Lobbying Affiliate: MML&K Government Solutions
{ Banner Image }

Healthcare Law Blog

Comprehensive Healthcare law services.
It's kind of our bag.

Contact Us

250 Character(s) Remaining
Type the following characters: niner, niner, mike, mike

* Indicates a required field.

Categories

McBrayer Blogs

Related Blogs

Photo of Healthcare Law Blog Valerie Michael
Associate
vmichael@mcbrayerfirm.com
859.231.8780
View Bio
The healthcare world can be a tumultuous and evolving machine, but Valerie Michael is able to handle any tribulations hurled at her in the healthcare law landscape. Her practice …

Showing 2 posts by Valerie Michael.

New Resident Legal Issues

Leaving medical school and entering residency is a daunting transition in the career of a new physician, presenting a new set of legal rules and requirements, including employment contracts and malpractice liabilities. We recommend familiarizing yourself with your program’s relevant manuals and policies and seeking legal advice when necessary. More >

Recent Supreme Court Decisions and the Impact on Reproductive Rights

Recent United States Supreme Court decisions have delivered small temporary wins for reproductive rights. A unanimous Supreme Court rejected a challenge to the FDA’s rule for prescribing and dispensing abortion pills. On June 13, 2024, a unanimous court decided in Food and Drug Administration v Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine that the anti-abortion doctors and medical groups that challenged the expansion of access to mifepristone, one of the two drugs used in medical abortions, lacked standing. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, writing for the court, acknowledged the challengers’ “sincere legal, moral, ideological, and policy objections” to elective abortion and to the FDA’s changes to the conditions on the use of mifepristone. However, the challengers to the FDA regulation failed to show how they had been harmed, as they do not themselves prescribe the medication. The court further found that merely objecting to abortion and to the FDA’s policies are not enough to establish standing and bring a case to federal court. The challengers contended that having to treat patients who suffered complications from using the drug is a harm to them and similarly convicted providers in other respects, such as diverting resources, increasing the likelihood of lawsuits, and increasing insurance costs. Justice Kavanaugh continued to describe the speculative nature of the challengers’ attempt to establish standing. If the challengers could sue with this theory, it could open a dangerous door to challenge “almost any policy affecting public health.” More >

Lexington, KYLouisville, KYFrankfort, KYFrankfort, KY: MML&K Government Solutions