Aug 8 (Reuters) – Pfizer Inc on Monday agreed to pay $5.4 billion in cash for sickle cell disease drugmaker Global Blood Therapeutics (GBT.O), as it looks to capitalize on a surge in revenue from its COVID-19 vaccine and treatment.
Pfizer will pay $68.50 per GBT share, which represents a 7.3% premium to its Friday closing price and a nearly 43% premium over Thursday’s closing price after Bloomberg reported that GBT had attracted takeover interest. The Wall Street Journal reported on Friday that Pfizer was in advanced talks to buy it.
Pfizer’s 2021 revenue of $81.3 billion was nearly double the mark from the previous year, due to COVID-19 vaccine sales. With the addition of its COVID-19 antiviral pill Paxlovid, Pfizer is expected to generate around $100 billion in revenue this year, but sales from both products are expected to decline going forward.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Pfizer has been on the lookout for acquisitions that could bring in billions in annual sales by the end of the decade.
“We have very deliberately taken a strategy of diversification in our M&A deals,” Aamir Malik, Pfizer’s top dealmaker, said in an interview. He said the company was focused on improving growth for the second half of the decade, rather than large deals that generate value through cost cuts.
“We think that there are opportunities across all therapeutic areas that we’re active in,” Malik said, noting the company was agnostic about size for future deals.
Pfizer logo and stock graph are seen in this illustration taken, May 1, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration/File Photo
In May, Pfizer struck an $11.6 billion deal for migraine drug maker Biohaven Pharmaceutical Holding (BHVN.N) and recently also completed a $6.7 billion deal to buy Arena Pharmaceuticals.
With the acquisition of Global Blood Therapeutics, Pfizer adds sickle cell disease treatment Oxbryta, which was approved in 2019 and is expected to top $260 million in sales this year. It will also pick up two pipeline assets – GBT601 and inclacumab – targeting the same disease.
Pfizer said if they are all approved, it believes GBT’s drugs could generate more than $3 billion in sales annually at their peak.
Sickle cell disease is an inherited blood disorder that affects an estimated 70,000 to 100,000 people in the United States.
GBT Chief Executive Officer Ted Love said Pfizer’s resources and multinational infrastructure will allow the company to launch Oxbryta in additional markets and boost its uptake.
“We really have no infrastructure outside of that (U.S. and western Europe) and it takes time and money to build out those infrastructures and Pfizer already has all of it,” Love said.
Shares of Global Blood rose 4.5% following the deal announcement. Pfizer shares closed up marginally at $49.41 apiece on Monday.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Mrinalika Roy in Bengaluru; Editing by Shinjini Ganguli, David Evans and Lincoln Feast.
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
WASHINGTON, July 27 (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into Cassava Sciences Inc (SAVA.O) involving whether the biotech company manipulated research results for its experimental Alzheimer’s drug, two people familiar with the inquiry said.
The Justice Department personnel conducting the investigation into Austin, Texas-based Cassava specialize in examining whether companies or individuals have misled or defrauded investors, government agencies or consumers, according to the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity. The sources did not provide details of the focus of the probe and whether the department was looking into any specific individuals.
As in any Justice Department investigation, this one could lead to criminal charges or be closed without any charges being brought.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
In an emailed statement, Kate Watson Moss, a lawyer representing Cassava, neither confirmed nor denied the existence of the Justice Department criminal probe.
“To be clear: Cassava Sciences vehemently denies any and all allegations of wrongdoing,” Watson Moss said, adding that the company “has never been charged with a crime, and for good reason – Cassava Sciences has never engaged in criminal conduct.”
Watson Moss added that Cassava Sciences has received confidential requests for information from government agencies, but declined to identify those agencies. Watson Moss said that “Cassava Sciences has provided information in response to these requests in full satisfaction of its legal obligations.” Watson Moss added that no government agency has accused the company of wrongdoing.
A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment.
The company already was facing scrutiny from the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and investors after two physicians from outside Cassava last year made allegations of data manipulation and misrepresentation involving research underpinning the company’s Alzheimer’s drug, called simufilam.
Cassava, a small company with about two dozen employees, in a statement last year called the allegations of data manipulation and misrepresentation “false and misleading.”
Cassava on its website describes simufilam as taking an “entirely new approach” to treating Alzheimer’s, the most common form of dementia and a progressive brain disorder that affects nearly 6 million Americans. The oral medication restores the normal shape and function of a key protein in the brain, the company said.
A PETITION TO THE FDA
The criminal investigation began, according to the sources, sometime after a petition was filed in August 2021 with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration by a lawyer on behalf of two physicians asking the agency to halt clinical trials of simufilam. The physicians are David Bredt, a neuroscientist formerly at Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen, and Geoffrey Pitt, a cardiologist who serves as director of Weill Cornell Medicine’s Cardiovascular Research Institute in New York.
The petition filed by Jordan Thomas, a New York-based lawyer representing both doctors, said Cassava’s published studies on clinical trials involving simufilam in various journals contained data misrepresentation and images of experiments that appeared to have been manipulated by photo-editing software. The FDA denied the petition and let the trials proceed.
Bredt and Pitt disclosed last November in an article published by The Wall Street Journal that they shorted Cassava’s stock, betting that the price would go down once investors learned of the manipulation they alleged. They later told The New Yorker magazine that they no longer have a short position in Cassava, a claim Reuters could not independently verify.
The short-selling represents “a major conflict of interest,” Watson Moss said in her statement to Reuters.
“Cassava Sciences is interested in helping those with Alzheimer’s disease, not an easy payday,” Watson Moss added.
STOCK DROP
Cassava’s stock fell precipitously following the petition filed with the FDA by Thomas, presenting an opportunity for Bredt and Pitt to profit on their bet against the company.
Thomas declined to comment on the matter.
The FDA in February said the so-called citizen petition filed by the two physicians urging it to launch an investigation into simufilam was not a proper avenue for such a request. Requests for the FDA to initiate an enforcement action, meanwhile, are “expressly excluded from the scope of the FDA’s citizen petition procedures,” the agency said, adding that it exercises its own discretion on such matters.
An FDA spokesperson declined to comment.
Cassava shares rose on Nasdaq from around $7 in January 2021 to above $135 in July 2021 on investor hopes that the company was on the verge of a breakthrough in treating Alzheimer’s. The stock plunged weeks later following word of the petition questioning Cassava’s research results.
The company’s shares closed at $21.72 on Tuesday.
Cassava has received more than $20 million from the U.S. National Institutes of Health to support developing simufilam.
The NIH told Reuters it does not discuss potential cases of research misconduct related to grants but that officials “take research misconduct very seriously. Research misconduct may distort NIH funding decisions, the overall integrity of the research we support and the public’s trust in science and resulting outcomes.”
Cassava also is facing the SEC investigation, the sources said. The Wall Street Journal last November first reported on the SEC probe, saying the agency was examining the claims made in the FDA petition. Reuters was unable to determine what specific claims, if any, drew the agency’s scrutiny.
An SEC spokesperson said the agency “does not comment on the existence or nonexistence of a possible investigation.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Marisa Taylor in Washington and Mike Spector in New York; Editing by Will Dunham and Michele Gershberg
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
July 10 (Reuters) – U.S. President Joe Biden on Sunday said he has asked his administration to consider whether he has authority to declare an abortion-related public health emergency after the Supreme Court overturned the Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion nationwide.
The comments come after Biden on Friday signed an executive order to ease access to services to terminate pregnancies. read more
Biden was on his way to a bike ride near his residence in Delaware when he stopped to speak to reporters, who asked if he was considering declaring a public health emergency regarding abortion access. The president responded that he was asking his staff to see “whether I have the authority” and what the impacts would be.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
U.S. President Joe Biden speaks before signing an executive order to help safeguard women’s access to abortion and contraception after the Supreme Court last month overturned Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion, at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 8, 2022. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
Read More
Biden, a Democrat, has been under pressure from his own party to take action after the landmark decision last month to overturn Roe v. Wade, which upended roughly 50 years of protections for women’s reproductive rights.
On his stop to speak with reporters, Biden said his goal was to codify abortion rights through legislation and delivered a message to abortion rights protesters who have gathered outside the White House.
“Keep protesting. Keep making your point. It’s critically important,” he said. “We can do a lot of things to accommodate the rights of women.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Nandita Bose; Writing by Tyler Clifford in New York; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) – President Joe Biden predicted on Friday that some U.S. states will try to arrest women for crossing state lines to get abortions after the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to the procedures nationwide.
Thirteen Republican-led states banned or severely restricted the procedure under so-called “trigger laws” after the court struck down the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling last week. Women in those states seeking an abortion may have to travel to states where it remains legal.
Convening a virtual meeting on abortion rights with Democratic state governors on Friday, Biden said he thinks “people are gonna be shocked when the first state … tries to arrest a woman for crossing a state line to get health services.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
He added: “And I don’t think people believe that’s gonna happen. But it’s gonna happen, and it’s gonna telegraph to the whole country that this is a gigantic deal that goes beyond; I mean, it affects all your basic rights”.
Biden said the federal government will act to protect women who need to cross state lines to get an abortion and ensure their access to medication in states where it’s banned.
New Mexico’s governor, Michelle Lujan Grisham, told the meeting her state “will not cooperate” on any attempts to track down women who have had abortions to punish them. “We will not extradite,” she said.
U.S. President Joe Biden participates in a virtual meeting with governors while discussing reproductive health care, following the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization abortion case, overturning the landmark Roe v Wade abortion decision, at the White House in Washington, U.S., July 1, 2022. REUTERS/Tom Brenner
Read More
Abortion rights groups have filed legislation in multiple states seeking to preserve the ability of women to terminate pregnancies.
Judges in Florida, Louisiana, Texas and Utah have since issued decisions preventing those states from enforcing new restrictive abortion laws, while Ohio’s top court on Friday declined to block the Republican-led state from enforcing an abortion ban. read more
New York Governor Kathy Hochul told the group that “just a handful of states” are going to have to take care of health of women across the country.
“There is such stress out there,” Hochul said. “It is a matter of life and death for American women,” she added.
Biden also told the group there were not enough votes in the Senate to scrap a supermajority rule known as the filibuster to codify Roe v. Wade’s protections into law.
He had proposed that senators remove the filibuster but the suggestion was shot down by aides to key Democratic lawmakers. read more
“(The) filibuster should not stand in the way of us being able to (codify Roe),” Biden said.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Rami Ayyub, Jeff Mason and Susan Heavey
Editing by Alistair Bell
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
June 26 (Reuters) – The largest U.S. law firms did not take a public stance following the U.S. Supreme Court’s reversal of Roe v. Wade on Friday, diverging from the approach of some major companies that have made statements on the closely watched abortion case.
The high court’s 6-3 Dobbs decision upheld a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Many states are expected to further restrict or ban abortions following the ruling.
Reuters on Friday asked more than 30 U.S. law firms, including the 20 largest by total number of lawyers, for comments on the Dobbs ruling and whether they would cover travel costs for employees seeking an abortion.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
The vast majority did not respond by Saturday afternoon, and only two, Ropes & Gray and Morrison & Foerster, said they would implement such a travel policy.
Morrison & Foerster, with nearly 1,000 attorneys, was the only large firm to issue a public statement by Saturday afternoon.
The firm’s chair, Larren Nashelsky, said Morrison & Foerster would “redouble our efforts to protect abortion and other reproductive rights.”
The Dobbs decision has been expected since a draft opinion was leaked in May.
Several major U.S. corporations, including The Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Meta Platforms (META.O) said on Friday they will cover travel costs for employees seeking abortions. read more
Industry experts say law firms could speak out on Dobbs in the future if employees and clients push them to take a public stance. For now, firm leaders appear to be carefully weighing the advantages and disadvantages of commenting, including the possibility of alienating clients, experts said.
“This is a tightrope to walk for firms,” said Kent Zimmermann, a law firm consultant with the Zeughauser Group. “They have a diversity of views among their talent and clients.”
Some firms have issued internal communications to employees about the decision. Ropes & Gray Chair Julie Jones said in an internal memo viewed by Reuters that the firm will hold several community gatherings to discuss the ruling and offer “comfort.”
“As a leader of Ropes & Gray, I am concerned about the effect of this decision on our community,” Jones wrote, while acknowledging that her memo may cause “offense to portions of our community.”
A Ropes & Gray spokesperson told Reuters Friday that employees enrolled in its medical plan are eligible for financial assistance to travel out of state for an abortion.
Another large U.S. law firm, Steptoe & Johnson, offered its U.S. workforce the day off on Friday, a spokesperson confirmed. The spokesperson did not immediately respond to further requests for comment.
Despite a dearth of public statements, a number of law firms publicly signaled ahead of the ruling that they planned to provide free legal support to women seeking abortions if Roe was overturned.
Both the New York Attorney General Leticia James and the San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, with the Bar Association of San Francisco, have convened pro bono initiatives that rely on law firm volunteers. Paul Weiss, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and O’Melveny & Myers are among the participants.
Paul Weiss Chair Brad Karp called the Dobbs decision a “crushing loss” in an internal message to the firm on Friday provided to Reuters. Paul Weiss and O’Melveny, which both represented Jackson Women’s Health Organization, respondents in the Dobbs case, deferred comment on the ruling to their co-counsel, the Center for Reproductive Rights.
The center said in a statement that the court had “hit a new low by taking away – for the first time ever – a constitutionally guaranteed personal liberty.”
Gibson Dunn did not respond to request for comment.
Robert Kamins, a consultant with Vertex Advisors who works with law firms, said firms will be “very cautious” about taking early positions on the ruling.
“They have to make sure that they are being thoughtful about it,” he said. “What is the business impact? What is the client impact? What is the recruiting impact? There are lots of things to think about.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Karen Sloan in Sacramento, California, and Jacqueline Thomsen in Swampscott, Massachusetts; Additional reporting by Mike Scarcella in Silver Spring, Maryland; Editing by Rebekah Mintzer, Noeleen Walder and Leslie Adler
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
June 26 (Reuters) – A growing number of large U.S. companies have said they will cover travel costs for employees who must leave their home states to get abortions, but these new policies could expose businesses to lawsuits and even potential criminal liability, legal experts said.
Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O), Apple Inc (AAPL.O), Lyft Inc (LYFT.O), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N) were among companies that announced plans to provide those benefits through their health insurance plans in anticipation of Friday’s U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that had legalized abortion nationwide. read more
Within an hour of the decision being released, Conde Nast chief executive Roger Lynch sent a memo to staff announcing a travel reimbursement policy and calling the court’s ruling “a crushing blow to reproductive rights.” Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) unveiled a similar policy on Friday, telling employees that it recognizes the impact of the abortion ruling but remains committed to providing comprehensive access to quality healthcare, according to a spokesman. read more
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Companies including health insurer Cigna Corp (CI.N), Paypal Holdings Inc (PYPL.O), Alaska Airlines Inc [RIC:RIC:ALKAIR.UL] and Dick’s Sporting Goods Inc (DKS.N) also announced reimbursement policies on Friday.
Abortion restrictions that were already on the books in 13 states went into effect as a result of Friday’s ruling and at least a dozen other Republican-led states are expected to ban abortion.
The court’s decision, driven by its conservative majority, upheld a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks. Meanwhile, some Democratic-led states are moving to bolster access to abortion.
Companies will have to navigate that patchwork of state laws and are likely to draw the ire of anti-abortion groups and Republican-led states if they adopt policies supportive of employees having abortions.
State lawmakers in Texas have already threatened Citigroup Inc (C.N) and Lyft, which had earlier announced travel reimbursement policies, with legal repercussions. A group of Republican lawmakers in a letter last month to Lyft chief executive Logan Green said Texas “will take swift and decisive action” if the ride-hailing company implements the policy.
The legislators also outlined a series of abortion-related proposals, including a bill that would bar companies from doing business in Texas if they pay for residents of the state to receive abortions elsewhere.
LAWSUITS LOOMING
It is likely only a matter of time before companies face lawsuits from states or anti-abortion campaigners claiming that abortion-related payments violate state bans on facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions, according to Robin Fretwell Wilson, a law professor at the University of Illinois and expert on healthcare law.
“If you can sue me as a person for carrying your daughter across state lines, you can sue Amazon for paying for it,” Wilson said.
Amazon, Citigroup, Lyft, Conde Nast and several other companies that have announced reimbursement policies did not respond to requests for comment.
For many large companies that fund their own health plans, the federal law regulating employee benefits will provide crucial cover in civil lawsuits over their reimbursement policies, several lawyers and other legal experts said.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) prohibits states from adopting requirements that “relate to” employer-sponsored health plans. Courts have for decades interpreted that language to bar state laws that dictate what health plans can and cannot cover.
ERISA regulates benefit plans that are funded directly by employers, known as self-insured plans. In 2021, 64% of U.S. workers with employer-sponsored health insurance were covered by self-insured plans, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Any company sued over an abortion travel reimbursement requirement will likely cite ERISA as a defense, according to Katy Johnson, senior counsel for health policy at the American Benefits Council, a trade group. And that will be a strong argument, she said, particularly for businesses with general reimbursement policies for necessary medical-related travel rather than those that single out abortion.
Johnson said reimbursements for other kinds of medical-related travel, such as visits to hospitals designated “centers of excellence,” are already common even though policies related to abortion are still relatively rare.
“While this may seem new, it’s not in the general sense and the law already tells us how to handle it,” Johnson said.
LIMITS
The argument has its limits. Fully-insured health plans, in which employers purchase coverage through a commercial insurer, cover about one-third of workers with insurance and are regulated by state law and not ERISA.
Most small and medium-sized U.S. businesses have fully-insured plans and could not argue that ERISA prevents states from limiting abortion coverage.
And, ERISA cannot prevent states from enforcing criminal laws, such as those in several states that make it a crime to aid and abet abortion, so employers who adopt reimbursement policies are vulnerable to criminal charges from state and local prosecutors.
But since most criminal abortion laws have not been enforced in decades, since Roe was decided, it is unclear whether officials would attempt to prosecute companies, according to Danita Merlau, a Chicago-based lawyer who advises companies on benefits issues.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York, Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Grant McCool
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
Conservative justices power ruling; liberals dissent
Biden condemns ruling as a ‘sad day’ for America
Justice Alito calls Roe v. Wade ‘egregiously wrong’
WASHINGTON, June 24 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that recognized women’s constitutional right to abortion, a decision condemned by President Joe Biden that will dramatically change life for millions of women in America and exacerbate growing tensions in a deeply polarized country.
The court, in a 6-3 ruling powered by its conservative majority, upheld a Republican-backed Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The vote was 5-4 to overturn Roe, with conservative Chief Justice John Roberts writing separately to say he would have upheld the Mississippi law without taking the additional step of erasing the Roe precedent altogether.
The reverberations of the ruling will be felt far beyond the court’s high-security confines – potentially reshaping the battlefield in November’s elections to determine whether Biden’s fellow Democrats retain control of Congress and signaling a new openness by the justices to change other long-recognized rights.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
The decision will also intensify debate over the legitimacy of the court, once an unassailable cornerstone of the American democratic system but increasingly under scrutiny for its more aggressively conservative decisions on a range of issues.
The ruling restored the ability of states to ban abortion. Twenty-six states are either certain or considered likely to ban abortion. Mississippi is among 13 states with so-called trigger laws to ban abortion with Roe overturned. (For related graphic click https://tmsnrt.rs/3Njv3Cw)
In a concurring opinion that raised concerns the justices might roll back other rights, conservative Justice Clarence Thomas urged the court to reconsider past rulings protecting the right to contraception, legalizing gay marriage nationwide, and invalidating state laws banning gay sex.
The justices, in the ruling written by conservative Justice Samuel Alito, held that the Roe decision that allowed abortions performed before a fetus would be viable outside the womb – which occurs between 24 and 28 weeks of pregnancy – was wrongly decided because the U.S. Constitution makes no specific mention of abortion rights.
Women with unwanted pregnancies in large swathes of America now may face the choice of traveling to another state where the procedure remains legal and available, buying abortion pills online, or having a potentially dangerous illegal abortion.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh, in a concurring opinion, appeared to nix an idea advocated by some anti-abortion advocates that the next step is for the court to declare that the Constitution outlaws abortion. “The Constitution neither outlaws abortion nor legalizes abortion,” Kavanaugh wrote.
Kavanaugh also said that the ruling does not let states bar residents from traveling to another state to obtain an abortion, or retroactively punish people for prior abortions.
‘SAD DAY’
Biden condemned the ruling as taking an “extreme and dangerous path.”
“It’s a sad day for the court and for the country,” Biden said at the White House. “The court has done what it has never done before: expressly take away a constitutional right that is so fundamental to so many Americans.”
Empowering states to ban abortion makes the United States an outlier among developed nations on protecting reproductive rights, the Democratic president added.
Biden urged Congress to pass a law protecting abortion rights, an unlikely proposition given its partisan divisions. Biden said his administration will protect women’s access to medications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration including pills for contraception and medication abortion, while also combating efforts to restrict women from traveling to other states to obtain abortions.
Britain, France and some other nations called the ruling a step backward, although the Vatican praised it, saying it challenged the world to reflect on life issues. read more
New Zealand Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern said the decision was “a loss for women everywhere”. “Watching the removal of a woman’s fundamental right to make decisions over their own body is incredibly upsetting,” she said in a statement.
Anti-abortion demonstrators celebrate outside the United States Supreme Court as the court rules in the Dobbs v Women’s Health Organization abortion case, overturning the landmark Roe v Wade abortion decision in Washington, U.S., June 24, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Read More
U.S. companies including Walt Disney Co (DIS.N), AT&T and Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) said they will cover employees’ expenses if they now have to travel for abortion services. read more
‘DAMAGING CONSEQUENCES’
A draft version of Alito’s ruling indicating the court was ready to overturn Roe was leaked in May, igniting a political firestorm. Friday’s ruling largely tracked this leaked draft.
“The Constitution makes no reference to abortion, and no such right is implicitly protected by any constitutional provision,” Alito wrote in the ruling.
Roe v. Wade recognized that the right to personal privacy under the Constitution protects a woman’s ability to terminate her pregnancy. The Supreme Court in a 1992 ruling called Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirmed abortion rights and prohibited laws imposing an “undue burden” on abortion access. Friday’s ruling overturned the Casey decision as well.
“Roe was egregiously wrong from the start. Its reasoning was exceptionally weak, and the decision has had damaging consequences. And far from bringing about a national settlement of the abortion issue, Roe and Casey have enflamed debate and deepened division,” Alito added.
The court’s three liberal justices – Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan – issued a jointly authored dissent.
“Whatever the exact scope of the coming laws, one result of today’s decision is certain: the curtailment of women’s rights, and of their status as free and equal citizens,” they wrote.
As a result of Friday’s ruling, “from the very moment of fertilization, a woman has no rights to speak of. A state can force her to bring a pregnancy to term, even at the steepest personal and familial costs,” the liberal justices added.
The ruling empowered states to ban abortion just a day after the court’s conservative majority issued another decision limiting the ability of states to enact gun restrictions. read more
The abortion and gun rulings illustrated the polarization in America on a range of issues, also including race and voting rights.
Overturning Roe was long a goal of Christian conservatives and many Republican officeholders, including former President Donald Trump, who as a candidate in 2016 promised to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who would reverse Roe. During his term he named three to the bench, all of whom joined the majority in the ruling.
Asked in a Fox News interview whether he deserved some credit for the ruling, Trump said: “God made the decision.”
Crowds gathered outside the courthouse, surrounded by a tall security fence. Anti-abortion activists erupted in cheers after the ruling, while some abortion rights supporters were in tears.
“I’m ecstatic,” said Emma Craig, 36, of Pro Life San Francisco. “Abortion is the biggest tragedy of our generation and in 50 years we’ll look back at the 50 years we’ve been under Roe v. Wade with shame.”
Hours later, protesters angered by the decision still gathered outside the court, as did crowds in cities from coast to coast including New York, Atlanta, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles and Seattle.
House of Representatives Speaker Democrat Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, denounced the decision, saying that a “Republican-controlled Supreme Court” has achieved that party’s “dark and extreme goal of ripping away women’s right to make their own reproductive health decisions.”
The number of U.S. abortions increased by 8% during the three years ending in 2020, reversing a 30-year trend of declining numbers, according to data released on June 15 by the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights. read more
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Lawrence Hurley and Andrew Chung; Additional reporting by Katanga Johnson and Rose Horowitch; Writing by Lawrence Hurley and Ross Colvin; Editing by Will Dunham, Scott Malone, Daniel Wallis and Michael Perry
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
PALO ALTO, Calif., June 24 (Reuters) – The technology industry is bracing for the uncomfortable possibility of having to hand over pregnancy-related data to law enforcement, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Friday to overturn the Roe v. Wade precedent that for decades guaranteed a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion. read more
As state laws limiting abortion kick in after the ruling, technology trade representatives told Reuters they fear police will obtain warrants for customers’ search history, geolocation and other information indicating plans to terminate a pregnancy. Prosecutors could access the same via a subpoena, too.
The concern reflects how the data collection practices of companies like Alphabet Inc’s (GOOGL.O) Google, Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) and Amazon.com Inc (AMZN.O) have the potential to incriminate abortion-seekers for state laws that many in Silicon Valley oppose.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
“It is very likely that there’s going to be requests made to those tech companies for information related to search histories, to websites visited,” said Cynthia Conti-Cook, a technology fellow at the Ford Foundation.
Google declined to comment. Representatives for Amazon and Meta did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Folders containing medical records of abortions that took place inside Tulsa Women’s Clinic, prior to Oklahoma’s abortion ban, are pictured in Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S. June 20, 2022. REUTERS/Liliana Salgado/File Photo
Read More
Technology has long gathered – and at times revealed – sensitive pregnancy-related information about consumers. In 2015, abortion opponents targeted ads saying “Pregnancy Help” and “You Have Choices” to individuals entering reproductive health clinics, using so-called geofencing technology to identify smartphones in the area.
More recently, Mississippi prosecutors charged a mother with second-degree murder after her smartphone showed she had searched for abortion medication in her third trimester, local media reported. Conti-Cook said, “I can’t even imagine the depth of information that my phone has on my life.”
While suspects unwittingly can hand over their phones and volunteer information used to prosecute them, investigators may well turn to tech companies in the absence of strong leads or evidence. In United States v. Chatrie, for example, police obtained a warrant for Google location data that led them to Okello Chatrie in an investigation of a 2019 bank robbery.
Amazon, for instance, complied at least partially with 75% of search warrants, subpoenas and other court orders demanding data on U.S. customers, the company disclosed for the three years ending in June 2020. It complied fully with 38%. Amazon has said it must comply with “valid and binding orders,” but its goal is to provide “the minimum” that the law requires.
Eva Galperin, cybersecurity director at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said on Twitter on Friday, “The difference between now and the last time that abortion was illegal in the United States is that we live in an era of unprecedented digital surveillance.”
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Jeffrey Dastin and Katie Paul in Palo Alto, Calif., Paresh Dave in Oakland, Calif., and Stephen Nellis
Editing by Anna Driver and Matthew Lewis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
NEW YORK, June 24 (Reuters) – U.S. companies including Walt Disney Co (DIS.N) and Facebook parent Meta Platforms Inc (META.O) said on Friday they will cover employees’ expenses if they have to travel for abortion services after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday overturned the landmark 1973 ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to an abortion, handing a momentous victory to Republicans and religious conservatives who want to limit or ban and, in some states criminalize, the procedure. read more
Many states are expected to further restrict or ban abortions following the ruling, making it difficult for female employees to terminate pregnancies unless they travel to states where the procedure is allowed.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
For example, in Oklahoma a bill due to take effect in August bans abortion except in medical emergencies and penalizes providers who violate the law with up to $100,000 in fines and 10 years in prison. States offering abortion protections include New York and Maryland. read more
Disney told employees on Friday that it remains committed to providing comprehensive access to quality healthcare, including for abortions, according to a Disney spokesperson. read more
The company’s benefits will cover the cost of employees who need to travel to another location to access care, including to obtain an abortion, it said.
Meta will reimburse travel expenses for employees seeking out-of-state reproductive care, but the company was also “assessing how best to do so given the legal complexities involved,” according to a spokesperson.
Dick’s Sporting Goods (DKS.N) Chief Executive Lauren Hobart said on LinkedIn that the company would pay up to $4,000 in travel for employees or their family members and a support person if abortion was not available nearby.
Abortion rights demonstrators protest outside the United States Supreme Court as the court rules in the Dobbs v Women’s Health Organization abortion case, overturning the landmark Roe v Wade abortion decision in Washington, U.S., June 24, 2022. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Read More
Companies that offer reimbursements for abortion-related travel could be vulnerable to lawsuits by anti-abortion groups and Republican-led states, and even potential criminal penalties.
Lawyers and other experts said employers could face claims that their policies violate state laws banning, facilitating or aiding and abetting abortions.
Ride hailing company Lyft (LYFT.O) said it would legally shield drivers in abortion cases, saying it would expand a recent policy as new state laws were passed. “No driver should have to ask a rider where they are going and why,” a spokesperson said.
A draft of the Supreme Court ruling on abortion was leaked in May. At that time, many other companies, including online review site Yelp (YELP.N), Microsoft Corp (MSFT.O), and Tesla (TSLA.O), said they would help cover the cost of travel for employees seeking reproductive services. Apple (AAPL.O) repeated that it supported employees making their own decisions on reproductive health and that its healthcare covered travel for services unavailable nearby.
Yelp co-founder and Chief Executive Jeremy Stoppelman on Friday said the ruling “puts women’s health in jeopardy, denies them their human rights, and threatens to dismantle the progress we’ve made toward gender equality in the workplace since Roe.”
Alaska Air Group (ALK.N), parent of Alaska Airlines, said on Friday it is “reimbursing travel for certain medical procedures and treatments if they are not available where you live. Today’s Supreme Court decision does not change that.”
Other companies offering the benefit include Johnson & Johnson (JNJ.N), online dating sites OkCupid and Bumble Inc (BMBL.O), Netflix Inc (NFLX.O) and JPMorgan Chase & Co (JPM.N), the nation’s largest bank. read more
OkCupid sent in-app messages to customers in 26 states likely to ban abortions, gearing up for a political fight. “Act now by calling your representatives and demanding freedom and choice,” said a copy of the message tweeted by OkCupid Chief Marketing Officer Melissa Hobley.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Nivedita Balu and Tiyashi Datta in Bengaluru, Dawn Chmielewski in Los Angeles, Doyinsola Oladipo and Daniel Wiessner in New York and David Shepardson in Washingon; Writing by Anna Driver; Editing by Bill Berkrot and Rosalba O’Brien
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
June 23 (Reuters) – Sales of Juul e-cigarettes were blocked by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on Thursday, in a major blow to the once high-flying firm whose products have been tied to a surge in teenage vaping.
The agency said the applications “lacked sufficient evidence” to show that sale of the products would be appropriate for public health, following a nearly two-year-long review of data provided by the company.
Some of the findings raised concerns due to insufficient and conflicting data, including whether potentially harmful chemicals could leach out of the Juul pods, the FDA said.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
“We respectfully disagree with the FDA’s findings … intend to seek a stay and are exploring all of our options under the FDA’s regulations and the law, including appealing the decision and engaging with our regulator,” said Joe Murillo, chief regulatory officer at Juul.
The company said it had appropriately characterized the toxicological profile of its products and that the data met the statutory standard of being “appropriate for the protection of the public health”.
Juul and other e-cigarette brands, including British American Tobacco’s (BATS.L) Vuse and Imperial Brands’ (IMB.L) Blu, had to meet a September 2020 deadline to file applications to the FDA showing the products provided a net benefit to public health.
The heath regulator had to judge whether each product was effective in getting smokers to quit and, if so, whether the benefits to smokers outweighed the potential health damage to new e-cigarette users, including teenagers, who never smoked.
BAT’s Vuse Solo was the first e-cigarette to get the agency’s clearance in October. read more
“The agency has dedicated significant resources to review products from the companies that account for most of the U.S. market. We recognize … many have played a disproportionate role in the rise in youth vaping,” FDA Commissioner Robert Califf said in a statement.
Teenage use of e-cigarettes surged with the rise in popularity of Juul in 2017 and 2018. Its use among high school students grew to 27.5% in 2019 from 11.7% in 2017, but fell to 11.3% in 2021, a federal survey showed.
Juul did not provide evidence to show the products were up to its standards and that raised “significant questions”, the FDA said, but added it has so far not received clinical information to suggest an immediate hazard tied to the device or pods.
An electronic cigarette device made by JUUL is shown in this picture illustration taken September 14, 2018. REUTERS/Mike Blake/Illustration
Read More
“Without the data needed to determine relevant health risks, the FDA is issuing these marketing denial orders,” Michele Mital, acting director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said.
Shares of tobacco giant Altria Group Inc (MO.N), which partly owns Juul, have lost about 7%, or nearly $6 billion in market value, since Wednesday when the Wall Street Journal first reported the FDA was preparing to order Juul’s e-cigarettes off the market.
‘HAWKISH FDA’
Juul had sought approval for its vaping device and tobacco and menthol flavored pods that had nicotine content of 5% and 3%.
E-cigarette makers have been selling products in the United States for years without being officially authorized by the FDA, as regulators repeatedly delayed deadlines for the companies to comply with federal guidelines.
Thursday’s decision was cheered by public health groups, who had long warned that e-cigarettes were getting a new generation of teenagers hooked on nicotine after major strides in reducing youth cigarette use.
In 2020, the FDA banned all flavors except tobacco and menthol for cartridge-based e-cigarettes such as Juul. The company pulled all other flavors including mint and mango in late 2019.
The Biden administration has been looking at other ways to help people quit smoking in an effort to cut down on preventable cancer deaths. It said this week it plans to propose a rule establishing a maximum nicotine level in cigarettes and other finished tobacco products to make them less addictive. read more
The surprise decision was an indication of a more hawkish FDA, some analysts said, as it was expected that some Juul products would be approved, following the agency’s clearance of several other e-cigarette products.
BAT overtook Juul as the leader of the U.S. vaping market in April, according to data Nielsen provided to brokerage J.P. Morgan. Juul led the market in 2021, with a 38% share of the $11 billion retail sales market.
“The only opportunity for Juul to create value may be in international markets, but we expect other regulators to take a similar stance to the FDA in limiting the marketing of e-cigarettes to minors,” Morningstar analyst Philip Gorham said.
Register now for FREE unlimited access to Reuters.com
Register
Reporting by Chris Kirkham and Aishwarya Venugopal; Additional reporting by Praveen Paramasivam, Ananya Mariam Rajesh and Uday Sampath in Bengaluru; Editing by Bill Berkrot, Sriraj Kalluvila and Shounak Dasgupta
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.