Lawsuit node

918 generic category

see new tag 11/18 sued

see climate lawsuits

see big green

Moderation: see libel defam, class action, DOJ

see slapp legal suppression?

---

dem docket marc __elias? sues GA voter suppression

---

jones lost AGAIN 10/21?

===

'No public record' of legal costs in Gaetz’s and Greene’s ongoing lawsuit: report - Alternet.org

a California judge last month gave US Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) and Matt Gaetz (R-FL) the green light to proceed with suing two California cities over the cancellation of the 'America First' rally they were set to host in 2021. However, Judge Hernán Vera criticized some claims in the GOP lawmakers' lawsuit.

The Daily Beast reported that Judge Hernán Vera wrote in his ruling, "Greene and Gaetz had adequately convinced the court that the cities of Anaheim and Riverside plausibly canceled their 2021 event based on 'viewpoint discrimination.'"

However, Vera did offer some criticism, saying the far-right lawmakers' "claims that several civil-rights groups, including the NAACP and the League of Women Voters, conspired with the cities against them were full of 'numerous fatal deficiencies.'"

Less than two weeks later, the Beast reports, "One of the most striking aspects of the lawsuit, however, is the name of one of the attorneys who has been working on it—John Eastman, the architect of the bogus legal theory that former President Donald Trump leaned on to justify his attempt to wrest the transfer of power to Joe Biden."

The news outlet notes that "Eastman, however, is not lead counsel; that role fell to Alexander Haberbush, of the Lex Rex Institute."

As of Tuesday, April 2, the former Trump official can no longer practice law after Judge Yvette Rolalnd recommended his disbarment last month.

According to the Beast, "Despite all the docket activity and the intricate constitutional questions at the center of the dispute, there is no public record of the costs of those services—and that, legal experts say, could be a problem."

READ MORE:[How Trump and Matt Gaetz may have saved Marjorie Taylor Greene from a 'far-right' primary challenge: report

The news outlet adds:

*Even though the lawsuit is moving forward, it’s unclear how it’s being funded. Over the last year, there are no federal campaign finance records of any payments or debts owed to any of the lawyers on the case from any of the political committees associated with Gaetz or Greene—or any federal political committee at all.

*In fact, despite Gaetz and Greene’s tireless attempts to 'own the libs'—and fundraise off those efforts—the two have been basically radio silent about this case from the beginning.

*Campaign finance law experts agreed that the legal services should be accounted for in public filings.

Campaign finance law expert Caleb Burns told the news outlet, "Typically, a campaign that has retained counsel for legal work must disclose payments for that work on reports filed with the FEC. If the work has accrued and the campaign has not yet paid for it, the campaign would disclose the amount as a debt owed by the campaign."

*The Daily Beast's full report is here (subscription required).

===

---

'Serious harms': 42 state AGs sue Meta for intentionally trying to get young users addicted - Alternet.org

---

omg going on offense?!

jj comm dr an 12 22

Fresh off posting the highest quarterly profit in its history, the U.S.-based fossil fuel giant ExxonMobil sued the European Union on Wednesday in an attempt to stop the bloc from imposing its recently approved windfall tax targeting major oil and gas companies.

The Financial Times, which first reported the new lawsuit, noted that the challenge takes aim at the European Council's "legal authority to impose the new tax—a power historically reserved for sovereign countries—and its use of emergency powers to secure member states' approval for the measure."

:{:{"The new tax is due to take effect from December 31 and will apply a levy of at least 33% on any taxable profits in 2022-23 that are 20% or more above average profits between 2018 and 2021," the newspaper explained.}:

In a statement, Exxon spokesperson Casey Norton insisted the company recognizes that sky-high energy costs are "weighing heavily on families and businesses" but claimed the tax would "undermine investor confidence, discourage investment and increase reliance on imported energy."

Reuters reported Wednesday that Exxon's chief financial officer has estimated the E.U.'s windfall tax could cost the corporation around $2 billion through the end of next year—a fraction of the company's 2022 profits.

Approved in late September amid a mounting cost-of-living crisis across Europe, the windfall tax was presented as an effort to generate additional revenue to "provide financial support to households and companies" struggling with high energy costs.Oil and gas companies like Exxon have been accused of exploiting global energy market chaos spurred by Russia's war on Ukraine to hike prices and pad their bottom lines.

In late October, Exxon announced it brought in $19.7 billion in profits from July to September, its largest-ever quarterly haul. The company also announced it would raise its dividend and expand its share buyback program, rewarding wealthy investors as consumers continue to face elevated prices at the pump.

According to a recent filing, Exxon has also been rewarding its top executives, boosting the annual salary of CEO Darren Woods from $1.70 million to $1.88 million for the coming year.

---

an 12 22

MAGA Republicans, claiming that President Joe Biden and other Democrats have promoted an “open borders” policy, often blame them for the United States’ opioid problem. That problem, they claim, is aggravated by the Biden Administration being weak on border security — a claim that is contradicted by the fact that U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) have, during the Biden era, been very aggressive about trying to prevent people from entering the country illegally.

Another factor missing in Republican claims that an “open borders” policy is aggravating the opioid crisis is the role that Big Pharma has played in the crisis.

On Thursday, December 29, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against drug manufacturer AmerisourceBergen Corp. for, according to Politico, failing to report “at least hundreds of thousands” of suspicious opioid orders to the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA).

Politico’s Kelly Garrity reports, “Under the Controlled Substances Act, pharmaceutical distributors must monitor the orders they receive for controlled substances, and are required to flag any they deem suspicious to the DEA. According to the filing, AmerisourceBergen repeatedly failed to do so since 2014, despite being made aware of significant ‘red flags’ at pharmacies across the country.”

Associate U.S. Attorney General Vanita Gupta, during a phone conversation with reporters on December 29, explained, “In the midst of a catastrophic opioid epidemic, AmerisourceBergen allegedly altered its internal systems in a way that reduced the number of orders that would be flagged as suspicious. And even up to the orders that AmerisourceBergen identified as suspicious, the company routinely failed to report those suspicious orders.In short, the government’s complaint alleges that for years, AmerisourceBergen prioritized profits over its legal obligations and over Americans’ wellbeing.”

Philip Sellinger, a federal prosecutor for the District of New Jersey, told reporters that AmerisourceBergen knew that drugs sent to pharmacies in West Virginia and Florida “were likely being sold in parking lots for cash.”

Garrity reports, “In New Jersey, the company knowingly sent drugs to a pharmacy that has pleaded guilty to ‘unlawfully selling controlled substances,’ as well as one where the pharmacist in charge has been indicted on charges of drug diversion, according to prosecutors. And in Colorado, AmerisourceBergen supplied a pharmacy where it had identified 11 patients as potential ‘drug addicts’ with illegitimate prescriptions; two of those patients later died of overdoses, according to the Justice Department. AmerisourceBergen contends that the suit focuses too heavily on these five pharmacies, which it alleges were ‘cherry picked” out of tens of thousands it works with.”

---

an Idaho plans to hit Mike Lindell with a bill for audit that discredited his baseless election conspiracy

Meaghan Ellis

October 08, 2021

When MyPillow CEO contested Idaho's 2020 election results amid false claims of voter fraud, officials conducted an audit for three of the counties that were scrutinized. Now, the state office is sending Lindell ....

---

===

prolly 1/6 dem rep hires PI lawsuit

https://www.alternet.org/2021/06/mo-brooks/

---

raga meets maga?

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem, who was among the Republican stars at the 2021 Conservative Political Action Conference in February, has been going out of her way to show her devotion to former President Donald Trump — from promoting his false and debunked election fraud claims to resisting pandemic restrictions in her state. Now, Noem is trying to show how MAGA she is by supporting lawsuits against President Joe Biden's administration.

Noem, according to the Associated Press, has filed a lawsuit against Biden's administration for blocking an Independence Day celebration at Mount Rushmore. And Noem has joined a multi-state lawsuit against Biden's climate change policies.

In South Dakota, Native Americans have applauded Biden for opposing a July 4 fireworks celebration at Mount Rushmore. Biden agrees with Native American activists that fireworks pose a fire danger in South Dakota's Black Hills.

Oglala Sioux Tribe President Kevin Killer, in an official statement on May 3, said, "The Black Hills are sacred to surrounding tribes, and we applaud the Biden administration's decision to support the denial of the fireworks permit. This decision will keep citizens and visitors safe during this critical time during the pandemic, at the same time allowing our tribal citizens to observe their right to worship during a time of renewal."

Killer also praised Deb Haaland, secretary of the Department of Interior under Biden, for "considering input from local tribal nations and their desire to protect the Black Hills from contamination and the possibility of forest fires."

But the 49-year-old Noem doesn't see it that way at all, and AP reporter Stephen Groves notes how aggressively the Republican governor has been promoting her involvement in legal action against Biden's administration.

"Noem says she's simply acting in the state's interests, but the tactic has given her a chance to cast herself as one of Biden's most prominent foes," Groves reports. "She went on Fox News to announce the lawsuit over Mount Rushmore fireworks, and later joined star host Sean Hannity for a podcast titled 'Noem vs. Biden.' Noem told Hannity the only way 'to get fairness on this issue' was to sue the Biden administration."

According to Groves, "Launching lawsuits from the governor's office is a new strategy for Noem — and one that has drawn criticism from some other South Dakota Republicans." South Dakota State Rep. Steve Haugaard, for example, is a GOP conservative who considers the Mount Rushmore lawsuit a waste of taxpayers' money." And Groves notes that there has also been a rift between Noem and South Dakota's Republican attorney general, Jason Ravnsborg.

Haugaard told AP, "When the outcome is a foregone conclusion, then there is a better use for those funds…. Resources shouldn't be used for personal attention."

---

wow, -->a trend?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/mike-pompeo/

Former U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland is suing former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the U.S. State Dept. for $1.8 million, to cover what he says are his costs of legal representation during President Donald Trump's first impeachment trial.

"The suit, filed Monday in federal court in the District of Columbia,"

The Washington Post reports, "alleges that Pompeo reneged on his promise that the State Department would cover the fees after Sondland delivered bombshell testimony accusing Trump and his aides of pressuring the government of Ukraine to investigate then presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son Hunter in exchange for military aid."

Sondland, a hotelier who donated $1 million to Trump's infamous inaugural committee, was nominated to be the E.U. ambassador in March of 2018.

Because of his intimate knowledge of Trump's Ukraine dealings, including the President's conversation with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky during which he blackmailed him, threatening to withhold valuable U.S. military aid if he did not initiate an investigation into Joe Biden, Sondland was called to testify in Trump's first impeachment.

"The complaint alleges that Pompeo told Sondland that government lawyers would not be made available to represent him but that if he hired his own counsel, his attorney fees would be covered by the U.S. government," The Post adds. "Top aides to Pompeo also acknowledged this commitment, the suit alleges, but 'everything changed' after Sondland delivered his testimony alleging a 'quid pro quo' and then refused to resign despite a request from one of Pompeo's most trusted aides, Ulrich Brechbuhl."

The White House attempted to block Sondland's appearance during the impeachment, but ultimately he did testify, delivering damning evidence, substantiating "quid pro quo" allegations.

On February 7, after the Senate refused to convict Trump, he fired Sondland in an act of vengeance, along with Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and his twin brother. Some experts at the time called Trump's firings illegal.

FROM YOUR SITE ARTICLES

'Single and Complete'

Nationwide Permit 12 historically was used for small “single and complete” projects crossing water parcels half an acre in size or smaller.

But in the aftermath of protests and civil disobedience actions taken against Keystone XL, the Obama administration began using that permitting process to split pipelines into hundreds or thousands of half-acre pieces. The process was a way around the more robust and democratic National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) regulatory process, which involves both a public commenting and public hearing phase. Nationwide Permit 12 was also used to push through the Dakota Access pipeline, as well as the southern leg of the Keystone XL, both greenlighted by President Barack Obama.

During the Obama era, environmental groups decried this as a form of “segmentation” and a way out of complying with NEPA, which they routinely challeneged in court with some success—though not enough to undo the legal lever. The bedrock environmental law is now under further attack by President Donald Trump, with the administration trying to remove climate change contribution as a factor analyzed under the law for major projects and aiming to narrow the scope of and time it takes to complete these environmental impact reviews.

[vid]

Since March 2017, the Trump administration has utilized Nationwide Permit 12 over 37,000 times, the AP reported. As it stands today, the Army Corps’ decision to halt use of the Nationwide Permit 12 fast-track tool has put 360 permit applications on hold.

“The reason that matters is that the public and the communities and everybody that lives there has the chance to get involved in the process,” Eric Huber, Senior Managing Attorney with the Sierra Club's Environmental Law Program, told DeSmog. “Otherwise, these special permits just allow a pipeline company to go out and start construction without notice to anybody or to take private property and just proceed and blast this through regardless of how the local community thinks of it.”

External corporate attorneys, too, have taken notice and expressed their own concerns about the ruling.

“The decision puts in limbo thousands of infrastructure projects nationwide that rely on [Nationwide Permit] 12 for the construction, maintenance, or repair of utility lines and poses particularly acute problems for the oil and gas industry, which relies on the permit to facilitate projects ranging from large interstate pipelines to smaller gathering lines at exploration and production sites,” wrote attorneys fromBrownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, a firm with close ties to the Trump administration, in one such reaction to the ruling.

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck’s fossil fuel industry lobbying clients include the American Petroleum Institute, American Public Power Association, Freeport LNG, Talos Energy, Jordan Cove LNG, WPX Energy, and the New Mexico Oil and Gas Association.

Another firm heavily involved in fossil fuel industry litigation and lobbying, Steptoe & Johnson, also weighed in on the ruling and wrote that it could have the impact of “extending permitting time frames for these types of projects” going forward. The firm’s fossil fuel industry lobbying clients include American Gas Association, Gas Technology Institute, and Peabody Energy.

Permian Highway Pipeline in Texas

The legal precedent set in the Keystone XL case is already playing out in federal courts.

On April 30, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuitin the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against the Army Corps of Engineers over another controversial pipeline. The complaint says the Army Corps did not comply with NEPA in issuing a Nationwide Permit 12 to the 428-mile Permian Highway gas pipeline. It also argues the agency is not currently in compliance with the order in the Keystone XL case because it has continued to allow pipeline construction under the contested Nationwide Permit 12 program.

“It is outrageous that the Corps approved this project without public notice or opportunity to comment on their permits,” Rebecca McCreary, a Sierra Club attorney, said of the Permian Highway pipeline in a press release. “Nationwide Permit 12 allows for no public hearings or participation by the local communities before the Corps permits construction to start, nor is there public notice or comment on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permits allowing harm to the endangered species along the route. The Corps should stop this project immediately.”

Owned by Kinder Morgan, Permian Highway is a pipeline slated to carry gas obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”) in Texas’ Permian Basin east across the state. Kinder Morgan told DeSmog it was aware of the lawsuit, but declined to comment on it and the broader Nationwide Permit 12 issue.

Permian Highway has already seen issues with spills into water systems, with one late March incident spilling 36,000 gallons of drilling slurry — including a carcinogenic additive — into groundwater.

[twt]

Responding, the Hays County Commissioners Court voted on April 22 to rescind road permits given by the Texas county to allow Kinder Morgan to drill underneath county roads as it builds the pipeline. And Kinder Morgan, too, has suspended construction on this portion of the pipeline as it “determines the best path forward” in the aftermath of the spill, the company told Houston Chronicle.

The City of Austin, City of San Marcos, Hays County, Travis County, and others also filed their own Endangered Species Act lawsuit in February,arguing that the pipeline could threaten protected Golden Cheeked Warblers, two salamander species, and their habitats.

Keystone XL Decision Looms

In the Keystone XL case in Montana, Morris recently deniedthe Army Corps a procedural stay in the case. TC Energy, for its part, wants the decision struck down as it applies both to its own pipeline and for the permitting program at large.

“If TC Energy does not receive authorization from the Army Corps by early July, its construction plans will be significantly impacted,” Gary Salsman, a TC Energy vice president for the Keystone XL project, wrote in his April 29 affidavit. “Currently, TC Energy is evaluating potential options that would be available to it in that circumstance, each of which have significant adverse consequences.”

Those “potential options,” Salsman wrote, include a potential construction delay across Montana, South Dakota, and Nebraska; a change in construction plans this year to avoid the waters it is currently slated to cross that are impacted by the vacating of Nationwide Permit 12; or ending construction all together. He added that if construction does not begin in 2020, it could cost the company $750 million to $1.3 billion.

Morris could make a decision on how broadly his Nationwide Permit 12 decision applies as soon as May 8. Regardless of the outcome, Morris' next move will likely face an appeal from either side.

TAGS:

Permian Highway Pipeline

Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck

Kinder Morgan

Army Corps of Engineers

American Petroleum Institute

National Environmental Policy Act

Clean Water Act

endangered species act

---

omfg smithfield so dak covid hotspot?!

https://www.ecowatch.com/usda-removing-safeguards-on-food-2645756313.html

by t Corbo

As the world focuses on the COVID-19 pandemic and its devastating impact on public health, the Trump Administration has been busy behind the scenes doubling down on its campaign to deregulate Big Ag. At the same time, it is not providing safeguards to food production workers and government inspectors who are being made to work on the frontlines without frontline employee protections.

The USDA Is Playing Fast and Loose With Meat Inspection Lines During the Coronavirus Outbreak

USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is deregulating inspection in some of the largest pork processing facilities by reducing the number of inspectors assigned to the slaughter line. They turn over critical inspection tasks to untrained company employees, and remove the cap on how fast the line can run. FSIS anticipates that 40 hog slaughter facilities will convert to this method, which is being called the New Swine Inspection System (NSIS). Those 40 facilities process over 92% of all pork in the U.S. Some of the big names in pork processing are pushing for this, such as JBS, Tyson, Smithfield, Clemens, and Quality Pork Processors. In one plant that has been experimenting with the new system, FSIS inspectors have 2.6 seconds to determine whether the company employees have performed their tasks properly.As a consequence, it is not uncommon for hog carcasses to be contaminated with feces, hair, toe nails, and bile to be greenlit for processing into bacon, pork chops, hot dogs, sausage, and other pork products.

Three lawsuits to challenge NSIS have been filed by unions representing the plant workers, animal welfare groups, and food safety advocates, including Food & Water Watch and the Center for Food Safety. FSIS hid critical information from the public when it first proposed the frighteningly minimal system. Food & Water Watch was forced to file separate litigation to obtain crucial, undisclosed information which revealed that NSIS would lead to more contaminated pork entering commerce and could lead to an animal disease — to ravage hog herds and/or be transmitted to humans. Plants that wanted to convert to NSIS had until March 30, 2020 to state their intentions. FSIS still refuses to disclose the names of those plants, leaving consumers in the dark.

Meat Companies Are Being Given Almost Full Control Over Their Own Inspection Standards

While it is struggling to keep poultry plants properly staffed with inspectors during the pandemic, FSIS has stepped up its approvals of regulatory waivers to chicken slaughter plants that want to increase their maximum line speeds from 140 birds per minute to 175 birds per minute. In the first two weeks of April, FSIS approved 11 such waivers for plants operated by Foster Farms, Tyson Foods (4 plants), and Wayne Farms (6 plants). These plants have all converted to the so-called New Poultry Inspection System (NPIS) in which the number of government inspectors assigned to the slaughter line is reduced and many of their tasks are turned over to company employees. Under traditional inspection, each FSIS inspector is assigned 35 birds per minute to inspect. Under NPIS, there is only one FSIS inspector stationed at the end of the slaughter line. When a plant is granted a line speed waiver, that sole FSIS inspector is expected to examine 3 birds every second — or 175 birds per minute. The waiver process that FSIS uses is done in secret; it is not open to public scrutiny until the FSIS reveals that it has granted the waiver. Since taking office, the Trump USDA has approved 28 new waivers under this process, mostly to the big players in the poultry industry.

Inviting everyone to the new game, FSIS is recruiting cattle slaughter plants to deregulate inspection, too. In late March, FSIS approved a waiver through its secret process for a Tyson beef plant in Holcomb, Kansas that slaughters up to 6000 head of cattle per day. The waiver is designed to reduce the number of government inspectors assigned to its slaughter line, increasing its line speed. FSIS has not revealed how fast the line will run with this waiver or how many fewer government inspectors will be on the slaughter line, but we know it won't result in safety for consumers.

Meat Inspection Deregulation Threatens Food Safety

All of these deregulatory moves are designed to increase production; they are not being done to improve food safety. They will contribute to expanding the industrial agriculture model by promoting the growth of factory farms. It's even more disconcerting that it is occurring in the middle of a national crisis.

As the Trump Administration has stepped on the accelerator to deregulate in recent weeks, there are numerous examples around the country of meat and poultry plants being impacted by the spread of the COVID-19 virus. While the news has been focused on urban areas racked by the pandemic, hot spots have also emerged in rural communities in Colorado, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Iowa, South Dakota, and Nebraska where meatpacking plant workers have contracted the virus while being forced to work, forcing some plants to curtail or cease operations temporarily.

In those instances where meatpackers have insisted on continuing with business-as-usual even when their employees have gotten sick, it has pitted public health officials against company officials and even USDA Secretary Sonny Perdue.

Plant workers and even government inspectors who work at these plants have not been given adequate personal protective equipment. It is virtually impossible to practice social distancing in these plants because plant workers and government inspectors work side-by-side in slaughter and processing facilities. When workers protested these conditions, Vice President Mike Pence had the audacity to urge the workers to continue "to show up and do [their] jobs."

Urge Officials to Take Action Against Increased Line Speeds

Increased line speeds only create more opportunities for contamination and sickness. It's unnecessary and it's putting our health at risk.

Tell Congress to stop allowing USDA food safety waivers. This is no time to gamble with Americans' health.

Trump's Plan to Privatize Pork Inspections Called 'a Recipe for ... ›

Trump administration allows pork slaughterhouses to have fewer ... ›

an 320

Martin Shkreli of the pandemic’: Company threatens to sue after Italians find way to 3D print key $11,000 Ventilator piece for $1

https://www.alternet.org/2020/04/fox-news-fights-coronavirus-misinformation-lawsuit-first-amendment-protects-false-speec

no lnx

Fox News fights coronavirus misinformation lawsuit: First Amendment protects ‘false’ speech

Written by Igor Derysh / Salon April 16, 2020

Fox News has moved to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a Washington state group accusing the network of “deceptive” coronavirus coverage by arguing that the First Amendment protects “false” and “outrageous” speech.

:{:{}:

The network’s lawyers said in a motion seeking to dismiss the lawsuit that the “First Amendment does not permit censoring this type of speech based on the theory that it is ‘false’ or ‘outrageous.’ Nor does the law of the State of Washington.”

:{:{}:

The Washington League for Increased Transparency and Ethics (WASHLITE) filed a lawsuit in King County earlier this month seeking a court order barring the network from “interfering with reasonable and necessary measures to contain the virus by publishing further false and deceptive content.”

The suit accused the network of violating the state’s Consumer Protection Act by “falsely and deceptively disseminating ‘news’ via cable news contracts that the coronavirus was a ‘hoax’ and that it was otherwise not a danger to public health and safety.”

:{:{}:

The suit specifically cited Fox News host Sean Hannity and former Fox Business host Trish Regan for having “acted in bad faith to willfully and maliciously disseminate false information denying and minimizing the danger posed by the spread of the novel coronavirus.”

Hannity downplayed the threat of the coronavirus and argued it was less dangerous than the flu. Regan was fired shortly after accusing Democrats of pushing a “coronavirus impeachment scam.”

Though there are numerous examples of Fox opinion hosts downplaying the threat posed by the virus, many legal experts have dismissed the idea that the network could be sued for its coverage of the pandemic. One of the lawyers involved in the lawsuit has since withdrawn from the case.

“It’s Constitutional Law 101: the First Amendment protects our right to speak openly and freely on matters of public concern,” Fox News Media general counsel Lily Fu Claffee said in a statement. “If WASHLITE doesn’t like what we said, it can criticize us, but it can’t silence us with a lawsuit.”

The network’s 76-page filing, which includes dozens of pages of show transcripts and examples of other media outlets purportedly downplaying the risk of the virus early this year, argues that the hosts “never described the Coronavirus as a ‘hoax’ or a ‘conspiracy,’ but instead used those terms to comment on efforts to exploit the pandemic for political points.”

The network’s lawyers argued that Hannity and Regan simply took part in an “intense public debate” over “how serious of a threat” the virus posed, noting that Hannity, in March, urged the elderly and people with compromised immune systems to take “extra, extra, extra caution.”

The motion also noted that when Regan wrongly argued that the “flu … can be even more deadly” than the coronavirus, she emphasized that she was “not saying that people should not take [the coronavirus] seriously.”

“Under the First Amendment and state law, the truth or falsity of this type of speech must be resolved through free and open debate in the marketplace of ideas — not through burdensome litigation seeking to impose legal penalties on political statements that a jury might deem ‘false’ or ‘outrageous,'” the motion said. “In addition, the Complaint also fails because the statements are constitutionally protected opinions. Again, even accepting the Complaint’s characterization of the speech at issue, the Fox commentators were expressing their view on the scientific question of how dangerous the Coronavirus is and how society should respond to it — including what type of governmental action should be taken.”

The motion went on to cite CNN and New York Times coverage that compared the coronavirus to the flu, arguing that “If this type of allegedly ‘false’ speech can be censored, then free and open debate on matters of public concern is a dead letter.”

The network added that WASHLITE’s bid to get an injunction preventing Fox News from expressing similar opinions in the future is an example of unlawful “extraordinary prior restraint.” The Washington CPA also “does not regulate political commentary … nor is such commentary the type of ‘extreme and outrageous conduct’ covered by the tort of ‘outrage,'” the motion said.

Legal experts largely agreed with the network’s position that the lawsuit was unlikely to succeed.

Catherine Clark, an attorney for WASHLITE, vowed to respond to the motion and told Variety that the suit “was not about prohibiting free speech, but making sure that news organizations convey accurate information.”

Legal culpability aside, media analysts have widely criticized Fox News for putting their viewers at risk by downplaying the threat posed by the virus, which has now killed 26,000 people in the United States.

“Fox failed its viewers and the broader public in ways both revealing and potentially lethal,” wrote New York Times columnist Ben Smith.

A letter signed by more than 70 journalism professors around the country criticized Fox News for spreading “misinformation” about the virus.

“Viewers of Fox News, including the president of the United States, have been regularly subjected to misinformation relayed by the network — false statements downplaying the prevalence of COVID-19 and its harms; misleading recommendations of activities that people should undertake to protect themselves and others, including casual recommendations of untested drugs; false assessments of the value of measures urged upon the public by their elected political leadership and public health authorities,” the letter said, pointing to a recent poll that found that 79% of Fox News viewers believed the media had overstated the danger posed by the virus.

The network’s competitors have seized on the criticism.

“There are surveys on this, showing a majority of people who get information from Fox still think the virus threat is overblown,” MSNBC host Ari Melber said last week:

They’re more likely to downplay it even compared to other Republicans. If you don’t get your information from Fox News or online conspiracy theories, you’re less likely to think it’s overblown because it’s not overblown. For Fox viewers, it’s especially perilous. The median age there is 67. That mostly older audience, especially vulnerable if they contract this virus. And as we just showed you, they’ve been told to basically downplay it.

Read the full Fox News motion below:

Fox News 2020-04-14 Motion … by Igor Derysh on Scribd

---

secret sci BS jammed thru

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/23032020/trump-epa-health-secret-science-coronavirus

With the nation in a state of emergency over the coronavirus and Americans confronting a pandemic, the Trump administration has moved to expand and fast-track a proposal to limit the use of human health science in environmental decision-making.

The move by the Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday has prompted an outcry from public health officials and environmental activists. California's top environmental official, the chair of the House Science Committee, the Union of Concerned Scientists and others have called for the EPA either to abandon the potentially far-reaching proposal or to extend the public comment period on the plan.

The Trump EPA's proposal, called the "Strengthening Transparency in Regulatory Science" rule, would restrict the agency's use of studies that rely on confidential human health data, including some of the seminal studies linking air pollution to premature death. The effort has been in the works for two years, but the Trump EPA published a "supplemental" notice last week that substantially extends the rule's scope—and then gave the public only until April 18 to comment.

Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Union of Concerned Scientists'Center for Science and Democracy, called for the EPA to schedule at least three virtual public hearings and extend the comment period at least 30 days beyond when the federal government lifts the national emergency. Although agencies are not always required to hold public hearings on regulatory proposals, the EPA must do so for proposals related to the Clean Air Act—a mandate some agency critics cited in their call for more time.

"Bringing this extensive proposal forward during the COVID-19 pandemic is reckless and would divert critical public health expertise from the singular mission of protecting the public and controlling the pandemic," Rosenberg wrote in a letter to the agency. "The supplemental greatly expands the scope of the draft rule and the researchers whose work would be subject to it."

California Secretary of Environment Jared Blumenfeld also requested in a letterthat the comment period be extended at least 90 days: "A comment period that short would be inadequate for such a complex and consequential rule even in ordinary circumstances and is especially so in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic," Blumenfeld wrote.

Dena Adler, legal fellow for theEnvironmental Defense Fund,in a letter of protest to the agency, wrote, "It is unconscionable, dangerous and in contravention of due process under our nation's laws, that you would take this action today and require the public—including public health experts on the front lines of saving lives imperiled by the coronavirus, and the millions of Americans heeding government and private sector responses to prevent harm by sheltering in place, closing schools and working remotely—to comment" by the proposed deadline.

An EPA spokeswoman said in an email that the agency is considering all public comments it received on its original 2018 proposal, which numbered some 600,000. The agency said it will also consider the comments received in response to the recently published supplement notice. The spokeswoman noted that after the rule is finalized, there will be additional scientific review; Congress, in approving the agency's budget for the current fiscal year, directed that the EPA commission a National Academy of Sciences assessment of how the rule alters the agency's ability to use publicly available peer-reviewed scientific and medical studies.

"These additions and clarifications to the proposed rule will ensure that the science supporting the agency's decisions is transparent and available for independent validation while still maintaining protection of confidential and personally identifiable information," said EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, a former coal industry lobbyist, in a statement earlier this month announcing his plan to amend the proposed rule.

In one sense, the amendments acknowledge the problems that were raised in the wake of its original 2018 proposal—including the logistical andethical issues in making public raw data from all studies used by the EPA in decision-making. The new EPA proposal calls for a "tiered" approach, laying out a process for the regulated industry ("stakeholders," in the words of the proposal) to obtain access to health science data for reanalysis, even if it cannot be made available to the general public.

But Gretchen Goldman, research director of the Union of Concerned Scientists' Center for Science and Democracy, argued that this provision lays bare the Trump administration's motive in advancing the proposal.

"This was never about promoting transparency," she wrotein a blog last week. "It was always about finding ways for those outside of the scientific community to undercut the science supporting EPA decisions."

In its effort to restrict the EPA's use of health science, the Trump administration is taking up a cause that the fossil fuel industry and its allies have been championingfor two decades, ever since studies by the American Cancer Society and researchers at Harvard University established the connection between exposure to particulate matter pollution and premature death.

If the Trump administration succeeds in pushing the regulation through and barring the EPA from using those two studies, it will make it more difficult for the agency to show that the benefits of air pollution regulations outweigh the costs. Without the data to show that reducing air pollution saves lives, the EPA would be more vulnerable to fossil fuel industry challenges of its actions on the basis that they impose unreasonable costs.

When Republicans led the House, it passed legislation three times seeking to restrict the EPA's use of health science based on confidential data, but the Senate never took up any of the bills.

After the Trump EPA published its original proposal in 2018, the agency received an unprecedented response from the academic and scientific community. The editors of four major scientific journals published a rare joint statement in opposition to the move, and Harvard President Lawrence Bacow signed a letter on behalf of nearly 100 other administrators and researchers—the first time such an array of Harvard's most prestigious faculty joined in opposition to any EPA proposal.

The agency's Science Advisory Board requested an opportunity to weigh in, but the board is still working on its final advice to the agency after a contentious public teleconference in January. That advice is not expected to be complete until some time in April, making it unlikely that the board will have an opportunity to weigh in on the revised proposal before the April 18 deadline. An EPA spokeswoman said that the agency expects to receive and consider the SAB's advice before finalizing the rule.

Public comments are a key part of U.S. regulatory decision-making, and the feedback that agencies receive during the comment period can make or break rules in the almost inevitable litigation that follows any major agency decision.

Agencies must catalog and respond to all of the comments that they receive in their final actions on proposed rules. Not doing so would bolster the case that opponents of those rules could muster in federal court to have an agency's actions overturned as "arbitrary and capricious" under the Administrative Procedure Act.

A shorter comment period could mean that the EPA will have fewer public comments to address on the new aspects of its proposal. That could prove important in Wheeler's effort to finalize the rule by the end of this year.

Editor's Note: The story has been updated to add additional comment from the EPA.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

REGULATION

CORONAVIRUS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS

---

https://www.ecowatch.com/national-forest-trump-logging-tongass-2645476974.html

A federal judge in Alaska ruled late Wednesday against a Trump administration plan to open 1.8 million acres of America's largest national forest to logging.

The Forest Service plan targeted part of the Tongass National Forest on Prince of Wales Island. It would have been the largest sale of national forest timber in 30 years, Earthjustice pointed out, permitting 164 miles of new roads and clearing an area of forest three times the size of Manhattan, more than half of it old growth. But U.S. District Court Judge Sharon Gleason ruled that the plan violated the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) because the agency did not take all of its potential impacts into account, The Hill reported.

"The magnificent, ancient forests of the Tongass just got a reprieve from the chain saws," Randi Spivak, public lands director at the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD), said in the Earthjustice press release. "We're thrilled the court agreed that the Trump administration broke the law when it approved cutting thousands of acres of old-growth trees. It's critical to protect our remaining old-growth forests to have any chance of stopping the extinction crisis and slowing climate change."

CBD was one of eight conservation groups that challenged the plan with representation from Earthjustice, according to fellow plaintiff the National Audubon Society. The groups, also including Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Alaska Rainforest Defenders, Defenders of Wildlife, Sierra Club, Alaska Wilderness League and the Natural Resources Defense Council, argued that it violated NEPA, which allows people to weigh in on major infrastructure projects that will impact their community. Prince of Wales Island is an important location for subsistence hunting and fishing, but the Forest Service did not say in its plans where logging would take place, which meant it was impossible for the local community to meaningfully respond to the plans.

Judge Gleason agreedwith this assessment of the project, arguing that the service did not state where logging and road building would occur, according to Courthouse News Service.

"By not developing actual site-specific information, the Forest Service limited its ability to make informed decisions regarding impacts to subsistence uses and presented local communities with vague, hypothetical, and over-inclusive representations of the project's effects over a 15-year period," Gleason wrote.

Gleason also ruled that the plan violated the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, which requires federal agencies to determine how projects on public lands will impact those who use the lands for subsistence, according to The Audubon Society.

The ruling comes as the Trump administration is proposing changes to NEPA that would drastically weaken the landmark environmental law by, among other things, limiting the length of the review process, exempting certain projects from any review and allowing federal agencies to ignore a project's climate impacts.

Alaska Wilderness League conservation director Kristen Miller said that Wednesday's ruling showed the importance of NEPA.

"The Prince of Wales project would've been the largest logging project that we have seen anywhere in our national forests in decades, and it would have destroyed thousands of acres of irreplaceable old-growth forest in the Tongass National Forest," Miller said in the Earthjustice release. "Today's ruling is a win for Southeast Alaska's billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries, and a reminder as the Trump administration tries to significantly weaken the National Environmental Policy Act of the critical role NEPA plays in allowing the public to meaningfully weigh in on issues impacting their public lands."

The ultimate fate of the Forest Service project is not yet known, as Judge Gleason did not yet decide on a legal remedy for the plaintiffs' suit. The service did not respond to requests for comment from either Courthouse News Service or The Hill.

earth justice 220

suing to stop the coming plastics surgeLouisiana regulators recently approved air permits to build what would be one of the largest plastics plants in the world, even though it would dump 800 tons of toxic pollution into a local community and contribute to the worldwide plastic pollution crisis. We’re representing people in St. James Parish, a region that’s already surrounded by industrial plants an

new ew 220

Trump's Plan to Privatize Pork Inspections Called 'a Recipe for Disaster' as Consumer Safety Groups Sue USDA

a lawsuit filed Monday against President Donald Trump's loosening of regulations in pork inspection plants aims to stop the rules from taking effect to protect consumers from illness and death.

Under the new regulations put forth by the Trump administration, federal inspectors are no longer responsible for examining the animals before and after slaughter and will see a reduced role on the line.

According to Food & Water Watch:

The new rules prevent such inspection and hand over these responsibilities to the slaughter companies themselves. They also surrender federal control over removing contamination from carcasses to slaughter companies without any minimum training requirements for slaughter-plant employees.

"Reducing the number of trained federal inspectors and increasing line speeds is a recipe for disaster," Center for Food Safety staff attorney Ryan Talbott said in a statement.

"USDA has an obligation to protect the health and welfare of consumers," added Talbott. "USDA cannot do that when it takes a back seat and lets the slaughter plants largely regulate themselves."

The suit, which targets Trump's New Swine Inspection System (NSIS), was filed by Food & Water Watch, the Center for Food Safety and two supporting members.

"There is no gray area here," said Food & Water Watch senior staff attorney Zach Corrigan in a statement. "The new rules curtail the ability of federal inspectors to detect serious food-safety problems and expose those who consume such pork products to serious health threats like salmonella."

According to a press release from the two groups, the new Department of Agriculture (USDA) rules are "a draconian reversal to the swine slaughter inspection system that has existed in the United States since 1906."

"We're suing the crap out of USDA for ... feeding us crap," tweeted Food & Water Watch communications manager Jackie Filson....

Jim Hightower: Can ‘powerless nobodies’ fight the corporate powers?

Written by Jim Hightower December 21, 2019

The many sparkling bays along the Texas coastline of the Gulf of Mexico have long provided both a working-class living and a valued lifestyle for generations of shrimpers, oysterers and other fishing families. People and seafood, however, are not the only creatures here, for such wildlife as alligators and snakes also call many of these interconnected waterways home. Yet, by necessity and experience, the hardy people of the water have figured out how to share the bays so all creatures can get along.

But in the 1980s, a strange and invasive new critter entered Lavaca Bay, near the town of Port Comfort. Far from getting along, this species proceeded over the years to devour whole harvests of seafood, along with the livelihoods of local Gulf communities. This marauder was not some monster from the deep but a massive, 45,000-acre factory looming over Lavaca Bay. It is the Formosa Plastics Corporation, founded by the richest man in Taiwan.

As its name implies, Formosa is not here for seafood. It is the world’s second largest fabricator of polyvinyl chloride,the tiny, highly toxic pebbles and powders used to make the gabillions of plastic bags, pipes, bottles, etc. that are choking the Earth. For decades, the Formosa plant has cavalierly been dumping trillions of these poisonous pebbles and tons of the polyvinyl powders into its wastewater — which end up in Lavaca Bay.

That poisonous content then spreads to other bays, nearby waterways, the Gulf itself … and into the shrimp, oysters, fish and other creatures living there. The result has been species vanishing from these waters, creating economic and social devastation for families and port communities that rely on nature’s bounty.

Wait, isn’t this against the law? Of course, but petrochemical behemoths like Formosa have corrupted the law, turning Texas lawmakers and environmental regulators into their puppets. When leaders won’t lead, The People must, and that’s exactly what’s happening in this case. A defiant, determined former fourth-generation shrimper named Diane Wilson, along with a scrappy environmental coalition on the Texas Gulf Coast, have just won the largest citizen environmental lawsuit in U.S. history, forcing Formosa to stop its gross contamination of the bay, the local economy and the law.

It’s good to have a happy-ending story for the holidays — one that’s not sugar-plum sappy but genuinely uplifting.

It “feels like justice,” said Wilson in early December when a federal district judge OK’d a $50 million pollution settlement against Formosa Plastics Corporation. Judge Kenneth Hoyt, a Ronald Reagan appointee, had previously ruled that the Taiwan plastics conglomerate was a “serial offender” whose violations of America’s Clean Water Act were “extensive, historical, and repetitive.” How the case got there is as important as his ruling.

Wilson, the indefatigable local shrimper, had been trying for some 30 years to get state and national officials to stop Formosa from dumping poisonous plastic chemicals into the Lavaca Bay ecosystem. The corporation’s deliberate contamination was destroying seasonal seafood harvests upon which she and thousands of Gulf Coast fishing families relied. She was ignored by those in power and then ridiculed and then demonized. Yet this lady of the sea wouldn’t quit. She kept speaking out, mounted hunger strikes and even tried to sink her own beloved shrimp boat in the bay as a public protest.

Nothing. But then, backed by a volunteer network of regional environmentalists and a savvy group of nonprofit legal service lawyers, Wilson filed the private citizens lawsuit in July 2017 that came to trial this spring in Judge Hoyt’s courtroom, finally producing an overdue measure of justice. The $50 million settlement doesn’t go to Wilson or the other plaintiffs but to projects that will revitalize local marine ecosystems and create a shrimping and oyster cooperative for local families. It also will pay for citizen-group monitoring of Formosa’s compliance with the judge’s orders for “zero discharge” of its plastic pollutants.

Even more significant than the money that the Formosa settlement provides, this victory sets a major legal precedent to advance other citizen lawsuits against polluters, requiring that the polluters (not taxpayers) pay for their messes. Who needs Santa Clause when “We the People” can deliver such democratic gifts to ourselves? For information on the details and impact of this remarkable people’s victory, go to the Texas RioGrande Legal Aid website.

Populist author, public speaker and radio commentator Jim Hightower writes “The Hightower Lowdown,” a monthly newsletter chronicling the ongoing fights by America’s ordinary people against rule by plutocratic elites. Sign up at HightowerLowdown.org.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/14112018/crab-fishermen-climate-change-lawsuit-fossil-fuel-companies-ocean-algae-neurotoxin-fishery-closure

dunno if this is class action

Crab Fishers Sue the Fossil Fuel Industry Over Climate Change as the Ocean Warms

BY: DAVID HASEMYER

:{:{}:

The West Coast's largest commercial fishing association is the latest group seeking to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for climate change as it damages lives and livelihoods.}:

:{:{}:

Crab fishing on the West Coast has become so threatened by warming oceans that a coalition of commercial fishers has now joined the climate litigation fray with a lawsuit filed Wednesday to hold 30 fossil fuel companies accountable for losses caused by climate change.

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court by the Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations, seeks damages on behalf of crab fishers, their businesses and families, and local communities in California and Oregon.

It describes losses caused by the closing of crab fishing waters over the past four years because of algae blooms in the warming Pacific waters, and warns that these closures will keep happening as warming continues.

"These changes threaten both the productivity of commercial fisheries and safety of commercially harvested seafood products," the lawsuit says. "In so doing, they also threaten those that rely on ocean fisheries and ecosystems for their livelihoods, by rendering it at times impossible to ply their trade."

At the heart of the 91-page lawsuit are claims similar to those being used by several California cities that are suing the fossil fuel industry over sea level rise. It accuses some of the world's largest oil and gas producers, including ExxonMobil, Chevron, Shell and BP, of negligence, defective-product liability, creating a nuisance, and failing to warn about the dangers of fossil fuel products that the companies knew would result in warming of the oceans and atmosphere.

But this case is unusual in pitting one industry against another.

Because of the ocean warming brought on by greenhouse gas emissions, the crab fishing industry has been deprived of fishing opportunities, and consequently suffered severe financial hardships, the lawsuit says. "These injuries derive from rising ocean temperatures in the eastern Pacific Ocean generally and periodic extreme marine heat waves—the results of anthropogenic ocean warming caused by the foreseeable and intended use of defendants' products," the suit says.

Significant portions of the Dungeness crab fishing region along the Pacific Coast have been closed repeatedly since 2015, including parts along the West Coast this year, according to the lawsuit.

Warming water can generate algae blooms that can cause a buildup in shellfish of domoic acid, a potent neurotoxin that is a health threat to people and an economic threat to the entire crab fishery. Earlier this month, the California Department of Public Health issued a warning not to eat the internal organs of Dungeness crab from the Bodega Bay or Russian River areas because of high levels of domoic acid.

'It's Obvious the Oceans Are Getting Warmer'

Although the lawsuit does not specify a damage amount, the federationestimates crab fishing contributes hundreds of millions of dollars to the economy in Oregon and California each year.

"We're out fishing all the time, and it's obvious the oceans are getting warmer," said John Beardon, who fishes for Dungeness crab out of Crescent City, California. "That's bad for crabs and other fish, and it's bad for those of us who make a living on the water.

"The last three years have been really hard. Our community came together and held a fish fry to help our crew members. But fish fries and disaster relief are no solution to these closures we're now seeing year after year after year."

Disaster relief approved by Congress in 2018 will aid crabbers who were harmed by the poor season three years ago, but it provides only partial relief for fishers like Beardon.

The crab fleet is responsible for thousands of jobs on the boats and thousands more in the local businesses that support the fishery, according to Noah Oppenheim, the Pacific Coast Federation's executive director.

"We're taking a stand for the captains and crew, their families, and the business owners that support the fleet," he said. "The fossil fuel companies named in our lawsuit knowingly caused harm, and they need to be held accountable. We are seeking to implement measures, at the fossil fuel industry's expense, that will help crabbers adapt to a world in which domoic acid flareup's will be increasingly common, and also help those crabbers who suffer financial losses as a result."

Latest in a Growing List of Climate Lawsuits

The federation's lawsuit adds to a growing list of municipalities that have turned to the courts in the last two years seeking to hold fossil fuel companies financially responsible for the threat posed by climate change.

The fossil fuel companies' legal teams have pushed back hard, and judges have dismissed some of the lawsuits, saying it's not up to the courts to decide climate policy but rather the job of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

"This case will face similar obstacles as the other cases," said Michael Burger, executive director of the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia University. Beyond the lawsuit being filed by a private party and the particular harms cited to the crab fishing industry by warming oceans, the complaint appears to similar to other climate litigation, he said.

The federation, like many of the other litigants, alleges the fossil fuel companies knew for nearly 50 years that the production and use of fossil fuel created greenhouse gases responsible for global warming.

"Instead of working to reduce the use and combustion of fossil fuel products, lower the rate of greenhouse gas emissions, minimize the damage associated with continued high use and combustion of such products, and ease the transition to a lower carbon economy, defendants concealed the dangers, sought to undermine public support for greenhouse gas regulation, and engaged in massive campaigns to promote the ever-increasing use of their products at ever greater volumes," the lawsuit says.

PUBLISHED UNDER:

---

https://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/richard-sackler-purdue-pharma-opioid-crisis

Friday, the Financial Times reported that billionaire pharmaceutical tycoon Richard Sackler has secured a patent for a new drug to treat opioid addiction.

The drug, a reformulation of buprenorphine, is essentially just a milder opioid that can blunt the symptoms of withdrawal while a person is being weaned off — competing variants of which are already generating nearly $900 million in U.S. sales.

Sackler's family also happens to own Purdue Pharma, the company that first developed OxyContin — a powerful narcotic painkiller that has been blamed for spurring the epidemic of opioid addiction that has decimated communities all across America.

In other words, Sackler made millions off of sales of a drug that caused a massive public health crisis — and now he stands to make millions more by selling the public a solution.

Purdue, one of several drug companies that made a decades-long push for liberal prescription of opioids, is currently facing a mountain of lawsuits. Prosecutors in several states allege Purdue was aware of the risk of addiction and overdose, but deceived doctors and patients and downplayed the risks to increase their sales — a charge the company denies. Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey directly names several members of the Sackler family as defendants.

The National Institute of Drug Abuse estimates that up to 12 percent of patients prescribed an opioid develop an abuse disorder, and as many as 6 percent eventually switch to heroin. More than 115 people a day are now killed by opioid overdoses.

Rural areas have been especially impacted, with an astonishing 74 percent of farmers reporting they or someone they know is suffering from opioid addiction.

While increased availability of addiction treatment is a good thing, it is not a solution to the epidemic. Opioids remain a necessary tool to treat severe pain from surgery, cancer, and other serious conditions, but they must be used judiciously, and alternative therapies must be made available — particularly in lower-income rural areas where people are at higher risk.