Currently viewing the tag: “regulation”
In February 2009, Continental flight 3407, operated by Colgan Air, plunged into a suburb of Buffalo, NY, killing all 49 people on board and one person on the ground. Pilot error was named as the chief cause of the crash, and investigators focused on pilot fatigue as one of the primary problems. The co-pilot had taken a cross-country, overnight flight the day before the crash, and only slept briefly in an airline lounge before she was required to pilot the flight.
When the plane encountered an ice storm as it attempted to land in Buffalo, the pilots struggled to respond appropriately, and The National Transportation Safety Board found that their “performance was likely impaired because of fatigue.” Both pilots were heard yawning on the cockpit voice recorder.
Families of the victims channeled their grief into action in the following months, launching a 15-month campaign to convince Congress to enact a variety of pilot performance safeguards. The bill passed last summer and, among other things, required the FAA to create tougher rules aimed at controlling pilot fatigue.
But today, the Republican House of Representatives passed an amendment sponsored by Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) to a Republican-drafted aviation bill that would essentially gut the planned pilot fatigue rules by requiring extensive tailoring to many different segments of the aviation industry, and exempting several others.
Hero pilot Chesley “Sully” Sullenberger blasted the amendment yesterday before it passed, saying “it creates a huge obstacle to new regulations,” and that, “at some point in the future, we don’t know when, it’s likely people will die unnecessarily.” Last night on the Ed Show, Sullenberger said the bill is a “slap in the face” to the Flight 3407 families. He also decried “special interests only interested in the bottom line.”
Watch it:
Family members of those killed on Flight 3407 are already speaking out against the Republican vote. “You can try to dress this up however you like, but we all know which special interests that [the amendment] is attempting to help and what it’s attempting to do for them, which is make it more difficult for the FAA to do its job and regulate them,” said Susan Bourque, who’s sister, Beverly Eckert, was killed in the crash.
Eckert’s husband, Sean Rooney, was killed in the Sept. 11 terror attacks, and in the years following his death, Eckert became a leading 9/11 activist and helped lead the push for the 9/11 Commission. She was flying to Buffalo that evening to attend the unveiling of a scholarship in her late husband’s name.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has vowed to prevent the Shuster Amendment from becoming a part of the final aviation bill, after the House and Senate versions are reconciled.
When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that’s about to change.
“The State of California says my trucks are killing people,” says Whitney. “What do you say to that?”
In a few years, new air quality regulations approved by the California Air Resources Board will render Whitney’s entire fleet illegal.
“New CARB rules are putting me out of business,” he says.
CARB claims that diesel particulates, a type of pollution emitted from buses and trucks, contributes to 2,000 premature deaths in California each year. But UCLA epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom says the number should be closer to zero.
In 2005 Enstrom authored an extensive study that found no relationship between diesel particulates and premature deaths. He says his study, as well as other evidence that agrees with it, have been ignored by an agency bent on passing ever more stringent regulations regardless of their effect on California’s economy.
Enstrom blew the whistle on CARB for, among other things, failing to publicize that the lead author of the study that was used to justify the new regulations falsified his education history (he purchased his PhD from an online diploma mill).
But UCLA didn’t come to Enstrom’s defense. In fact, officials informed him that, after 34 years at the university, he was out of a job.
“The environmental regulation machine in powerful in California,” says Adam Kissel of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is defending Enstrom in the fight to keep his job. “When Dr. Enstrom went up against that machine he was retaliated against.”
A hearing that begins on April 4 will determine whether Dr. Enstrom keeps his job, and the final decision rests with UCLA Chancellor Gene Block.
Says Kissel, “If Dr. Enstrom loses his job because he exercised his academic freedom, then it’s a message to other researchers that you’d better not rock the boat because you might be next.”
Approximately 9 minutes.
“The Green Regulation Machine” is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Field Producer: Paul Detrick; Camera: Alex Manning, Hawk Jensen, Josh Swain, Austin Bragg.
Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.
When Dwayne Whitney started his trucking business decades ago he had only one truck. Today he has eighteen and 20 employees. But that’s about to change.
“The State of California says my trucks are killing people,” says Whitney. “What do you say to that?”
In a few years, new air quality regulations approved by the California Air Resources Board will render Whitney’s entire fleet illegal.
“New CARB rules are putting me out of business,” he says.
CARB claims that diesel particulates, a type of pollution emitted from buses and trucks, contributes to 2,000 premature deaths in California each year. But UCLA epidemiologist Dr. James Enstrom says the number should be closer to zero.
In 2005 Enstrom authored an extensive study that found no relationship between diesel particulates and premature deaths. He says his study, as well as other evidence that agrees with it, have been ignored by an agency bent on passing ever more stringent regulations regardless of their effect on California’s economy.
Enstrom blew the whistle on CARB for, among other things, failing to publicize that the lead author of the study that was used to justify the new regulations falsified his education history (he purchased his PhD from an online diploma mill).
But UCLA didn’t come to Enstrom’s defense. In fact, officials informed him that, after 34 years at the university, he was out of a job.
“The environmental regulation machine in powerful in California,” says Adam Kissel of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, which is defending Enstrom in the fight to keep his job. “When Dr. Enstrom went up against that machine he was retaliated against.”
A hearing that begins on April 4 will determine whether Dr. Enstrom keeps his job, and the final decision rests with UCLA Chancellor Gene Block.
Says Kissel, “If Dr. Enstrom loses his job because he exercised his academic freedom, then it’s a message to other researchers that you’d better not rock the boat because you might be next.”
Approximately 9 minutes.
“The Green Regulation Machine” is written and produced by Ted Balaker. Field Producer: Paul Detrick; Camera: Alex Manning, Hawk Jensen, Josh Swain, Austin Bragg.
Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of this and all our videos and subscribe to Reason.tv’s YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new content is posted.
Machine politics.
Reason TV’s Ted Balaker offers a lengthy look into how government and academia teamed up in California to stifle scientific dissent and pass new environmental regulations on the basis of fraud. Take the time to watch it all, as there is a lot to unpack in this story, which starts off with a trucking company […]
Mike Konczal and Kevin Drum both examine the question of the National Education Association siding with the banks on the debit card interchange issue and find that their minds are unchanged. They both attribute the NEA’s opposition to the new regulations to the fact that there are some teacher-run credit unions whose interests may be imperiled by regulation:
So this argument should be viewed in light of the credit union argument. Firms with less than $ 10 billion in assets will not be covered by the interchange amendment, though credit unions don’t believe this will be the case in practice. Felix Salmon took a look at the arguments for credit unions last June and found them wanting, Adam Levitin did an overview of interchange and Credit Unions and the Durbin amendment in December 2010 and found that while it is complicated, competition from the market is likely to follow-through on two-tier pricing, benefitting credit unions.
So the argument here is that the unions are acting on behalf of their own interests as credit union operators, and being disingenuous when they talk about harm to consumers. But on top of that, they’re also mistaken about their interests as credit union operators! Maybe that’s right…
Mike Konczal and Kevin Drum both examine the question of the National Education Association siding with the banks on the debit card interchange issue and find that their minds are unchanged. They both attribute the NEA’s opposition to the new regulations to the fact that there are some teacher-run credit unions whose interests may be imperiled by regulation:
So this argument should be viewed in light of the credit union argument. Firms with less than $ 10 billion in assets will not be covered by the interchange amendment, though credit unions don’t believe this will be the case in practice. Felix Salmon took a look at the arguments for credit unions last June and found them wanting, Adam Levitin did an overview of interchange and Credit Unions and the Durbin amendment in December 2010 and found that while it is complicated, competition from the market is likely to follow-through on two-tier pricing, benefitting credit unions.
So the argument here is that the unions are acting on behalf of their own interests as credit union operators, and being disingenuous when they talk about harm to consumers. But on top of that, they’re also mistaken about their interests as credit union operators! Maybe that’s right…
Mike Konczal and Kevin Drum both examine the question of the National Education Association siding with the banks on the debit card interchange issue and find that their minds are unchanged. They both attribute the NEA’s opposition to the new regulations to the fact that there are some teacher-run credit unions whose interests may be imperiled by regulation:
So this argument should be viewed in light of the credit union argument. Firms with less than $ 10 billion in assets will not be covered by the interchange amendment, though credit unions don’t believe this will be the case in practice. Felix Salmon took a look at the arguments for credit unions last June and found them wanting, Adam Levitin did an overview of interchange and Credit Unions and the Durbin amendment in December 2010 and found that while it is complicated, competition from the market is likely to follow-through on two-tier pricing, benefitting credit unions.
So the argument here is that the unions are acting on behalf of their own interests as credit union operators, and being disingenuous when they talk about harm to consumers. But on top of that, they’re also mistaken about their interests as credit union operators! Maybe that’s right…
Mike Konczal and Kevin Drum both examine the question of the National Education Association siding with the banks on the debit card interchange issue and find that their minds are unchanged. They both attribute the NEA’s opposition to the new regulations to the fact that there are some teacher-run credit unions whose interests may be imperiled by regulation:
So this argument should be viewed in light of the credit union argument. Firms with less than $ 10 billion in assets will not be covered by the interchange amendment, though credit unions don’t believe this will be the case in practice. Felix Salmon took a look at the arguments for credit unions last June and found them wanting, Adam Levitin did an overview of interchange and Credit Unions and the Durbin amendment in December 2010 and found that while it is complicated, competition from the market is likely to follow-through on two-tier pricing, benefitting credit unions.
So the argument here is that the unions are acting on behalf of their own interests as credit union operators, and being disingenuous when they talk about harm to consumers. But on top of that, they’re also mistaken about their interests as credit union operators! Maybe that’s right…
(Orin Kerr)
The Virginia Law Review in Brief has posted a response from Professor Paul Ohm to my recent article, Ex Ante Regulation of Computer Search and Seizure. Professor Ohm’s response — very much disagreeing with my argument — is here: Massive Hard Drives, General Warrants, and the Power of Magistrate Judges. I’m sticking to my ground for the reasons explained in the original article, but I did want to point out Ohm’s response for those interested in the subject.
On December 21 last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by chairman Julius Genachowski, voted 3–2 to impose “neutrality” regulations on the Internet. At the time, dissenting commissioner Robert McDowell noted that the day—quite literally—was the “darkest day of the year.” The regulatory winter, however, may prove to be a short one.
Not only is Internet regulation under attack in Congress and the courts, but there are signs that Genachowski may soon take a new post at the Commerce Department, leaving his signature initiative in doubt.
The latest blow to the FCC’s regulatory ambitions came Wednesday afternoon as a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee voted 15–8 to “disapprove” the FCC’s new Internet rules. Under the 1995 Congressional Review Act (CRA), such “resolutions of disapproval” provide a fast-track method for Congress to review regulations adopted by agencies and void them.
Defenders of the regulation cried foul at the use of the CRA. In particular, Representative Henry Waxman (D–CA) waxed eloquent on the flaws of the process, calling the expedited debate and bar on amendments “fundamentally unfair.” “This bill,” he declared, “is being rammed through under procedures that take away the minority’s most basic rights.” Strangely, Waxman failed to mention that he himself co-sponsored a resolution of disapproval in 2008 using the same CRA procedures in an attempt to stop the FCC from revising its media ownership rules.
Yesterday’s action was a critical step toward a vote by the full House on disapproval of the neutrality rule. Ultimately, however, the resolution process will not be sufficient to void it. Presidential approval is needed to fully enact the measure, and that is not likely to be forthcoming. But the CRA is only one among many avenues being pursued by congressional opponents, including denying funds to enforce the rule. Such steps are more likely to succeed, especially if they are attached to other legislation favored by the President. At the same time, the legality of the neutrality rule is being challenged in court, where the outlook is even bleaker for the FCC.
The difficulties the FCC faces as it tries to defend its Internet regulations are no doubt clear to Genachowski as well as to the White House. And rather than stay and fight it out, there’s talk this week that Genachowski may leave the FCC to become President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. Technically, that would be a promotion. But it would also allow Genachowski to escape the fallout from the defeat of net neutrality and allow the FCC to refocus it efforts on a new agenda—one that does not involve a federal takeover of the Internet.
Of course, it is far from certain that Genachowski will leave or that a move would signal such a change in tack by regulators. But as the days once again grow longer, so do the odds against the survival of the net neutrality rules.
On December 21 last year, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), led by chairman Julius Genachowski, voted 3–2 to impose “neutrality” regulations on the Internet. At the time, dissenting commissioner Robert McDowell noted that the day—quite literally—was the “darkest day of the year.” The regulatory winter, however, may prove to be a short one.
Not only is Internet regulation under attack in Congress and the courts, but there are signs that Genachowski may soon take a new post at the Commerce Department, leaving his signature initiative in doubt.
The latest blow to the FCC’s regulatory ambitions came Wednesday afternoon as a subcommittee of the House Commerce Committee voted 15–8 to “disapprove” the FCC’s new Internet rules. Under the 1995 Congressional Review Act (CRA), such “resolutions of disapproval” provide a fast-track method for Congress to review regulations adopted by agencies and void them.
Defenders of the regulation cried foul at the use of the CRA. In particular, Representative Henry Waxman (D–CA) waxed eloquent on the flaws of the process, calling the expedited debate and bar on amendments “fundamentally unfair.” “This bill,” he declared, “is being rammed through under procedures that take away the minority’s most basic rights.” Strangely, Waxman failed to mention that he himself co-sponsored a resolution of disapproval in 2008 using the same CRA procedures in an attempt to stop the FCC from revising its media ownership rules.
Yesterday’s action was a critical step toward a vote by the full House on disapproval of the neutrality rule. Ultimately, however, the resolution process will not be sufficient to void it. Presidential approval is needed to fully enact the measure, and that is not likely to be forthcoming. But the CRA is only one among many avenues being pursued by congressional opponents, including denying funds to enforce the rule. Such steps are more likely to succeed, especially if they are attached to other legislation favored by the President. At the same time, the legality of the neutrality rule is being challenged in court, where the outlook is even bleaker for the FCC.
The difficulties the FCC faces as it tries to defend its Internet regulations are no doubt clear to Genachowski as well as to the White House. And rather than stay and fight it out, there’s talk this week that Genachowski may leave the FCC to become President Obama’s Secretary of Commerce. Technically, that would be a promotion. But it would also allow Genachowski to escape the fallout from the defeat of net neutrality and allow the FCC to refocus it efforts on a new agenda—one that does not involve a federal takeover of the Internet.
Of course, it is far from certain that Genachowski will leave or that a move would signal such a change in tack by regulators. But as the days once again grow longer, so do the odds against the survival of the net neutrality rules.
House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN)
For-profit colleges — which, as ThinkProgress has been documenting, make the vast majority of their revenue from the federal government, pay their CEOs huge salaries, and leave their students with crippling debt and bleak job prospects — have declared a lobbying “WAR” in order to block new regulations from the Education Department and preserve their almost limitless access to federal dollars. They have hired a bipartisan phalanx of lobbyists and are astroturfing on Capitol Hill, supplying students with their industry-approved talking points.
In the last election cycle, the for-profit college industry also donated millions to congressional candidates, including $ 100,000 to House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN). Kline dutifully inserted a provision into the House Republicans’ 2011 spending bill that scuttled the Education Department’s regulations. And Tuesday night, as Higher Ed Watch reported, the industry threw Kline a personal fundraiser:
The Political Action Committee connected to the group formerly known as the Career College Association hosted a dinner reception for Rep. John Kline (R-MN) at “the refined and elegant” Capitol Hill Club, which is the premiere social club and restaurant for Republicans in the nation’s capital.
The career college group, which now known as the Association for Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), invited for-profit college officials who were in town for the organization’s “Hill Day and Policy Forum” to join in the festivities. Those who wished to attend were required to make a donation to Kline’s re-election campaign of either $ 2,500 to be considered a “sponsor” of the event, or $ 1,000 to be a “patron,” according to a copy of the invitation that Higher Ed Watch obtained.
Many for-profit schools make 90 percent of their revenue from the federal government, while posting profit margins of 30 percent. Strayer University CEO Robert Silberman was paid $ 41 million in 2009. With those sorts of numbers, giving $ 2,500 to Kline’s re-election campaign is likely a good investment. Senate Republicans have already introduced legislation similar to Kline’s, which would deny the Education Department funding to implement new regulations.
On Monday, a lobbyist for Kaplan University — which makes 91.5 percent of its revenue from the federal government — likened Democratic efforts to regulate for-profit colleges to “jihad” while speaking at a gathering of for-profit schools. “I’d guess almost everyone here agrees,” he added.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room. For more information, see our report, “For-profits, not students.”
House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN)
For-profit colleges — which, as we’ve been documenting, make the vast majority of their revenue from the federal government, pay their CEOs huge salaries, but leave their students with crippling debt and bleak job prospects — have declared a lobbying “WAR” in order to block new regulations from the Education Department and preserve their almost limitless access to federal dollars. They have hired a bipartisan phalanx of lobbyists and are astroturfing on Capitol Hill, supplying students with their industry-approved talking points.
In the last election cycle, the for-profit college industry also donated millions to congressional candidates, including $ 100,000 to House Education Committee Chairman John Kline (R-MN). Kline dutifully inserted a provision into the House Republicans’ 2011 spending bill that scuttled the Education Department’s regulations. And Tuesday night, as Higher Ed Watch reported, the industry threw Kline a personal fundraiser:
The Political Action Committee connected to the group formerly known as the Career College Association hosted a dinner reception for Rep. John Kline (R-MN) at “the refined and elegant” Capitol Hill Club, which is the premiere social club and restaurant for Republicans in the nation’s capital.
The career college group, which now known as the Association for Private Sector Colleges and Universities (APSCU), invited for-profit college officials who were in town for the organization’s “Hill Day and Policy Forum” to join in the festivities. Those who wished to attend were required to make a donation to Kline’s re-election campaign of either $ 2,500 to be considered a “sponsor” of the event, or $ 1,000 to be a “patron,” according to a copy of the invitation that Higher Ed Watch obtained.
Many for-profit schools make 90 percent of their revenue from the federal government, while posting profit margins of 30 percent. Strayer University CEO Robert Silberman was paid $ 41 million in 2009. With those sorts of numbers, giving $ 2,500 to Kline’s re-election campaign is likely a good investment. Senate Republicans have already introduced legislation similar to Kline’s, which would deny the Education Department funding to implement new regulations.
On Monday, a lobbyist for Kaplan University — which makes 91.5 percent of its revenue from the federal government — likened Democratic efforts to regulate for-profit colleges to “jihad” while speaking at a gathering of for-profit schools. “I’d guess almost everyone here agrees,” he added.
For more information, see our report, “For-profits, not students.”
By Walter Olson
In recent weeks the press has been reporting widespread alarms about shortages of many frequently used hospital drugs [L.A. Times/Chicago Tribune, Scranton Times-Tribune, KMGH (Colorado hospitals swapping drugs in short supply), The Columbian] The drugs running short include various antibiotics, anesthetics, chemotherapy drugs and others, including many generic compounds long since approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA). “The most troubling aspect is that it is critical drugs for which there are limited alternatives. Many are involved in cancer care and surgery,” one hospital pharmacist told the Chicago Tribune’s reporter.
While a variety of factors have played a role in the shortages, including lawsuits and economic retrenchment by some drugmakers, there seems to be little dispute that one major factor is the federal government’s widely publicized crackdown in recent years on pharmaceutical manufacturing and quality-control practices, which has meant that closing down a production line or halting shipments of a drug for a while is often the only way to be sure of staying in compliance with demanding new substantive benchmarks or paperwork requirements.
The lesson? To some Senators, it’s that we need to intensify regulation yet further:
The drug shortages have gained the attention of members of Congress. This month, Sens. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) and Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced legislation that would require drugmakers to give the FDA an early notification “when a factor arises that may result in a shortage,” according to a joint statement.
Which prompts Overlawyered commenter Greg S. to write:
In other words, when critical shortages of pharmaceuticals arise because of a tough new regulatory environment in Washington, the impulse of those in Congress is to address the problem by adding more regulations – i.e., by adding another bureaucratic compliance requirement. And how, exactly, will notifying the FDA help with the shortage? And what if the “factor” that’s causing the shortage is the FDA’s rules themselves – will the company find itself facing investigation and retaliation if it is perceived as blaming the FDA for the shortage?
Regulation, The FDA, And Shortages Of Hospital Drugs is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
By David Boaz
In the Richmond Times-Dispatch, Barton Hinkle notes that the Virginia General Assembly has just passed “tough new regulations on abortion clinics.” And
Suddenly, outraged liberals are sounding remarkably like libertarian advocates of laissez-faire capitalism and the industries they defend.
For instance, abortion-rights supporters already are warning that the heavy hand of government will impose requirements so absurd and so economically burdensome that they will force clinics to close their doors. “What they’ll do is put a burden of extra cost that is not backed up by sound science,” said one abortion provider who spoke on condition of . . . whoops! Actually, those were the words of Alva Carter Jr., chairman of a New Mexico dairy industry group, who was protesting new groundwater pollution regulations last April.
“The scale of the . . . current assault is unprecedented,” complained Planned Parenthood spokes — no, that was The Wall Street Journal, raging last November against the EPA. The paper said the agency “has turned a regulatory firehose on U.S. business and the power industry in particular.”
“The massive red tape . . . threatens to strangle . . . the industry,” complained — well, that was Investor’s Business Daily, writing about the Dodd-Frank financial bill last year. The paper cited a report by the American Bankers Association warning that “the coming ‘tsunami of regulations’ could wipe out hundreds of smaller banks.” Substitute “abortion clinics” for “smaller banks,” and you have the Virginia debate in a nutshell. (And yes, let’s stipulate right here that many so-called conservatives believe in limited government everywhere except the uterus.)
“They could require things that are completely unnecessary.” That actually was a quote from an abortion-rights supporter: Shelley Abrams, the director of A Capital Women’s Clinic in Richmond.
And she is entirely right. Sometimes government does require things that are not strictly necessary. And those requirements impose a heavy financial burden. This is hardly a revelation. Small-government advocates have been saying it for many years. Yelling it, actually, at the top of their lungs. To little avail.
Example: Supporters of abortion rights now worry that even existing clinics might have to obtain a Certificate of Public Need from the state. To which one might reply: Why should they be different? For years, certain voices in Virginia have been suggesting that the COPN process — essentially, a government permission slip for health-care providers — creates an unnecessary market entry barrier. They have argued that government has no business deciding whether a particular community needs a particular health-care facility.
He goes on to note that
when free-marketeers and industry groups gripe about the burden of governmental regulation, they often get truth-squadded by deeply skeptical liberals. On Monday, the AP’s “Spin Meter” gave the gimlet eye to predictions that the Obama administration’s new smog regulations could destroy more than 7 million jobs. The news service pointed out that the researcher who came up with the number was “industry-sponsored.” (Boo.) It lamented the “imprecise economic models” used. (Hiss.) And it pointed out that “those opposed to government regulations rarely mention the potential benefits to society.” Amen, brother.
Hinkle hopes that people concerned about the burden that regulation imposes on abortion clinics will eventually come to recognize that regulation also imposes costs and burdens on every other business.
Jerry Taylor and I have both noted in the past the differing media treatment of abortion and other science and health issues. Looking at two NPR stories on the same day, I praised one on the dangers of abortion pills:
It was a good example of careful, cautious reporting. But why are journalists seemingly much more cautious in reporting medical risks involving abortion than in reporting other kinds of risks? There are plenty of critics of the “junk science” involved in the Vioxx stories; why aren’t they interviewed in Vioxx stories? The numbers were small in the Vioxx study, as in the case of the abortion drugs, but that fact was dismissed in one report and emphasized in the other.
Cato’s Jerry Taylor noticed something similar in a Wall Street Journal column 11 years ago (January 3, 1995; not online). He noted that the Journal of the National Cancer Institute
caused quite a stir by publishing an epidemiological study suggesting that women who have abortions are 50% more likely to develop breast cancer than women who do not….”Not so fast,” countered epidemiologists; a 1.5 risk ratio (as epidemiologists put it) “is not strong enough to call induced abortion a risk factor for breast cancer.”
Taylor agreed that a 1.5 risk ratio is below the appropriate level of concern. But he wondered why “the same risk ratio that was so widely pooh-poohed by scientists as insignificant and inconclusive when it comes to abortion was deemed by the very same scientists an intolerable health menace when it comes to secondhand smoke. Actually, that’s not quite true. The 1.3 risk factor for a single abortion was significantly greater than the really hard to detect 1.19 risk ratio for intensive, 40-year, day-in-day-out pack-a-day exposure to secondhand smoke (as figured by the EPA).”
Pro-Choice Activists Become Skeptics of Regulation is a post from Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute Blog
