Appeals court backs limits on mifepristone access, Texas border buoys fight: 5 Things podcast
On today's episode of the 5 Things podcast: Appeals court backs limits on access to abortion pill
An appeals court backed limits on access to the abortion pill, mifepristone. Plus, the new SAVE student loan plan will drive down payments for many, USA TODAY Network Austin Bureau Correspondent John C. Moritz looks into the controversy and legal fight over Texas border buoys, the Maui Fire has become one of the deadliest in U.S. history, and USA TODAY Health Reporter Karen Weintraub explains how dozens of medical doctors were found to have spread COVID-19 misinformation.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Hit play on the player above to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript below. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson and this is 5 Things you need to know Thursday, the 17th of August 2023. Today, an appeals court backs limits on a major abortion pill. Plus, a closer look at the controversy around buoys in the Rio Grande, and how the Maui Fire compares to some of the deadliest in U.S. history.
♦
A federal appeals court yesterday said it would limit access to the abortion pill mifepristone. The court ruled that the FDA had overstepped its authority with a series of actions that made it easier for Americans to obtain the drug, like allowing prescriptions to be filed by mail. The ruling was unlikely to have an immediate impact on access to the drug because of an earlier Supreme Court decision that paused any changes to the status quo. But the Appeals Court ruling does set up another showdown at the Supreme Court over access to the drug, and along with it, abortion. The fight over the drug has taken on a greater significance as conservative states banned abortion in response to the Supreme Court's decision last year to overturn Roe v. Wade. The Justice Department said in a statement that it would appeal yesterday's ruling to the Supreme Court and vowed to defend the FDA's scientific judgment as well as access to reproductive care.
Medical associations and health experts have pointed to the drug's decades long safety record and studies showing it to be safer than common drugs like Tylenol and Viagra. Anti-abortion groups challenging the drug have questioned those studies and say the FDA did not follow its own protocols and ignored contrary data while expediting the drug's approval.
♦
Student loan borrowers who are worried they won't be able to afford to restart payments in October could take a look at a new affordable option called SAVE, or the Saving on a Valuable Education Plan. SAVE won't bail out everyone's budget, but it might work for millions buried in debt like high-cost credit cards, or those struggling to pay the rent. And the interest on federal student loans won't build up and trap you if you consistently make the required payments under the SAVE program. About 70% of borrowers on income-driven repayment plans before the pandemic-related pause are expected to benefit from this change alone, according to the U.S. Department of Education. A beta version for SAVE is now available at studentaid.gov. You can read more with a link in today's show notes.
♦
Large bright orange buoys installed by Texas in the Rio Grande along the US-Mexico border have been called dangerous by migrant advocates and might even have been responsible for deaths in the river. But lawyers for Gov. Greg Abbott say the U.S. Constitution gives the state the right to quell a so-called invasion and that the floating barriers are crucial to that effort. I spoke with USA TODAY Network Austin Bureau Correspondent John C. Moritz for more. John, thanks for hopping on the podcast.
John C. Moritz:
Glad to be part of it.
Taylor Wilson:
So John, can you just start by explaining what these barriers are in the Rio Grande?
John C. Moritz:
From a distance, they almost look like giant beach toys. They're big, they're round, they're red, and they're strung together a thousand feet long. They measure give or take four to six feet around, but below the river, they're tethered to the river bed by concrete, and there's a wire mesh. In case somebody were to try to swim underneath them, they would encounter that wire mesh and would be deterred from them.
Taylor Wilson:
And John, what dangers have we seen around them since they've been installed?
John C. Moritz:
It's a little bit hard to say because there was a body found tangled among the buoys earlier this month. We don't know for certain that the buoys caused the drowning. The State of Texas says it's more likely that the person drowned upstream and just drifted down with the current until the buoy caught them. Now, down in Eagle Pass, which is high on the Rio Grande - for those not familiar with Texas, it's probably closer to El Paso than it is to the Gulf of Mexico - the people out there who use the river for recreation and part of their livelihoods, they say the buoys are a pain in the neck, especially coupled with the very intense law enforcement presence, watercraft by DPS and the National Guard, concertina wire along the shores. And so the buoys are basically just one more element in that river that some people down there say, "Come on, already. Enough's enough. They're not all that effective. Why are we having them?"
Taylor Wilson:
And so then what are Texas lawyers arguing now in defense of these buoys?
John C. Moritz:
The federal government has filed a lawsuit against the governor and the State of Texas saying that it has no authority to go into an international river and do what it's doing, but the lawyers for the state in one of their latest court filings basically invoked what is referred to as the Invasion Clause of the U.S. Constitution that says a state in the face of an invasion can take extraordinary measures absent federal authority because the state has the responsibility to defend itself against either a state actor or a non-state actor. The Invasion Clause, it's a loaded term here in Texas because a lot of people think it adds to the overheated and sometimes dangerous rhetoric that comes with the immigration debate. Feelings are very strong on both sides. Every day I'm looking at my email and I've got a set from people who are all for get tough at the border, and I'll have about that many from the other side who say, "Wait a minute, these people are human beings looking to find a better life for themselves and their family in the United States."
Taylor Wilson:
John, what's next for the fight around these buoys, especially in the courts?
John C. Moritz:
We do have court action. It's still pretty early. The lawsuit was filed, I believe, July 24th. The State of Texas is basically asking the federal judge in this case to reject the federal government's argument that the buoys need to come out while the court action plays itself out. That's where the invasion rhetoric came in their court documents. In addition to that, the state is also asking that it won't have to formally file its contest to the federal lawsuit until at least 30 days after a decision is made on whether the buoys will come out pending the court decision, or perhaps as late as November 1st of this year. So we are a long way from that, "See you in court," line that Gov. Abbott sent to President Biden after the lawsuit was filed. There's a lot happening behind the scenes and a lot that likely will continue to happen behind the scenes before we really move into the litigation phase of this.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, John C. Moritz, thanks for your reporting and time here. Really appreciate it.
John C. Moritz:
You bet. Thanks for having me on.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
At least 110 people have now been confirmed dead from the fire that swept through Maui earlier this month. Destroying much of the historic Hawaiian kingdom capital of Lahaina, the blaze is now one of the deadliest wildfires in U.S. history. It's second only to a 1918 fire in Minnesota as the deadliest since 1900. That fire claimed more than 450 lives. It's also surpassed the devastating 2018 campfire in California, which killed 85 people. And even globally, the Lahaina fire is the fifth deadliest in over a century. If you want to help the victims and survivors in Hawaii, you can donate supplies or volunteer through the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency. And we have a list of other organizations working on the ground with a link in today's show notes.
♦
Medical misinformation of all kinds spread on social media during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, and some even came from medical doctors. USA TODAY Health Reporter Karen Weintraub explains.
Always good to have you on, Karen.
Karen Weintraub:
Thanks. Always good to be here.
Taylor Wilson:
So, a study revealed that 52 doctors spread misinformation about COVID-19. Who are they, Karen, and what fraction of the medical community do they represent?
Karen Weintraub:
So, we don't know their specific identities. They weren't named in the study. They represent lots of different specialties. There was one infectious disease doc and an OB and a psychiatrist, and lots of other different specialties. They're from all over the country, from red and blue and purple states. More from California, but that's the most populous state, so that makes sense. From Texas, from Florida, New York, New Jersey, all over the place. There are a million doctors in the United States, so 52 represents a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the total number of doctors in the U.S.
Taylor Wilson:
And according to this study, what kinds of misinformation did these doctors send out?
Karen Weintraub:
The kinds of misinformation that we're talking about are people who said on social media things like, "Vaccines don't protect you against severe infection," or, "Take hydroxychloroquine," drugs that were shown to be ineffective instead of vaccines that have been shown to be effective. And I should say that these were doctors who were on public outlets on social media. I've gotten a couple of emails since the story posted from people who said, "My own doctor said these things to me in the privacy of the exam room and I switched doctors." It's certainly possible that many more doctors presented misinformation one-on-one to their patients, but this was done in public.
Taylor Wilson:
And the study refers to misinformation as opposed to disinformation. Can you refresh us on the difference between the two, Karen?
Karen Weintraub:
Sure. The researchers wanted to make the distinction because they didn't know what was on the minds of these doctors, whether the doctors intended to mislead people or just didn't understand the data or weren't convinced by the data. The vast, vast majority of doctors and public health experts around the world are firmly convinced that vaccines are safe and effective. They have prevented millions of infections, saved millions of lives, so there's really very little dispute within the medical community at this point and at most of the time that they've been available. But it is possible that somebody perhaps, certainly earlier on, was not convinced yet.
Taylor Wilson:
I mean, these are ostensibly highly educated individuals, experts in their fields. Why do some of them still spread often dangerous misinformation?
Karen Weintraub:
I mean, we really don't know the answer to that, in part because we don't know who they are. Some of them might've been doing it for attention. You get more clicks when you put out crazy information or information that is shocking, and sometimes you make money that way. There were some doctors during the pandemic who were selling some of these treatments, alternative treatments, and were making money off of it, so it's not entirely clear what the motives might've been. And the researchers said that's why they did not want to name the doctors because they didn't want to give them any more attention than they already had.
Taylor Wilson:
And what consequences can doctors face for spreading misinformation writ large?
Karen Weintraub:
During the pandemic, actually, not very much. There was a lot of discussion about what doctors should face if they did put out this kind of information, talk among boards, medical boards, that people should have their licenses revoked, but that didn't really happen very often. The AMA, the American Medical Association, said that there should be such consequences. I haven't heard of specifics where that happened. And in fact, a judge in California said that doctors should not be held responsible because there was enough doubt about some of these pieces of information during the pandemic. There was enough changing information during the pandemic. At first, for instance, the first word was that we didn't think masks were helpful, then we did. Things like that did change during the pandemic, so what's true one day might not be true the next and vice versa. And that's really some of the controversy here is it's hard to say definitively forever what's true and what's not. But clearly, well into the pandemic, it was clear that vaccines were effective and these alternate treatments were not.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Karen Weintraub covers health for USA TODAY. Thanks, Karen.
Karen Weintraub:
Thank you.
Taylor Wilson:
And before we go, a new and sophisticated search is being planned for the elusive Loch Ness Monster. Scotland's Loch Ness Center is inviting monster hunters and volunteers to take part in the search, scheduled for August 26th and 27th if you can get to Scotland, and it's being called the most comprehensive search for Nessie in half a century. Proof of the monster has never been found, but more than a thousand supposed sightings have been reported.
Thanks for listening to 5 Things. If you like the show, we ask that you subscribe and leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts. And if you have any comments, you can reach us at [email protected]. I'm back tomorrow with more of 5 Things from USA TODAY.
