Lindsay Wiley

WATCH LIVE: RFK Jr.’s CDC panel to debate whether newborns should get lifesaving hepatitis B shot YouTube video by PBS NewsHour

Hats off to PBS for the appropriate title on this panel:

"WATCH LIVE: RFK Jr.’s CDC panel to debate whether newborns should get lifesaving hepatitis B shot"

www.youtube.com/live/Fdk_-WF...

If only someone had spent the last decade writing about unreasonable demands for proof of causation as a key component in the #ManufactureOfDoubt.

muse.jhu.edu/article/627259

Congratulations to the CMS career staff for completing the negotiations for the 2027 cycle of the Medicare drug price negotiation program - the negotiated prices are now public. More later, but for now one note on attempts to compare these savings to the 2026 savings. 1/2 www.cms.gov/files/docume...

NYC Mayor-Elect @zohrankmamdani.bsky.social announces 17 transition committees and >400 appointees. Fantastic to see some brilliant names on the Health Committee, inc former NYC health cmssnr Mary Bassett, the inimitable @drdemetre.bsky.social & @tahiramin.bsky.social from @imakglobal.bsky.social

I do the same for guest teachers. And my daughter (who highly values a well organized and engaging lecturer/discussion leader) watches talks/interviews before choosing her college classes.

The licensing fees AMA gets for developing & updating billing codes are an easy target because they make people angry. But they’re SMALL potatoes in the larger scheme of HC costs. Targeting the fees that are AMA’s lifeblood is mainly about political pressure to give MAHA an imprimatur of legitimacy

Progressives like Sen Warren have also targeted AMA’s role in keeping health care costs high, but they tend to focus on its role in structural factors, like oversupply of expensive specialists vs primary care docs

More context here on how Sen. Cassidy (expressing concerns about health care costs) and MAHA/RFKJr (seeking greater influence over medical decisionmaking) are both targeting AMA’s role in how Medicare & other insurers pay doctors.

cthosp.org/daily-news-c...

“Fewer than 1/4 of U.S. physicians are members of the AMA. Its financial stability now depends mostly on [licensing fees for AMA-created billing codes]. Financial dependence on a single, government-supported revenue stream leaves the AMA highly vulnerable to political pressure.”

The illustrations are by Aysha’s sister, Jasmin Pamukcu!

I’m so excited to get my hands on this important new book from Jamila Porter & Aysha Dominguez Pamukcu!

It comes with a free downloadable coloring book of inspiring illustrations!

Out of stock at Amazon at the moment, but still available from APHA

www.movementpraxis.org/advancingequ...

My grandmother did Elvis’s hair and make up for a “womanless wedding”
drag fundraiser when they were at Humes High School together (he graduated in her younger brother’s class)

Plaintiffs have submitted overwhelming evidence. Across 74 declarations and more than 700 pages of supporting documents, Plaintiffs show that the Administration and its executive agencies are engaged in a concerted campaign to purge “woke,” “left,” and “socialist” viewpoints from our country’s leading universities. Agency officials, as well as the President and Vice President, have repeatedly and publicly announced a playbook of initiating civil rights investigations of preeminent universities to justify cutting off federal funding, with the goal of bringing universities to their knees and forcing them to change their ideological tune. Universities are then presented with agreements to restore federal funding under which they must change what they teach, restrict student anonymity in protests, and endorse the Administration’s view of gender, among other things. Defendants submit nothing to refute this. It is undisputed that this precise playbook is now being executed at the University of California. Defendant Leo Terrell, who heads the Administration’s Task Force to Combat AntiSemitism, publicly stated in a news interview that the UC had been “hijacked by the left” and vowed to begin investigations. The Department of Justice and Department of Education have

I mean, the first paragraph lays it all out.

The President, VP, and Agency officials, including the head of the Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, told us exactly what they intended to do & then did, which was use pretextual civil rights claims to impose ideological control on universities.

On the blog: In approving Trump's transphobic policy of listing sex assigned at birth on passports, SCOTUS said govt was "merely attesting to a historical fact," thus echoing the obtuseness of Plessy v Ferguson's statement that Black folks were only choosing to see segregation as white supremacy. 👇

That's @fishkin.bsky.social (a must-follow on this site)

The Illinois legislature had passed the “Illinois Bivens Act,” allowing people to sue ICE agents in state court. Just waiting for Pritzker’s signature.

dailynorthwestern.com/2025/11/03/c...

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS ET AL., Plaintiffs, V. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ET AL., Defendants. * * * * * * * * * * * Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-13165-IT MEMORANDUM AND ORDER October 31, 2025 TALWANI, D.J. Pending before the court is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order [Doc. No. 3] seeking to enjoin, on an emergency basis, Defendants' November 1, 2025 suspension of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program ("SNAP"). For the reasons stated below, Plaintiffs have standing to bring this action and are likely to succeed on their claim that Defendants' suspension of SNAP benefits is unlawful. Where that suspension of benefits rested on an erroneous construction of the relevant statutory provisions, the court will allow Defendants to consider whether they will authorize at least reduced SNAP benefits for November, and report back to the court no later than Monday, November 3, 2025.

A. Likelihood of Success on the Merits Plaintiffs have demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on the merits of their claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), that Defendants' suspension of SNAP benefits is contrary to law. At core, Defendants' conclusion that USDA is statutorily prohibited from funding SNAP because Congress has not enacted new appropriations for the current fiscal year is erroneous. To the contrary, Defendants are statutorily mandated to use the previously appropriated SNAP contingency reserve when necessary and also have discretion to use other previously appropriated funds as detailed below.

As both parties acknowledge, Congress has not yet appropriated any new funds for SNAP benefits for Fiscal Year 2026, which began on October 1, 2025. Pls.' Mem. 6 [Doc. No. 4]; Defs.' Opp'n 7 [Doc. No. 18]. But Congress took steps to protect against the deprivation of SNAP assistance. In the 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 118-42, § 6, 138 Stat. 25, 93-94, Congress separately appropriated $6 billion to the SNAP program "to remain available through September 30, 2026" and "be placed in reserve for use only in such amounts and at such times as may become necessary to carry out program operations." See also Pub. L. No. 119-4, § 1101(a), 139 Stat. 9, 10 (2025). As Plaintiffs point out, given the mandatory nature of SNAP benefits under 7 U.S.C. § 2014(a) and the appropriation of these funds to be available 10 Case 1:25-cv-13165-IT Document 26 Filed 10/31/25 Page 11 of 15 through this current fiscal year, the government is obligated to use this contingent reserve account to fund SNAP "as may become necessary to carry out program operations." 138 Stat. at 93-94; Pls.' Mem. 11 [Doc. No. 4].

Defendants argue out that a "suspension" is permitted under USDA's regulations, and that USDA "has consistently interpreted its authority to allow for the suspension or cancellation of benefits when necessary." Defs. Opp'n 6 [Doc. No. 18). The regulation at issue, 7 C.F.R. $ 271.7(a), sets forth procedures to be followed if monthly SNAP allowances "must be reduced, suspended, or cancelled to comply with section 18 of the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008" (emphasis added). But that the regulation allows for a suspension when there are no funds does not mean that Defendants may choose a suspension over a reduction while funds do remain. If the regulation did authorize such discretion, it would be inconsistent with the statutory mandate that benefits "shall" be paid unless funding is no longer available.

BREAKING: Federal judge rules that the Trump administration likely illegally suspended SNAP benefits, ruling that at least reduced distribution is required to go forward under law using the $6 billion reserve fund.

Judge gives the Trump admin until Monday to respond as to whether it will act.

Good News that sounds like bad news: The District of Hawaii just found the FDA's 2023 mifepristone REMS modification unlawful and arbitrary & capricious! It's good news b/c the case was brought by medical orgs & docs arguing that FDA failed to justify why it kept strict & unnecessary REMS elements.

1. This will be a forced labor camp; 2. Utah is already planning to make it easier to commit people to it.

The Republican Health Care Trap, Episode 78 As the shutdown drags on, the GOP croons its old tune: replacing Obamacare.

I see we’ve entered the “don’t worry, we have a magical Obamacare alternative” stage of the debate www.thebulwark.com/p/the-republ...

Targeting Addiction Structural Stigma Embodied in Law (“TASSEL”): Findings from an intrastate legal mapping study Stigma is a fundamental cause of disease that reflects and intensifies health inequalities. Laws are powerful mediators for stigma; to correct them, i…

It took over 4 years, but the paper is finally published. In this study, we developed novel methods drawn from #LegalEpidemiology to map addiction #stigma in California law.

This #interdisciplinary work was conceptually and methodologically difficult!⤵️

#PaperSky #EpiSky #AcademicSky

1/

Curious what the 4th Circuit's opinion in GenBioPro v. Raynes means for state mifepristone regulation? Check out my new piece with @pzettler.bsky.social & Lewis Grossman in JAMA. We argue that preemption arguments are not dead, even though the court upheld WVA's abortion ban. 1/2

Third-Party Accommodations, Doron Dorfman Abstract Does disability rights law impose an obligation on employers, schools, and other places of public accommodation to control the behavior of coworkers, students, or other third parties to accommodate an individual with disabilities? This Article examines that unexplored legal question and shows that the law frequently fails to protect people with disabilities from the choices and behaviors of third parties. Judges often consider these major barriers to access beyond the reach of the Americans with Disabilities Act’s reasonable accommodation mandate. This Article argues that this problem results from improperly imposing the privity paradigm, a doctrine that limits the inquiry about the reasonableness of an accommodation relative to the relationship between the first party (the disabled individual) and the second party (the employer or other entity covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act). Using disability studies, legal theory, and political economy analysis, this Article shows how a narrow interpretation of the reasonable accommodation mandate has failed to adapt to our modern understanding of disability as a complex interaction between the impairment and the social environment. To address the issue, this Article introduces a new theory of third-party accommodations, which would require others to alter or cease behaviors to accommodate an individual with disabilities. This Article then suggests a normative framework that courts can use to analyze cases involving requests for third-party accommodations, including the factors that judges should balance to determine the reasonableness of a request. In highlighting the need to move beyond a constricted interpretation of reasonable accommodation, this Article imagines a new horizon for disability justice.

I am just thrilled to have my new article Third-Party Accommodations officially out @michlawreview.bsky.social! The MLR editors were a pleasure to work with and sharing the same volume as @kovarsky.bsky.social & Daniel Fryer is the cherry on top. Read it: repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol124/i...

Interesting. Wisc PP gave up its “essential community provider" designation and no longer fits the definition of “prohibited entity” and can continue to see Medicaid patients

Threat to US vaccines as CDC staff supporting key advisory panel laid off Critics say scientists ‘held hostage’ by RFK Jr as changes mean vaccine development and guidance in peril

The destruction of #ACIP and its critical role in advising on the use of vaccines in the United States continues. www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...

The UC Regents finally released the “settlement agreement” the Trump administration proposed in August. It’s a doozy.

UC alumni, faculty, staff, students, parents, donors—and all citizens of California:

Now is the time to let the UC Regents know you do not want them to sign this bad deal.

Not only is it harmful, dishonest & unethical, in many cases it may also be illegal, as Craig Konnoth argues here: www.uclalawreview.org/11626-2/

“I was with you, until you said ‘pregnant people.’”

I get this a lot. I’m an abortion provider, and the CEO and President of an org known for abortion advocacy. Let’s talk about why I use inclusive language — and why I’m not stopping. 🧵