and businesswoman, will join the Seattle Kraken as a minority investor, pending NHL approval.

French Gates, 61, is the ex-wife of Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates. She and her $30 billion net worth, according to Forbes, join an ownership group headlined by majority owner and managing partner Samantha Holloway, as well as investors David Wright, Andy Jassy and longtime Hollywood producer Jerry Bruckheimer.

“As a longtime Seattle resident, it means a lot to me to have the chance to make this investment in our city and its future,” French Gates said in a statement. “I’m a big believer in the power of sports, and after many years of cheering on Seattle from the sidelines, I’m excited to have an even deeper connection to the Seattle sports community.”

French Gates has never previously had an ownership stake in a major professional sports franchise. She will do so at a time when the Kraken ownership group is positioning itself to own an NBA franchise should the NBA return to the Emerald City for the first time since the SuperSonics were relocated to Oklahoma City nearly 20 years ago.

Advertisement

In March, the Kraken ownership group announced the creation of One Roof Sports and Entertainment, which serves as the umbrella brand of the organization to “oversee a growing portfolio of properties and fuel new opportunities.” At the time, Holloway announced that One Roof would pursue an NBA team in Seattle, should the league move forward with expansion.

Holloway also announced in March that the group had entered an agreement to purchase additional equity in Climate Pledge Arena from Oak View Group, and would make the organization the majority owner of the building. OVG has retained a minority stake.

French Gates, who grew up in Dallas and received a bachelor’s degree in computer science and economics, as well as an MBA from Duke, currently heads Pivotal, a group of organizations she founded to accelerate the pace of social progress for women and young people in the United States and around the world.

French Gates previously founded and co-chaired the Gates Foundation, the world’s largest philanthropy.

“I am excited to welcome Melinda to our ownership group,” Holloway said in a statement. “Melinda is an impressive business leader, philanthropist and importantly, a Seattle sports fan. We share many of the same values, including a deep commitment to Seattle and a belief in building organizations that create lasting impact.”

Advertisement



Source link

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending