MV TELEGRAPH

Abortion is legal again in Wyoming, oddly as a result of a state constitutional amendment pushed by anti-Obamacare conservatives more than a decade ago.

Teton County District Court Judge Melissa Owens, in a ruling Wednesday, temporarily blocked enforcement of the state’s newly enacted abortion ban that went into effect Sunday.

Owens’ decision pointed to a 2012 amendment to the state constitution that gave Wyoming citizens the right to make their own decisions about healthcare.

Wyoming voters overwhelmingly passed this amendment, which was intended to protect them from hypothetical harm contained in then-President Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.

Anti-abortion lawmakers in Wyoming have attempted to circumvent the 2012 amendment by passing the abortion ban.

The state’s sweeping ban, titled Life is a Human Rights Act, asserts that abortion is not a form of health care.

“Abortion is not healthcare, it is the deliberate termination of the life of an unborn child,” says the law, which specifically targets the anti-Obamacare amendment to the constitution.

The ban prohibits abortion in most cases, and provides exceptions for incest, sexual assault, cases of “fatal fetal abnormality” or when the life of the pregnant person is in danger. Breaking the law is a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $20,000 fine.

But Owens said in her decision Wednesday the state legislature exceeded its powers.

“To declare that abortion isn’t health care when there’s evidence that it is — the legislature can’t come to terms with essentially providing for constitutional amendment,” she said during a hearing, according to a New York Times report Wednesday.

Owens added: “The state cannot prohibit a constitutional right by statute. It is not clear whether abortion is healthcare or not, and the court then has to decide.”

She also told Jay Jerde, an assistant attorney general for Wyoming, who is defending the law for the state, “I still believe abortion isn’t health care,” the Times reported.

“An abortion can only be performed by a licensed medical professional. So what authority does the legislature have to declare that abortion is not health care when our laws only allow a licensed medical practitioner to administer one?” she asked Jerde during the hearing.

Owen’s decision is pausing the abortion ban pending further trials in a lawsuit challenging it. It’s unclear whether the court will ultimately agree that the anti-Obamacare amendment bans a state ban on abortion.

The constitutional amendment contains wording that could enable the ban to take effect. That amendment states that the state legislature may establish “reasonable and necessary limitations on the rights granted” through the amendment.

In other states, constitutional amendments have become unlikely weapons in the fight against abortion restrictions. For example, in October an Ohio judge temporarily blocked the state’s ban on abortion over a constitutional provision passed in 2011 in response to Obamacare.

In South Carolina, the Supreme Court overturned the state’s abortion ban after six weeks, ruling that it violated the state’s constitutional right to privacy. Similarly, in June a Florida judge temporarily suspended the ban on abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy because it violated the state’s constitutional right to privacy.

These measures represent a broader shift in abortion rights litigation after the Supreme Court upheld the half-century-old Roe v. Wade had picked up. After that, the right to abortion was largely left to the individual states. Some states have rushed to ban the procedure outright, while others have gradually introduced new restrictions. Most abortions are now banned in more than a dozen states, including Texas, Idaho, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Oklahoma and West Virginia.

The Wyoming judge’s decision on Wednesday comes as Republican opposition to Obamacare has eased significantly.

Obamacare aimed to make health care more affordable by offering tax credits for individual private health insurance plans and expanding Medicaid, the joint federal and state program that provides health insurance to low-income Americans.

Obamacare also required health insurance plans to include certain minimum coverage benefits.

Republicans strongly opposed the law at the time, arguing it represented “a government takeover of healthcare” that deprived Americans of the ability to choose their own doctors and make medical decisions.

GOP lawmakers during the Trump administration have repeatedly failed to repeal the ACA, let alone approve a replacement law. Meanwhile, 39 states have expanded their Medicaid programs to include more beneficiaries under the ACA.

Wyoming is the only western state that has not expanded Medicaid.

— CNBC’s Dan Mangan contributed to this report.

That’s what Carl Icahn claimed on Friday EnlightenmentThe company’s directors called for additional personal liability insurance before the biotech signed a $7.1 billion acquisition of cancer test developer Grail in 2021.

The allegation is the latest development in a looming proxy fight between the activist investor and San Diego-based Illumina, which have traded blows over the Grail deal, which is under scrutiny by European antitrust authorities. Icahn, who owns a 1.4% stake in Illumina, is pushing for board seats at the DNA sequencing company. The investor is also asking Illumina to reverse what it says is a “catastrophic” acquisition that it says represents “a new low in corporate governance.”

In a new letter to Illumina shareholders, Icahn claimed that the company’s directors requested that it commit to providing them with an “unprecedented level of supplemental personal liability insurance” a day before the August 18, 2021 closing of the Grail deal .

“It appears that the directors privately feared that their decision would cause them tremendous personal harm,” Icahn wrote.

He claimed that the purchase of additional directors’ insurance was “buried in the hope that no one would notice,” adding that it was tacitly disclosed in a routine filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission three months after the Grail acquisition .

He claimed the supplemental insurance is a fourth layer of liability protection in addition to benefits such as the “extremely broad” coverage paid by Illumina for directors and officers, or D&O. This insurance provides liability protection for managers if they are personally sued by employees, vendors, investors or other parties for their actions in running a business.

“This smacks strongly of quid pro quo to us – a group of anxious directors have been reluctantly, trampled and yelled at by management into an extremely risky deal and ultimately made their approval conditional on them being given an even thicker blanket of immunity than the extreme.” lavish comforters they already possessed,” Icahn wrote.

He also claimed that Illumina’s board of directors chose not to share other negative information with shareholders when they closed the Grail deal, such as how significant tax liabilities could arise if Illumina were forced to unwind the acquisition. The board only acknowledged these potential tax consequences in Illumina’s latest annual report, filed on Feb. 17, he noted.

Illumina said in a statement Friday that D&O insurance and other protections are standard for companies and “help boards make decisions in the best interests of shareholders.” The company pointed out that it regularly checks its D&O insurance for “adequate coverage”.

Illumina added that the company has appropriate risk management and disclosure practices.

“Illumina’s disclosures are complete, transparent and timely, and comply with SEC and other disclosure requirements,” the company said in the statement. “In order to keep investors informed, Illumina regularly shares relevant corporate risk factors, including those related to GRAIL. Any other suggestion is a mischaracterization of the facts.”

Illumina won the Grail deal over opposition from the US Federal Trade Commission in September, but is fighting for approval from European regulators.

Last year, the EU’s executive body, the European Commission, blocked Illumina’s acquisition of Grail over concerns it would hurt consumer choice. At the time, it revealed details of a proposed order that would force Illumina to reverse the deal. That could result in a fine of up to 10% of Illumina’s annual revenue, which topped more than $4.5 billion last year.

Illumina has challenged the European Commission, arguing that the agency has no jurisdiction to block the merger between the two US companies. A final decision is expected in late 2023 or early 2024, the company said on Monday. Illumina said that winning a court appeal would eliminate any potential fine and “offers Illumina the greatest option to maximize shareholder value.”

The company also said Monday it interviewed Icahn’s three nominees for its board and found they lacked relevant skills and experience. In his most recent letter, Icahn reiterated his intention to present his board nominees at the annual general meeting of shareholders.

“We firmly believe that our three highly qualified nominees (none of whom have ever voluntarily decided to engage in a value-destroying war with powerful antitrust authorities) have the unique experience to prevent Illumina’s directors from becoming involved.” push further into the corner. ” he wrote.

Icahn’s proxy fight follows a bumpy 18 months for Illumina. The company’s market cap has shrunk to about $34 billion from about $75 billion in August 2021, the month it struck the Grail deal. Icahn has previously claimed that the acquisition wiped out Illumina’s $50 billion market value, which he says “clearly demonstrates that shareholders have lost confidence in Illumina’s management team and board.”

Illumina earlier this week touted Grail, which claims to offer the only commercially available early detection test that can detect more than 50 types of cancer from a single blood draw. The test generated $55 million in revenue in 2022 and is expected to bring in up to $110 million this year, according to Illumina.

Grail is based in Menlo Park, California.

A prescription for Pfizer’s Paxlovid tablets outside of his home in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania on April 25, 2022. (Photo by Rachel Wisniewski/For the Washington Post)

Rachel Wisniewski | The Washington Post | Getty Images

people who take PfizerAntiviral Covid treatment Paxlovid shortly after infection may reduce the risk of long-term Covid illness, regardless of age, vaccination status or infection history, new research suggests.

The study, published Thursday in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine, found that people who took Paxlovid within five days of testing positive for Covid saw a 26% lower risk of long-term Covid than those who didn’t take it . More than 35,000 people took the oral Covid pill in the study, while 246,000 did not.

Only people eligible for Paxlovid under an emergency authorization were enrolled in the study. This includes adults over 50 or those with an underlying medical condition such as high blood pressure or diabetes.

The results suggest Paxlovid’s benefits may extend beyond what the drug was designed for, which is treating adults and children who are at higher risk of ending up in hospital or dying from Covid infection. The drug still showed its intended benefit in the study, reducing the risk of death by 47% and the risk of hospitalization by 24% about a month after initial infection.

The new study comes as researchers work to close the knowledge gap about long Covid, an often debilitating condition with limited data and no proven treatment available.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, long covid refers to new, recurring, or ongoing health problems more than four weeks after an initial covid infection. These problems can include fatigue, trouble breathing, chest pain, and brain fog, and can last for weeks, months, or even years. The CDC estimates that 1 in 5 Covid survivors ages 18 to 64 and 1 in 4 survivors age 65 or older have an ongoing health problem that could be due to a previous infection.

Most of what is known about long-term Covid is that certain people are at higher risk, and the Covid vaccine likely offers some protection against that, says Dr. Jessica Bender, Co-Medical Director at the University of Washington Post-COVID-19 Rehabilitation and Recovery Clinic. She called the new study “very exciting and promising” because it is the first to show a link between Paxlovid and a reduced risk of long Covid.

dr Anita Chopra, a board-certified internal medicine physician who treats patients at a University of Washington primary care medical center, added that prescribers can use the study results to encourage uptake of Paxlovid. Eligible patients will have more peace of mind knowing the drug can result in a significant reduction in their chances of developing the post-Covid condition, she said.

However, Chopra acknowledged that the study was an observational study, meaning the researchers observed participants who did or did not take Paxlovid without intervening. It wasn’t a randomized controlled trial — considered the gold standard for clinical research — where researchers can step in and better investigate a possible cause-and-effect relationship between taking a drug like Paxlovid and an outcome.

Bender emphasized the need to conduct a randomized controlled trial to “replicate these results.”

She said the study’s other limitation was that participants would be identified using health databases maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs. According to Bender, researchers need to conduct studies on other patient populations outside of this healthcare system.

The study comes as Paxlovid moves closer to receiving full approval from the Food and Drug Administration, with the agency’s advisors voting overwhelmingly in support of the drug last week. The FDA is expected to make a decision in May.

More than 12 million cycles of Paxlovid have been shipped to pharmacies across the United States, according to the latest federal data. About 8 million Americans have taken the drug, with about 1.3 million doses available nationwide.

Correction: Bender said the study’s other limitation was that participants were identified using health databases maintained by the Department of Veterans Affairs. In a previous version, the name of the department and the last name of the doctor were incorrect.