Should the world's most widely used weedkiller have a warning label for possibly causing cancer?

Thousands of customers are suing Bayer for its
weedkiller, Roundup, allegedly causing cancer.

Bayer is battling thousands of lawsuits from customers alleging the world’s most widely used weedkiller, Roundup, is causing cancer, report Patrick Thomas and Lydia Wheeler for The Wall Street Journal.

The U.S. Supreme Court must decide whether Bayer’s failure to provide a warning label on their product is illegal.

The federal government and Environmental Protection Agency determined Roundup is safe for use, and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) “prohibits states from imposing different or additional warnings from those required under the federal law,” the reporters explain.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer classified glyphosate, the main ingredient in Roundup, as “probably carcinogenic to humans” in 2015, though the EPA and federal government claim it isn’t.

The plaintiffs argue that Bayer should take extra steps to warn consumers of the risks the herbicide might pose, the reporters add.

While states can pull products from the market, Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned why they can’t hold companies liable for failure to warn customers, the Journal reports.

Bayer continues to argue that federal law is created to provide uniformity in the labeling of herbicides. The reporters add that Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked, “If the label is illegal in one state and legal in another state, that’s uniformity?”

Telemedicine provides abortion access for rural women in states where the procedure is restricted or banned

Graph by the Society of Family Planning (click to enlarge)

Women living in rural areas with abortion-restrictive state laws are using telehealth and doctors in other states to access abortion medications. State shield laws currently protect out-of-state medical professionals who prescribe abortion medications, but that protection may not remain a guarantee.

Asynchronous telemedicine abortion medication provision rates "were higher in states with abortion restrictions and poorer counties far from clinics," reports Rachael Robertson of MedPage Today. "Of the 118,338 medication abortion pill packs Aid Access provided over a 15-month period, 84% went to states with near-total restrictions or bans on telemedicine abortion," reported Abigail Aiken, PhD, at the University of Texas, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

When the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022, some states followed the decision with abortion bans; however, if the bans were meant to stop abortions, they had limited success. Robertson writes, "Some data suggest that abortion rates remained steady despite these challenges."

Aiken's research points to medication abortions and the shield law as a reason abortion rates remained level, even in states with the most stringent restrictions. Aiken explains, "One plausible contributor is the rise of online asynchronous telemedicine abortion services -- particularly those operating under shield laws, which allow U.S.-licensed clinicians to provide abortion medications to patients in ban states with protection from legal liability."

"Before Roe was overturned, telehealth only accounted for 4% of abortions; that has increased to 25% as of December 2024, and disproportionately to ban states, according to Society of Family Planning data," Robertson adds.

Shield law protections will be tested by a Texas lawsuit "against a New York physician operating a nonprofit delivering telemedicine abortion," Robertson reports. "In the past, states tended to honor and assist other states' law enforcement, but the post-Roe era is different."

Ohio could end tainted public subsides for failed coal plants, but lawmakers add a catch to their new energy plans

The bailed-out coal plants were built in the 1950s.
(Adobe Stock photo)

The Ohio legislature finally overhauled subsidies for two failing coal mines that have cost state taxpayers $400,000 per day since 2019. The hefty charges originated in the state's infamous House Bill 6 energy bill that grew into the "largest corruption scandal in state history," reports Julie Carr Smyth of The Associated Press.

House Bill 15 would rid Ohio consumers of the "legacy generation rider” contained in House Bill 6 for the Ohio Valley Electric Corp. "The Ohio Senate passed its version of the legislation in a rare unanimous vote Wednesday, before sending it back to the Ohio House," Smyth explains. "The bill goes next to Gov. Mike DeWine, whose office said he is reviewing the amended measure."

Beyond ending expensive subsidies, the bill "requires utilities to routinely come in for rate cases and justify how they spend ratepayer-collected money," Smyth reports. It contains a loan program to lower energy costs for public schools and ensures consumers are refunded for incorrect charges.

The subsides' corruption history is one that current Ohio lawmakers have sought to decry and erase. State Rep. Casey Weinstein's commented on the scandal saying: "It was an outrageous misuse of public funds — sending hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to an aging coal plant in Indiana. Putting an end to that is a victory for ratepayers across the state."

Even as lawmakers cheer their success, the state's new energy bills are being met with mixed responses. Cathy Cowan Becker writes in her opinion for the Ohio Capital Journal, "Ohio could finally see the end to some of the worst aspects of 2019’s House Bill 6 — which David Roberts of Vox called 'the worst energy bill of the 21st century.'"

As Becker writes, "That is great news — but it [could] come at a high cost. Instead of bailing out coal and nuclear plants, Ohioans could find themselves living next to large gas plants, pushed through a fast-track approval process without local approval, supplied with gas from fracking our parks."

New doctors are avoiding abortion ban states, new analysis shows. Restrictions may add to mutiple-care shortages.

Fewer new doctors are applying for residency in
abortion ban states. (Hush Naidoo Jade photo, Unsplash)

States with significant restrictions or bans on  abortions may be inadvertently discouraging graduating medical students from applying for residency in their state, which could exacerbate regional physician shortages. Julie Rovner and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News report, "According to new statistics from the Association of American Medical Colleges, for the second year in a row, students graduating from U.S. medical schools were less likely to apply this year for residency positions in states with abortion bans and other significant abortion restrictions."

State battles over abortion aren't limited to uncertainties for doctors and pregnant patients; the tensions have "also bled into the world of medical education, forcing some new doctors to factor state abortion laws into their decisions about where to begin their careers," Rovner and Pradhan write. "Fourteen states, primarily in the Midwest and South, have banned nearly all abortions. . . . A preliminary review of a new analysis by the AAMC found that the number of applicants to residency programs in states with near-total abortion bans declined by 4.2%, compared with a 0.6% drop in states where abortion remains legal."

The AAMC's analysis shows that when new doctors start avoiding certain states, those states gain fewer doctors, which adds to regional physician shortages in many specialties. KFF Health News reports, "The organization tracked a larger decrease in interest in residencies in states with abortion restrictions not only among those in specialties most likely to treat pregnant patients, like OB-GYNs and emergency room doctors, but also among aspiring doctors in other specialties."

The number of new doctors applying for OB-GYN and internal medicine residency slots in those states "dropped 6.7%, compared with a 0.4% increase in states where abortion remains legal," Rovner and Pradhan explain. "For internal medicine, the drop observed in abortion ban states was over five times as much as in states where abortion is legal."

Both of California's legislative leaders hail from rural backgrounds -- it's a first in more than 50 years

Coast Redwood Forest
(Wikipedia photo)

Rural people and issues often get politically sidelined, but some of that dynamic has changed in California. "It's the first time in more than 50 years that both of California's legislative leaders hail from rural districts," reports Camille Von Kaenel of Politico. "Rural interests accustomed to being on the outskirts of Sacramento policymaking are enjoying the view from the inside and are hoping to make a mark — particularly on climate and environmental policies."

North Coast California
(Wikipedia map)

Senate leader Mike McGuire from Healdsburg, pop. 11,300, represents the state's North Coast district, which is replete with redwood forests, salmon fisheries and Sonoma County wineries. Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas' district covers the Central Coast, also known as the "salad bowl" of America, where he grew up in farmworker housing. Von Kaenel notes, "The last time both leaders hailed from rural districts was in 1969, when Democrat Hugh Burns of Fresno County led the Senate and Republican Bob Monagan of San Joaquin County led the Assembly."

Central Coast California
(Wikipedia map)

For Chris Lopez, the chair of the Rural County Representatives of California, which includes 40 of California's 58 counties, "The representation alone is powerful," Von Kaenel reports. Lopez told her, "When Robert was sworn in as speaker, having a mariachi on that floor playing music spoke to my heart. It wasn't just about having a Latino, but having a Latino who grew up rural in farmworker housing."

Von Kaenel writes, "They're careful to emphasize they're representing everyone, including their urban counterparts." McGuire said in a recent statement: "No matter if you live in Eureka or Encino, the priorities are similar. While I'll always have country roots, I'm going to fight like hell to lift up every Californian, no matter if you live in the big city or a one-traffic-stop-light town."

California prosecutors charge fentanyl suppliers with murder. The legally unsettled approach is catching on.

Prosecutors in California are forging a path to make fentanyl dealers accountable for their part in overdose deaths by filing homicide charges against them. In Riverside County, California, county district attorney Mike Hestrin "has charged 34 suspected fentanyl suppliers with murder and is said to be the first prosecutor in California to achieve a guilty verdict from a jury in a fentanyl-related homicide trial," reports Michael Corkery of The New York Times. Some critics fault the prosecution of street dealers "as a misguided return to the aggressive approaches of the 1990s, which failed to curb drug use and swelled state prison populations."

But even in boldly liberal parts of the state, murder investigations of fentanyl overdoses are being used to discourage fentanyl sales and provide some level of justice for families. Corkery writes, "Some other counties — like San Diego and Placer, near Sacramento — that have also brought murder charges against fentanyl suppliers have sizable numbers of conservative-minded voters who tend to favor more punitive approaches to crime." Even in San Francisco, the district attorney's office is planning to prosecute fentanyl dealers for overdose deaths.

While prosecutors pursue murder charges against fentanyl dealers, their cases are on murky legal ground. "Prosecutors have been working around the fact that California does not have a law that specifically allows fentanyl deaths to be charged as murders," Corkery explains. 

Defense attorneys have responded to the prosecutions as "overbroad and unconstitutional," Corkery reports. But their complaints are being drowned out. "Parents whose children died from fentanyl are a driving force behind new laws and stepped-up prosecutions just as the parents of drunken-driving victims swayed the nation to crack down on alcohol-fueled traffic deaths decades ago."

To read more on how California prosecutors are using the Watson murder rule to prosecute fentanyl suppliers, click here. 

Drug Enforcement Administration statistics draw a startling picture of fentanyl's lethal power: It is the leading cause of death for Americans ages 18 to 45, and it's responsible for nearly 70 percent of the United States' 107,000+ drug overdose deaths in the past year. A educational warning video is shared below.

As access to public records erodes, more records are deliberately concealed from the public

Successful efforts to obtain public records are
down 18%. (Photo by Wesley Tingey, Unsplash)

While Florida's change in public records access may be more dramatic than some, it marks "a steady erosion of public records laws in a number of states," report Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene of Route Fifty. "North Carolina’s budget bill, for example, recently included language that changes previous open records laws to exempt current and former legislators from any requirements to share documents they create while in office and to give lawmakers the power to decide whether a record should be made public, archived, destroyed or sold."

"The ability of people to get records that are supposed to be made publicly available has been 'deteriorating terribly,' according to David Cuillier, director of the Brechner Freedom of Information Project at the University of Florida," Route Fifty reports. "In fact, a nonprofit organization called MuckRock, which consults with people and organizations in their efforts to get public records, has found that about 10 years ago such efforts were successful about half the time. Today, that’s down to about 18%." Megan Rhyne, executive director of the Virginia Coalition for Open Government, told Route Fifty: "There has been a consistent move to conceal more and more records from the public. Some states have done so at a different rate than others, but we see this in many of them.”

The lack of access isn't limited to journalists "who have historically been able to serve as watchdogs over government by making Freedom of Information Act requests to get the documents necessary to fully report an article," Barrett and Greene write. “Though journalists often use FOIA, the majority of requesters are not reporters." Michael Morisy, co-founder and chief executive officer of MuckRock, told Route Fifty: “In many places, they are commercial requesters, like businesses that need information in order to make informed proposals for procurement. Then there are think tanks and universities."

Often referred to as "sunshine laws," most states have open records laws, but they can be weakened through exemptions. Barrett and Greene explain: "This has been the case in Florida, which long had a reputation as one of the most open states in the country. Its first sunshine laws were enacted in 1909, one of the first such pieces of legislation in the country. That law has been chipped away with increasing speed since the mid-1990s, and today it has about 1,200 exemptions and at least a dozen more are added almost every year. Of course, some of the exemptions, like access to individuals’ Social Security numbers, make good sense, but many are far more troublesome, like those protecting the governor’s past travel records."

Government officials have 'unqualified access to private land;' hunters sue to change Open Fields doctrine

The Open Fields doctrine has allowed government officials access
to private land. (Photo by Institute for Justice via Farm Journal)

Sometimes private land isn't private, and in states such as Pennsylvania, the question, "How much power does the government claim on private land?" is answered by a court ruling, reports Chris Bennett of Farm Journal. On Sept. 29, a "court ruled against two hunting clubs in their lawsuit accusing the Pennsylvania Game Commission of private property rights violations. . . . In its ruling, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania noted the government's absolute power to 'roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause.'"

The hunting clubs, Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney sued PGC "after game wardens consistently entered club lands without permission or warrant, and secretly monitored club members, including photo collection via installation of a hidden game camera," Bennett writes. "The wardens' behavior, the lawsuit asserted, was a direct violation of Pennsylvania's state constitution, which explicitly protects 'persons, houses, papers, and possessions.'"

The Open Fields doctrine allows state and federal officials "unqualified access to private land" without requiring a warrant to "enter or surveil private land," Bennett reports. "The Commonwealth Court detailed the alarming powers and 'unfettered discretion' assumed by the government via Open Fields: To ensure their members' privacy, the Hunting Clubs have posted their properties with no trespassing signs and have installed gates at all entrances to exclude nonmembers and intruders. However, the Entry Statutes empower game wardens with unfettered discretion to enter upon and roam private land without consent, warrants, or probable cause."

"Six states place state constitutional authority above the Open Fields doctrine: Mississippi, Montana, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington," Bennett writes. The Institute for Justice represents Pitch Pine and Punxsutawney is appealing the decision. "Arguments before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should take place in 2024, with a decision likely in 2025. IJ is litigating similar Open Fields cases in Virginia and Tennessee about warrantless intrusions on private land."

(For more on Open Fields, see How Much Ag Property Is Protected From a Warrantless Search?)

Feinstein's death raises the question of how vacant Senate seats are filled. The answer depends on where you live.

Dianne Feinstein in 1950
(Photo by Underwood Archives,
Getty Images via Conversation)

The death of California's longtime senator, Dianne Feinstein, left a vacancy in the U.S. Senate and a question in many Americans' minds: How are Senate seats filled when a person dies while in office? The short answer is it depends on where you live because individual states establish their own rules.

The 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution outlines the basics: "When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct," explains Gibbs Knotts for The Conversation, a platform for journalism by academics.

That usually means the state's governor will pick the predecessor. In California, Gov. Gavin Newsom has already named his pick, Laphonza Butler, who will remain in office until the 2024 election. However, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island and Wisconsin "do not allow governors to make temporary appointments," Knotts reports. "Those states only fill U.S. Senate vacancies by special election, but laws specify time periods in most states."

How long appointments last also depends on state law. "If a person appointed to the seat by the governor then wins a special election or a contest scheduled alongside statewide elections, they will serve the remainder of the vacating senator's term," Knotts explains. "Otherwise, if someone else wins the special election, they get to serve out the vacating senator's term."

There are rules and processes appointing governors must follow. "In 10 gubernatorial appointment states, U.S. senators must be from the same party as the prior incumbent. Arizona, Hawaii, Kentucky, Maryland, Montana, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia and Wyoming have this restriction," Knotts notes. "In Utah, the governor is required to select from a list of three candidates submitted by the party of the U.S. senator being replaced. In the rest of the states, the governor has the power to appoint a successor, regardless of party, including in California."

State legislatures have some say in the process. Knotts adds, "Most notably, legislators establish the appointment procedures and set the general rules about when an election must occur. If they don't like the process, they have the power to change it."

Opinion: Backcountry access is a tangle of public lands, private property and people treading all over the place

Runners on the Gateway Loop Trail at the McDowell Sonoran
Preserve in Ariz. (Photo by Caitlin O'Hara, The Washington Post) 

America’s backcountry is a tangled mix of public lands and private property, and access battles over where one ends and another begins are "wildly complex," Maddy Butcher of Colorado writes in her opinion for The Washington Post.

The "this land is your land; this land is my land" ideal does not apply to private property, and violators who purposely or accidentally tread on private lands have faced criminal charges and civil suits. "Across the West, courts are reflecting the struggles that residents and visitors face in trying to balance public trust and private land ownership. Some cast it as simple battles of rich vs. poor, or of locals vs. out-of-towners." But an "us" vs. "them" approach is an oversimplification of a dynamic web.

"As outdoor recreation increasingly fuels economies here and as landowners assert their rights, the clashes — not just in courts but also across streams, fence lines and dirt paths — will continue. . . . Many of us here struggle to roll with the triple influx of transplants, second-home owners and visitors. Like the courts, when we consider the multifaceted impact of this population flow, we’re conflicted."

Having so many visitors can lead communities feeling "loved to death. . . . Cluelessness abounds. . . . I’ve seen young hikers in the woods, dressed in tan during hunting season, looking more like deer than they realize and unaware that hunting season is a thing. I’ve seen private lands treated like public lands and public lands treated like gift shops, with visitors taking home artifacts, plants and animals."

Western state laws vary widely, and visitors and new residents best learn about theirs. "When I moved to Colorado from Utah several years ago, someone handed me The Good Neighbor Guidebook for Colorado. Edited by two lawyers, the book helps readers navigate the laws and customs around fencing, water use, wildlife and livestock. In this state, your dogs can legally be shot for chasing deer; you can’t divert a stream even a little bit; you must mitigate your noxious weeds; and if you don’t want cattle grazing your land, you’ll have to fence them out."

Nature is also feeling the squeeze. "As we twist and turn around boundaries and rights, we might pause to consider also doing some problem-grappling on an ecosystem level: Elk, bear, marmots and coyotes move to places where there is less pressure from human presence. But lately, that pressure is coming at them from all sides."