Outside the Beltway

“Supreme Court Building” by MrTinMD is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Misleading Headlines of the Day

A non-ruling by the Supreme Court is being touted as something else.

James Joyner
31

Comments

A weird trend across the major news outlets:

  • WaPo, “Supreme Court upholds broad access to key abortion pill mifepristone“
  • NYT, “Supreme Court Maintains Broad Access to Abortion Pill“
  • AP, “Unanimous Supreme Court preserves access to widely used abortion medication“
  • Reuters, “US Supreme Court preserves access to abortion pill mifepristone“
  • CNN, “Supreme Court maintains access to abortion pill in unanimous decision“
  • CBS News, “Supreme Court refuses to roll back access to abortion pill mifepristone“
  • Fortune, “The Supreme Court upholds access to mifepristone in a unanimous decision on abortion“
  • Daily Beast, “Even Brett Kavanaugh Tears Anti-Abortion Lawsuit Apart“

Headline-only readers—which is to say, most readers—will come away with the impression that the Supreme Court ruled on the merits that there is a right to access this abortifacient. But they did no such thing. They simply ruled that the group of doctors who brought the suit lacked standing to do so.

A handful of major outlets did better:

  • WSJ, “Supreme Court Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge, Preserving Wide Access to Drug“
  • BBC, “Supreme Court rejects challenge to abortion drug mifepristone“
  • NBC News, “Supreme Court rejects bid to restrict access to abortion pill“

Even here, though, readers will likely come away with the impression that there was a ruling on the merits. Something like “Supreme Court Declines to Rule in Abortion Drug Mifepristone Case” would better serve the readers.

Categories

, ,

Tags

,

31 responses to “Misleading Headlines of the Day”

  1. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    In gambling circles this would be called “no action.”

    That is, the result of the bet cannot be determined, because the event being bet on did not take place.

    1
  2. OzarkHillbilly Avatar
    OzarkHillbilly

    They ruled that doctors who are personally against but aren’t forced to engage in birth control or abortions have no standing to sue. So, yeah, the SC ruled in favor of BC and abortion.

    Right? Right? Clear as mud! s//

    Nuance is for pointy headed intellectuals and facts are the last refuge of snowflakes, James

    6
  3. Kurtz Avatar
    Kurtz

    I have an idea where much of commentariat here would go to answer the following question, but I am mostly interested in what James and the other front pagers think.

    Why do you think all these outlets chose inaccurate headlines? Also, James did you happen to see how any right-leaning outlets can cast the headline, if they covered it?

    3
  4. James Joyner Avatar
    James Joyner

    @Kurtz: Good question on the Why. It beats me.

    As to the right-leaning sites, Fox was dead on: “Supreme Court rules in abortion medication case, finds group lacked standing to challenge FDA approval.”

    Breitbart ran an AFP report under the headline “Supreme Court Rejects Bid to Restrict Abortion Pill” and then their own report under the bizarre headline “SCOTUS Dismisses Abortion Pill Mandate Case, Upholds Religious Liberty.”

    An OAN had the bland headline “Supreme Court Rejects Challenge To Abortion Pill Mifepristone.”

    On balance, they did better than the mainline press.

    2
  5. just nutha Avatar
    just nutha

    @James Joyner: That’s because they don’t have to show their audience that the Supremes aren’t a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Kochtopus. Their audience hopes the Supremes are.

    2
  6. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @Kurtz: I think that the main problem is that the headline writers are trying to grab attention, not be as accurate as possible. Also, I don’t think that on any given topic, they themselves may not fully understand what they are summarizing.

    Also, speaking as someone who has written thousands of headlines for blog posts over the last 21+ years, it is easy to miss the mark innocently either because of sloppiness or just making a genuine mistake (and that is writing headlines for my own stuff!).

    5
  7. JKB Avatar
    JKB

    While the spawning issue was relaxation of requirements for the abortion pill availability, the decision is more one of simply that just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you can sue to control the regulatory agency. Although, such suits have worked when used to control decisions by the EPA, but in those cases the bureaucrats are in agreement and just use the courts to make their regulations hard to change.

    One presumes that the lawsuit never got to a point of developing testimony on whether the loosing of restrictions were medically risky.

    By throwing out the case on such grounds, the court avoided reaching a decision on the legal merits of whether the FDA acted lawfully in lifting various restrictions, including one making the drug obtainable via mail, meaning the same issues could yet return to the court in another case.

    Another regulatory decision left in place means women can still obtain the pill within 10 weeks of gestation instead of seven.

    Likewise a decision to allow health care providers other than physicians to dispense the pill will remain in effect.

    Someone really should look at why this loosening could happen and why it isn’t being applied to other drugs to help reduce medical care costs. After all, the FDA went all out on restrictions on hydroxychloroquine even with its decades long, global record of safety

  8. Kurtz Avatar
    Kurtz

    @just nutha:

    Eh, I mean, it should be clear to everyone here that I am sympathetic to those sorts of arguments–the corrosive effect of money on public trusts such as government and journalism. With respect to journalism, the effect of private equity is particularly alarming to me.

    But I think one must be careful to draw a straight, bold line to assign motive like that, especially if one is looking at headlines or framing of specific stories.

    Also, I should point out that the headlines from the right-leaning outlets could have been much worse. “SCOTUS Leaves Child Murder Pill on the Market” while certainly more loaded and manipulative, yet would be inaccurate in the exact way the other headlines are.

    ETA: Note that Fox’s headline was the most accurate of those listed.

    2
  9. Charley in Cleveland Avatar
    Charley in Cleveland

    If nothing else the ruling was a welcome reiteration of the “standing” doctrine – a reminder that professional whiners and social engineers shouldn’t be able to file a lawsuit to change something they don’t like simply because they don’t like it.

    1
  10. Kurtz Avatar
    Kurtz

    @Steven L. Taylor: @James Joyner:

    James, thanks. And yes that Breitbart one is bizarre.

    Steven, I think innocent mistake/lack of understanding are probably pretty common.

    But in this particular case, it’s unclear to me how a headline that accurately reflects the decision is any less attention-grabbing than what was written.

    1
  11. Joe Avatar
    Joe

    @Kurtz:

    but I am mostly interested in what James and the other front pagers think.

    Hmphh! [Sniff]

    1
  12. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    @JKB:

    Someone really should look at why this loosening could happen and why it isn’t being applied to other drugs to help reduce medical care costs.

    This is a prime example of the “because I don’t know about something, it can’t be happening.”

    Off-labeling, using drugs to treat conditions they were not approved for, is a longstanding and common practice in medicine. And, yes, in some cases it does lead to reduced medical care costs (especially when studies find new uses for existing generics). It’s also a lifesaver for people coping with conditions that don’t attract many drug makers.

    The practice is so common, the FDA has an informational page about it:
    https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label

    After all, the FDA went all out on restrictions on hydroxychloroquine even with its decades long, global record of safety

    LOL. The FDA didn’t place any “restrictions” on hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. They did go on an aggressive PR campaign highlighting that neither drug was approved to treat C-19.

    In the case of HQC they did rescind an emergency authorization of it’s use for treating C-19. However, that in no way prevented off-label use:

    Doctors can continue to legally prescribe the drugs off-label, as they can with any drug that’s approved for other conditions. The FDA’s emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine was narrow in scope, applying only to hospitalized Covid-19 patients and only to drugs donated to the Strategic National Stockpile.

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/15/politics/fda-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus/index.html

    As I am sure Steve can dive into with a higher degree of detail, there are no studies that demonstrate that either drug has a significant impact on C-19.

    8
  13. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    @Steven L. Taylor:

    Also, I don’t think that on any given topic, they themselves may not fully understand what they are summarizing.

    And in many cases, they may have not read past the first paragraph of an article–if they even read the article at all in any serious way.

    2
  14. Steven L. Taylor Avatar
    Steven L. Taylor

    @Matt Bernius: Yup!

    1
  15. Kurtz Avatar
    Kurtz

    @Joe:

    Haha! I figured “Kochtopus” would surface quickly. I was correct.

    No disrespectful dismissal intended! I just have a decent grasp of what the folks around here think a lot of the time.

    Look at it this way, it’s not like I was looking for Paul L.’s opinion.

  16. gVOR10 Avatar
    gVOR10

    From what I read, headline writers are judged on clicks, not clarity or completeness. Most of the headlines should have added, “For Now”.

    First, the standing issue here was blatant, the Supremes would have drawn near universal scorn had they accepted it. Second, the conservative justices have a habit of instructing the conservative legal entrepreneurs on how to fix their cases before trying again. Third, I see commentary the conservatives want to juice up standing to exclude, say, environmental groups. Misleading to headline this story as good news.

    2
  17. just nutha Avatar
    just nutha

    @Kurtz: Actually, I chose Kochtopus specifically to dog whistle to this specific audience. I was going to go with “oligarchs” originally. Additionally, I’ll note that I don’t see the treatment as conspiratorial; it’s more a yearning to keep believing that society will return to “normal” some day. It won’t. It’s broken.

    ETA: Good to see my rhetorical strategy worked. 😉

    1
  18. Jen Avatar
    Jen

    @JKB:

    Someone really should look at why this loosening could happen and why it isn’t being applied to other drugs to help reduce medical care costs.

    As Matt notes, this is a long-standing practice. Decades ago, before Imitrex was available, I was prescribed birth control pills as a way of decreasing the severity of my migraines. It worked amazingly well, and I was only taken off BC years later when I was started on Imitrex.

    This is just one of many, many examples where the hormone moderating effects of birth control is an effective (and cheap!) course of medical treatment, and one of the reasons I find it bat-guano-crazy that dipshit employers like Hobby Lobby are permitted to get in the middle of determining what medications their health insurance covers.

    5
  19. MarkedMan Avatar
    MarkedMan

    From a Medical Device (and Pharma) perspective, it is often of marginal benefit to add another indication to an existing device or drug. It’s expensive to do the studies and get approval. So there are many things that are released for a single indication but are prescribed for any number of things. One iron rule, though, the manufacturer can never promote or even discuss off label usage.

  20. Matt Bernius Avatar
    Matt Bernius

    @MarkedMan:

    It’s expensive to do the studies and get approval. […] One iron rule, though, the manufacturer can never promote or even discuss off label usage.

    So correct.

    Funny story related to the cost of approval: I believe it’s the case that while Viagra did have a just noticible difference on congestive heart failure (I might have the disease wrong), the “side effects” were so pronounced they switched the approval process to ED so they could target an unmet market.

    1
  21. Kathy Avatar
    Kathy

    @Matt Bernius:

    I think it was developed for hypertension.

    This makes sense, as the E in ED involves blood flow to the appendage.

    2
  22. al Ameda Avatar
    al Ameda

    @James Joyner:

    As to the right-leaning sites, Fox was dead on: “Supreme Court rules in abortion medication case, finds group lacked standing to challenge FDA approval.”

    A few things:
    (1) I believe that conservative justices of The Court took a look out there and decided they’d taken enough hits since Dobbs, and
    (2) The ‘Standing’ issue gave them an easy out, and yet quite obviously left the door wide open for various challenges that will surely be forthcoming.
    (3) They want a better case from which they can proceed to severely limit the use of medicated abortion. They can do this by doing as they did with Dobbs – send it back to the states.

    Aside: I wonder if The Court will ever take up a case that proposes to limit or deny men access to Viagra.?

    3
  23. Jen Avatar
    Jen

    It’s worth considering the fact that mifepristone is used to treat other diseases and I believe it was first a treatment for ulcers with a known side effect of causing miscarriages. It’s also used to manage spontaneous miscarriage.

    While I agree that using the standing issue was an easy way out for SCOTUS, micromanaging specific medications, for either their prescribed use or for known side effects, is not going to go over well with the pharmaceutical lobby.

    1
  24. James Joyner Avatar
    James Joyner

    @al Ameda:

    They want a better case from which they can proceed to severely limit the use of medicated abortion.

    Honestly, I think the bigger agenda is ruling that the Administrative State as we know it is unconstitutional. I think that’s 1) probably right and yet 2) has to be allowed to continue because no modern state can be run in the way the Framers envisioned in 1787.

    4
  25. Stormy Dragon Avatar
    Stormy Dragon

    @Matt Bernius:

    One off label use that’s particularly close to my heart is that pretty much all the prescription medicines used for HRT are off label, which sometimes leads to transphobes trying to misrepresent treatments that have been in use for 70 years as “experimental”

    It also means that we’re now a full two generations behind Europe on anti-androgen drugs because politics prevents the approval of newer options…

    3
  26. Kurtz Avatar
    Kurtz

    @just nutha:

    LOL. Honestly, broken implies it functioned well at some point. I’m not sure it has. Better than it does now, sure.

    But a beautifully crafted lamp without a single blemish has no bearing on the wattage of the bulb.

    1
  27. Just nutha ignint cracker Avatar
    Just nutha ignint cracker

    @Kurtz: Everything is relative, and a lot depends on who you were (racially, culturally, economically, the list goes on), but if you prefer “more broken,” “brokener,” or some variation of “irreparably dysfunctional” better, I think you’re splitting hairs but won’t argue with you.

    And, of course, part of the newer “broken-ness” comes from the problem of some people in some places actually having better lives than they might have had in the past and the upset from that reality. The irreparability is the long-term problem. We have dramatically different philosophies of life and moral systems trying to occupy the same space. It won’t work (and we can’t relegate the groups we don’t approve of to reservations like we did the last time).

    1
  28. DrDaveT Avatar
    DrDaveT

    @James Joyner:

    Honestly, I think the bigger agenda is ruling that the Administrative State as we know it is unconstitutional. I think that’s 1) probably right and yet 2) has to be allowed to continue because no modern state can be run in the way the Framers envisioned in 1787.

    Have you ever been involved in drafting regulations in response to new legislation? I have. It’s a nightmare, mostly because Congress has the collective IQ of asparagus. The laws they draft are ambiguous, self-contradictory, in conflict with existing law that they fail to repeal, aspirational, etc. etc. etc. No law could ever be actually enforced if the Executive Branch did not write detailed regulations explaining exactly what the new law means in practice, how it will be interpreted, and the procedures that will be used to do that.

    If Congress disagrees with the regulatory interpretation, they always have the option of writing new clarifying legislation. Somehow, they can’t seem to get that right either…

    5
  29. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    @James Joyner:

    Honestly, I think the bigger agenda is ruling that the Administrative State as we know it is unconstitutional. I think that’s 1) probably right and yet 2) has to be allowed to continue because no modern state can be run in the way the Framers envisioned in 1787.

    I think that’s directionally correct, but oversimplified into a binary.

    Dysfunction and polarization in Congress has resulted in the Executive branch increasingly using the administrative state as a substitute/workaround to achieve policy goals. In essence, it’s becoming (or has become) as shadow legislature which makes changes based on political calculations and achieving political ends rather than mere administrative implementation.

    As DrDaveT notes, a second aspect of this problem is poorly written laws. And he’s right that Congress could pass clarifying legislation, but that brings us back to the Congressional dysfunction problem. If Congress wasn’t so dysfunctional, the Executive Branch wouldn’t be making all these power grabs in the first place and clarifying legislation would rarely be needed.

    With Congress largely absent, and both parties loving to increase Executive authority (as long as its for their own goals) that leaves the courts to adjudicate and limit authoritarian power grabs by the Executive via EO and the shadow legislature.

  30. James Joyner Avatar
    James Joyner

    @DrDaveT: I think Andy gets it exactly right. I would prefer a system where Congress was more effective at legislating and gave regulatory agencies clearer left and right lateral limits within which to craft guidelines. Absent the former, though, it would be madness to declare that agencies can’t issue regulations because it amounts to legislating.

  31. Andy Avatar
    Andy

    @James Joyner:

    Absent the former, though, it would be madness to declare that agencies can’t issue regulations because it amounts to legislating.

    Agree, but I think the authority of the Executive branch to regulate needs a limiting principle to keep its role limited to regulations and not shadow legislation. The recent case on Trump ordering the ATF to reverse its decades-old interpretation of bump stocks to avoid Congressional Republicans from having to make a difficult/unpopular vote is one very obvious and egregious example. Redefining criminal law should be the purview of Congress, not federal agencies.

    1

Latest Posts