List of All Articles with Tag 'l'

The firms aiming to help eradicate invasive species by making commercial use of them.

BOGOTA Mexican used-car platform Kavak has opened a vehicle reconditioning plant in Colombia, which it hopes will help

Montana Gov. Greg Gianforte on Wednesday signed into law a first-of-its kind bill that makes it illegal for TikTok to operate in the state

A combative three-judge panel at one of the most conservative courts in the country grilled attorneys for the federal government and a drug manufacturer as anti-abortion activists continue a legal battle to overturn the government’s approval of a widely used abortion drug. On 17 May, the case against mifepristone returned to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans, where attorneys for the US Department of Justice and drug manufacturer Danco Laboratories faced skeptical Republican-appointed judges hearing oral arguments in a case that could upend abortion care for millions of Americans. Within seconds of her opening argument, Justice Department attorney Sarah Harrington was interrupted by Judge James Ho, a Donald Trump appointee, who challenged her description of the legal challenge against the drug’s approval by the US Food and Drug Administration. “I don’t think there’s ever been any court that has vacated an FDA determination that a drug is safe to be on the market,” she replied. “FDA can make that determination based on exercising its own scientific expertise, but it’s not a court’s role to come in and second-guess that expertise.” “Why not focus on the facts,” Judge Ho said, “rather than this ‘FDA can do no wrong’ theme.” The judges repeatedly interrupted Ms Harrington and appeared sympathetic to the plaintiffs: an anti-abortion group represented by influential right-wing legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, whose senior counsel Erin Morrow Halley – the wife of Republican senator Josh Hawley – baselessly asserted that medication abortion is “particularly dangerous”. Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, who was appointed by George W Bush, also took a moment to chastise lawyers for their “unusual remarks” in filings objecting to the widely derided lower-court decision from a former right-wing activist attorney who was appointed to the federal bench by Mr Trump. Judge Elrod suggested their criticisms amounted to personal attacks and suggested that the attorney retract the statements and apologise. “Those statements reflect our view that the district court was very outside the bounds,” said Jessica Ellsworth, an attorney for Danco. “I don’t think those remarks, any of them, were intended as any personal attack.” The judges are not expected to rule immediately. But a decision from the panel judges – each with a history of support for abortion restrictions – is likely to return the case to the US Supreme Court, which has paused any action on mifepristone until the legal challenge plays out. In her arguments, Ms Hawley conflated the risk of serious complications from mifepristone – which is less than 1 per cent – with the risk that a medication abortion failed and would then require medical attention. Her arguments suggested that doctors are enduring a moral harm by providing abortion care, without evidence that doctors have been forced to do so, while also claiming that the FDA illegally approved the drug when it was approved more than 20 years ago. The judges repeatedly questioned the FDA’s approval process for mifepristone, which plaintiffs argued was done too hastily through an expedited process that is typically reserved for treating serious or life-threatening illnesses. But the FDA did not do that with mifepristone; it took years of study before the FDA’s approval. The part of that process that the agency invoked for mifepristone’s approval allowed the FDA to add safety restrictions, such as a requirement that physicians be able to diagnose ectopic pregnancies. But judges appeared to argue that because pregnancy is not an illness, mifepristone should not have been approved through that process at all, repeating plaintiffs’ false claim that the FDA called pregnancy a “life-threatening illness.” “When we celebrated Mothers’ Day, were we celebrating illness?” Judge Ho said at one point. “The arguments today demonstrated in detail that the case has no legal or scientific merit and should have been laughed out of court from the very start,” Jennifer Dalven, director of the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project, said in a statement. “Unfortunately, the deck is stacked as the judges hearing this case are well known for their extraordinary hostility to abortion,” she added. “The whole point of the case is to prevent anyone in America, no matter where they live, from using a medication that has been safely used in this country for decades and is used in most abortions today.” Major medical groups and research from hundreds of studies over the last two decades have confirmed the overwhelming safety and efficacy of the drug, one of two drugs used in a two-drug protocol for a medication abortion, the most common form of abortion care in the US. Studies show it is as safe to use as common over-the-counter pain relievers like ibuprofen and acetaminophen, and the protocol for medication abortion is used in more than 60 other countries. The drug was first approved by the FDA in 2000 and is approved for use up to 10 weeks of pregnancy. A vast majority of abortions occur within the first nine weeks of pregnancy. From 2019 through 2020, nearly 93 per cent of all abortions were performed before the 13th week, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mifepristone is also used to treat miscarriages. Roughly 10 per cent of clinically recognised pregnancies end in miscarriages, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Medical Association also joined a brief in the challenge opposing arguments from anti-abortion groups. Last year, Alliance Defending Freedom filed a lawsuit in US District Court in Amarillo, Texas on behalf of a group of anti-abortion activists incorporated as the Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, which was organised that same month with an address in Amarillo. The Alliance Defending Freedom also led the challenge at the Supreme Court that ultimately struck down Roe v Wade. In April, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk – a former right-wing activist lawyer who was appointed to the federal judiciary by then-President Trump – issued a ruling to suspend the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, which was immediately challenged by abortion rights advocates, providers, major medical groups, drug manufacturers and the Biden administration. An appeal landed at the Fifth Circuit court, which has jurisdiction over the Amarillo court. A three-judge panel blocked a part of the judge’s ruling, and a subsequent ruling at the Supreme Court paused the lower-court ruling as the legal challenge continues. Read More North Carolina Republicans approve 12-week abortion ban as sweeping restrictions spread across US South Nebraska Republicans approve combined gender-affirming care ban and anti-abortion bill after epic filibuster Anti-abortion laws harm patients facing dangerous and life-threatening complications, report finds A Texas man sued his ex-wife’s friends for allegedly helping her with an abortion. Now they’re suing him Louisiana Republicans refuse rape and incest exceptions to state’s sweeping anti-abortion law What is mifepristone? The widely used pill in the abortion rights battle at the Supreme Court

The mysterious 1912 sinking of the luxury passenger liner, the Titanic, has long served as a source of fascination for many.

Air China Ltd. has swamped an Australian flight school with a request for commercial pilots, a sudden demand

The daughter of King James VI and I was Electress Palatine of the Rhine and Queen of Bohemia, and through her grandson, the founder of a new British ruling dynasty.

By Abigail Summerville NEW YORK Alphia is exploring options including a sale that could value the private equity-owned

Angelina Jolie announced a new fashion venture Wednesday

A Hebrew Bible more than 1,000 years old sold for $38.1 million in New York on Wednesday, setting a record for the most...

After more than a year of organizing, a group of Los Angeles dancers is on

A 29-year-old woman was in for a rude awakening when she asked the internet if her mother was in the wrong for refusing to babysit her newborn for free. “Am I the a**hole if my mom refused to help me take care of my baby while I go back to work?” u/erika_urrrika asked the popular Reddit forum. In her post, the new mother wrote that both she and her partner work full-time and cannot afford to have one parent stay home with their baby. The Redditor explained that their jobs don’t allow them to work from home, and they wanted to avoid spending money on childcare. In addition to being the breadwinner of the household, she is also saving money to pay off credit card debt and move to a bigger apartment. However, the grandmother refused to look after her grandchild for free, noting that she was “too old” and had “already raised her kids”. “Mind you, my mom is 64, has been a homemaker/stay-at-home-mom since 1992, and hasn’t been part of the workforce since then,” the daughter wrote. “She also added that if I really wanted this baby, then maybe I should have thought about staying home like she did to take care of it while my partner goes to work and provides for us like a ‘traditional’ family, and that if she any my dad were able to work it out, so can we.” When the Reddit user detailed her financial situation to her mother, she asked to be compensated $20 an hour for each hour she looks after her grandchild, including late fees for pickup. “So, am I the a**hole for wanting my mom, who again is at home all day long (trust me, she does not do anything besides watch TV and cook meals), to take care of my baby for free while me and my partner try to fix our finances?” she asked. In the comments, many Reddit users called the daughter “entitled” for expecting her mother to take care of her child for free. “Sorry to be blunt and rude but maybe don’t have a child if you can’t afford to take care of them,” replied one person. “And if your plan was always to go back to work you should have discussed that during the pregnancy with your mom.” “Your mother is under no obligation to babysit for you,” another user said. “Why are you having a child you don’t seem to know what to do with? And why have you not worked all this out before now?” A third person wrote: “Your mom is in no way obligated to care for YOUR BABY. It’s generous of her to be willing to do it for pay, and you have the gall to be mad she won’t do it for free? She is entitled to spend her life and free time however the hell she wants. It’s not her fault you’re in debt and decided to have a baby you can’t afford. The only thing she may have done wrong at some point along the line is raise you to be this horribly entitled.” “You chose to have a child, not your mother. Your mother isn’t a free babysitter,” another said. “She is right, she raised her children. Her babysitting on occasion would be kind and appreciated but you sound entitled thinking you are owed childcare.” One person simply commented, “You’re not the a**hole for wanting her too. But you’re the a**hole for expecting her to.” According to Sittercity, the average hourly rate of babysitters in the US in 2023 is $18.50 per hour, while the average hourly rate of nannies who “typically work on a full-time or set schedule basis” is $20 an hour. This isn’t the first time a babysitter has caused a stir on Reddit. Recently, a woman sparked a debate after revealing that she asked a family who cancelled on her babysitting services last minute to pay her half of the $840 she planned to charge them. The babysitter told Reddit’s AITA forum that she usually charges a “flat rate of $100 a night” while babysitting overnight. “Overall, the price for those three days was going to be $840,” she said. But when she received a text from the parents cancelling her babysitting services, she explained that she was “out three days pay”. In response to the last-minute cancellation, she asked the customer for $480, the “minimum [she’d] make at work in those three days”. She said the mother declined the request and said she was being “ridiculous”. While the babysitter noted that she and the family didn’t have a contract, “which in hindsight was stupid” and that “legally they don’t have to pay” her, she still felt that the right thing for the family to do was pay her. Read More Woman questions whether it was ‘selfish’ to refuse boyfriend’s request for $5,000 loan Babysitter asks family to pay half of $840 bill after they cancelled last minute People divided over whether you should switch tables in a restaurant if seated next to a crying baby Woman questions whether it was wrong to refuse boyfriend’s request for $5,000 loan Women urged to check blood pressure – here’s what you need to know Denise Welch remembers ‘losing sense of reality’ while facing post-natal depression