Different Takes: Can Any Institution Protect Abortion Rights?; Misleading Crisis Pregnancy Centers On The Rise

The Washington Post: Abortion Rights Aren't Likely To Be Saved By State Supreme Courts 
State supreme courts have the power to interpret their own state constitutions to provide broader protections for individual liberty than the U.S. Supreme Court. But they rarely break from their state’s dominant political culture. Unlike life-tenured federal court judges, justices in 38 states stand for election, and their decisions are subject to voter initiatives and other democratic checks. On abortion, they probably agree with their state’s political establishment and, if not, they understand that any decision countermanding the state is subject to political override. (Neal Devins, 6/22)

Los Angeles Times: States Must Stop Deceptive 'Crisis Pregnancy Centers' 
As we face the imminent overturn of Roe vs. Wade, clinicians, legislators and activists are preparing for dramatic shifts in the lives of pregnant people and their families. One trend that’s already troubling is the proliferation of crisis pregnancy centers, or CPCs, in California and nationwide. These antiabortion organizations target low-income people facing unintended pregnancies. Their goal is not to provide care, but to prevent people from accessing abortion and contraception. (Jessica Hamilton and Christine Hennenberg, 6/22)

Also —

New England Journal of Medicine: Building A National Public Health System In The United States 
Over the past 2 years, as 1 million lives have been lost in the United States, the coronavirus pandemic has laid bare the shortcomings of the country’s haphazard approach to public health.1 Recent reports on the pandemic response have identified major gaps in leadership, coordination, communications, testing, and attention to critical issues of equity. (Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D., et al, 6/21)

Stat: Hold Science To Higher Standards On Racism 
Shortly before an 18-year-old white supremacist entered a supermarket in a Black neighborhood of Buffalo, N.Y., and shot 13 shoppers and employees with an assault rifle bearing a racist epithet, he posted an online diatribe. Other white nationalist terrorists have done that, but this one was different: It cited a considerable quantity of scientific research to support its author’s racist claims and actions. In the weeks since the mid-May shooting, journalists and scientists have discussed what to make of the Buffalo terrorist’s references to science. Overwhelmingly, these discussions describe the diatribe as relying on pseudoscience or discredited science and co-opting or misreading mainstream science. But this framing doesn’t do enough to hold scientists and the institutions of science accountable for the societal consequences of racist science and scientific racism. (Emily Klancher Merchant, 6/20)

Kansas City Star: Lead The Way To Better, More Humane Testing Without Animals
We all have a stake in a well-functioning U.S. Food and Drug Administration, one that exercises prudent oversight of cosmetics and dietary supplements, brings more useful drugs and stronger price competition to the market, modernizes the regulation of diagnostic tests and procedures and smooths the way for next-generation medical products of value to humankind. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee — one of the best-led and most reliably bipartisan in the chamber — sought to achieve these and other good results on behalf of the American people by passing the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Landmark Advancements Act, or FDASLA. (Chuck Laue and Jennifer Laue, 6/22)

Modern Healthcare: Tackling Healthcare’s Growing Safety Challenges Starts With Our Workforce
In mid-May, four of the nation’s leading voices in healthcare called for urgent, national action to reform our healthcare system. The Institute for Healthcare Improvement, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality urged immediate action on patient and workforce safety, imploring leaders to address safety from a total systems approach. The call for action is timely. A survey published in March found 1 in 3 nurses working in hospitals reported they experience violence while on the job. We are in a crisis. (Dr. J. Stephen Jones, 6/21)

Stat: Revitalizing Research On The Health Effects Of Low-Dose Radiation 
People are exposed to low-dose radiation in many ways: having a CT scan, working as a medical technician or in a nuclear power plant, or living in an area contaminated by radiation. The health effects of these low-dose exposures are not well understood — but a revitalized research program could change that. Decades of research have revealed a number of adverse health effects that have occurred in individuals exposed to high doses of radiation, with most of this work focused on cancer. Much less is understood about the effects of low doses experienced by millions of Americans, although there is increasing evidence of its links to cardiovascular disease, neurological disorders, immune dysfunction, and cataracts, as well as cancer. These possible connections raise questions as to whether the public and workers are adequately protected by current radiation standards and regulations. (Joe Gray, Lindsay Morton and Gayle Woloschak, 6/21)