The Supreme Court accepted for argument next term Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization, the single abortion provider in the state of Mississippi. The lower courts have determined that the recently passed law which prohibits all abortions (with two exceptions) beyond the 15th week of pregnancy. The Court current ruling permits state involvement in the decision to terminate a pregnancy once the fetus is viable outside the womb as long as the state rules do not unduly burden the woman's right to terminate the pregnancy. (The undue language is really a balancing test between procreative rights and the rights of the state to protect unborn life. Viable has been a medico-legal term with some strong differences of opinion.)
The only thing that SCOTUS has told us is that there are 4 votes to take the case. We do not know which four, but likely, none of those votes came from Breyer, Sotomayor, or Kagan. Why would they take a case that could lead to a bad decision if their position was on the winning side in the lower courts? So, the real question is whether there were 4 or 5 votes to accept the case, and if only 4 votes, was the fourth vote from Roberts or Barrett?
There is a lot of ground to cover from this decision to a reversal of Roe v Wade and Casey. What the Court might do and what reaction their decision might engender are truly open questions. This is how the Court works, and the Court likely will wade into this case as I would put it, "with two feet tripping lightly."
There are Court members who would reverse Roe and others who would instill it in law much broader than its current reach. There may be others concerned about the reputation of a Court that would broadly strike down precedent. There are others who wish to limit the expansion of abortions but in a way that respects the immensity of a very private decision. Right now, what I can say is that one again the Court is at the center of the political decision central to American life, whether we like that or not.
On a separate note, the Biden Administration is seeking to waive the intellectual property rules that protect the companies that have made the Covid vaccines so that, ostensibly, the rest of the world can make them using the technological medical discoveries that the companies found and implemented.
Sen. Warren has indicated that it would be her preference to eliminate all such intellectual property protections, such as patents, much like the WHO prefers. Her idea is that the world should benefit from these discoveries, and that companies who make these discoveries should not profit from them.
As a direct beneficiary from a drug used to treat a very rare form of leukemia (800 people affected world wide), I can assure you that had Senator Warren's idea been in effect 13 years ago, none of you would have heard a single idiotic thing I have ever said in any of my UCLA-X lectures. There would have been no drug, and cancer would have claimed another victim. Now maybe that is not the best example to use, as I can be an irritant to the intellect, but I would sure like to explain to the fine Senator from Massachusetts just how the market works and how necessary intellectual protections are to all innovation.
An alternative suggestion I make, only half in jest , is that the funds that each Senator raises for their campaigns be divied up among [insert any of your favorite charities, lost causes, devilish pleasures] and there be permitted no campaigning, instead substituting one debate per election, equal time, for 4 hours, to be held after an 8 hour shift doing the pharmaceutical research she seems so willing to give away.
That enough for today. I will be back to post on the first scheduled date but feel free to comment on any of this I have posted today. .
Kurt
No comments:
Post a Comment