Iowa Passes Right to Try Act to Reject Some FDA Restrictions on Terminal Patients

DES MOINES, Iowa (April 18, 2017) – Yesterday, the Iowa Senate gave final approval to a bill that would set the foundation to nullify in practice some Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules that deny access to experimental treatments by terminally ill patients.

The Senate Commerce Committee introduced Senate Bill 404 (SF404) on March 1. The legislation would enable terminally ill patients to access medications and treatments not yet given final approval for use by the FDA.

The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act prohibits general access to experimental drugs. However, under the expanded access provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. 360bbb, patients with serious or immediately life-threatening diseases may access experimental drugs after receiving express FDA approval.

SF404 creates a process to bypass the FDA expanded access program and would allow patients to obtain experimental drugs from manufacturers without first obtaining FDA approval. This procedure directly conflicts with the federal expanded access program and sets the stage to nullify it in practice.

On April 10, the House passed SF404 by a 96-0 vote. It previously passed the Senate 49-0. The House version included an amendment stipulating the bill does not authorize assisted suicide. The Senate concurred with the House amendment yesterday 49-0. The bill now heads to Gov. Terry Branstad’s desk for his consideration.

The proposed law provides legal protection for health care providers, with a prohibition against revoking a license or issuing sanctions based on recommendation or issuance of investigational treatments. SF404 provides similar protections for the manufacturers of investigation drugs and treatments.

The legislation would completely bar the state from interfering with such experimental treatments.

An official, employee, or agent of this state shall not block or attempt to block an eligible patient’s access to an investigational drug, biological product, or device. Counseling, advice, or a recommendation consistent with medical standards of care from a licensed physician is not a violation of this section.

Currently, 33 states have Right to Try laws on the books. Although these laws only address one small aspect of FDA regulation, they provide a clear model that demonstrates how to nullify federal statutes that violate the Constitution. The strategy narrows the influence of nullification to limited aspects of the law itself, which has proven to be very effective.

“Americans shouldn’t have to ask the government for permission to try to save their own lives,” said Darcy Olsen, president of the Goldwater Institute. “They should be able to work with their doctors directly to decide what potentially life-saving treatments they are willing to try. This is exactly what Right To Try does.”

The Right to Try Act is a no-brainer. When someone is on their deathbed, the fact that FDA regulations would let them die rather than try, has got to be one of the most inhumane policies of the federal government. Every state should take action to nullify the FDA like this.

WHAT’S NEXT

Gov. Branstad will have 3 days (except Sunday) from the transmittal date to sign or veto SF404. If he takes no action, the bill will become law without his signature. If you live in Iowa, contact the governor and urge him to sign SF404. You can find contact information HERE.

Arizona House Passes Bill to Prohibit Warrantless Stingray Spying

...from Tenth Amendment Center 
PHOENIX, Ariz. (April 18, 2017) – Yesterday, the Arizona House overwhelmingly passed a bill that would ban the use of “stingrays” to track the location of phones and sweep up electronic communications without a warrant in most situations. The proposed law would not only protect privacy in Arizona, but would also hinder one aspect of the federal surveillance state.
Sen. Bob Worsley (R-Mesa) introduced Senate bill 1342 (SB1342) back in January. The legislation would help block the use of cell site simulators, known as “stingrays.” These devices essentially spoof cell phone towers, tricking any device within range into connecting to the stingray instead of the tower, allowing law enforcement to sweep up communications content, as well as locate and track the person in possession of a specific phone or other electronic device.
SB1342 would require police to get a search warrant based on probable cause before deploying a stingray to locate or track an electronic device. It would also require law enforcement agencies to obtain a warrant under existing wiretapping statutes before using a stingray to intercept, obtain or access the content of any stored oral, wire or electronic communication.
The House passed an amended version of SB1342 by a 57-1 vote. The amendment decreases the time between the issuance of a warrant and notification of the target from 120 to 90 days. The Senate initially passed the legislation 30-0 in February. The bill will now go back to the Senate for concurrence with the amendment.
IMPACT ON FEDERAL SURVEILLANCE PROGRAMS
The federal government funds the vast majority of state and local stingray programs, attaching one important condition. The feds require agencies acquiring the technology to sign non-disclosure agreements. This throws a giant shroud over the program, even preventing judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys from getting information about the use of stingrays in court. The feds actually instruct prosecutors to withdraw evidence if judges or legislators press for information. As the Baltimore Sun reported in April 2015, a Baltimore detective refused to answer questions on the stand during a trial, citing a federal non-disclosure agreement.
Defense attorney Joshua Insley asked Cabreja about the agreement.
“Does this document instruct you to withhold evidence from the state’s attorney and Circuit Court, even upon court order to produce?” he asked.
“Yes,” Cabreja said.
As privacysos.org put it, “The FBI would rather police officers and prosecutors let ‘criminals’ go than face a possible scenario where a defendant brings a Fourth Amendment challenge to warrantless stingray spying.”
The feds sell the technology in the name of “anti-terrorism” efforts. With non-disclosure agreements in place, most police departments refuse to release any information on the use of stingrays. But information obtained from the Tacoma Police Department revealed that it uses the technology primarily for routine criminal investigations.
Some privacy advocates argue that stingray use can never happen within the parameters of the Fourth Amendment because the technology necessarily connects to every electronic device within range, not just the one held by the target. And the information collected by these devices undoubtedly ends up in federal data bases.
The feds can share and tap into vast amounts of information gathered at the state and local level through a system known as the “information sharing environment” or ISE. In other words, stingrays create the potential for the federal government to track the movement of millions of Americans with no warrant, no probable cause, and without the people even knowing it.
According to its website, the ISE “provides analysts, operators, and investigators with information needed to enhance national security. These analysts, operators, and investigators…have mission needs to collaborate and share information with each other and with private sector partners and our foreign allies.” In other words, ISE serves as a conduit for the sharing of information gathered without a warrant.
The federal government encourages and funds stingrays at the state and local level across the U.S., thereby undoubtedly gaining access to a massive data pool on Americans without having to expend the resources to collect the information itself. By placing restrictions on stingray use, state and local governments limit the data available that the feds can access.
In a nutshell, without state and local cooperation, the feds have a much more difficult time gathering information. Passage of SB1342 would represent a major blow to the surveillance state and a win for privacy.
WHAT’S NEXT
The bill is now back in the Senate for consideration of the House amendment.  Should they approve, it will go to Gov. Ducey’s desk for a signature.

Mike Maharrey
April 18, 2017 at 04:12PM


from Tenth Amendment Remembered

America’s Continued Posturing for War through NATO

...from Tenth Amendment Center http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
On March 28, 2017, the United States Senate voted to give the president the power to bring Montenegro into the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). The process reveals the extent to which Congress has abandoned its war power authority to the executive branch.
NATO is an international, intergovernmental military alliance created in 1949 to protect Europe against the United Soviet Socialist Republic (USSR). NATO has continued to expand despite the dissolution of the Soviet Union on December 25, 1991.
I do not believe that there was ever a need for NATO. Scholarship has concluded that the “missile gap” didn’t really exist. It was also necessary for the Russians to constantly stamp out political and military rebellions in their sphere of influence. How much of a threat to the West could the Soviets have been if they couldn’t control their own puppet regimes? In other words, the threat from the Evil Empire was exaggerated. Yet, let us all assume for the moment, that NATO was necessary and did serve to protect the West from Communists.
What possible benefit could enlargement serve American interests now? How is the American union served by creating a supranational political and military organization?  Moreover, what safety does Montenegro offer the United States?
James Madison wrote, “No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” But by enlarging NATO we are in a simmering state of continual warfare.
Instead of shuttering the doors of the NATO headquarters in Belgium, the powers that-be want to find a new mission for the alliance. First, they toyed with the idea of using it as Europe’s standing army. Then they floated the idea of using it for humanitarian missions. Now they say NATO is more important than ever in order to protect the West against Russia.
But the problem of creating a military as large and advanced as NATO is that politicians find themselves asking the same question that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright asked:  “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?”
The desire on the part of the political class to use these tools of war ensures a constant state of military tension. This can only lead to a real war. When a country maintains a continuous war-posture the political, military, and economic power flow toward the central government. The cause of protecting the nation supersedes any concerns of the states or individuals. This process almost ensures that the political lines between the union of states will blur. Political events in far away countries have a direct impact on our lives in the small corners of America.
Back to Madison for a moment:

“The constitution expressly and exclusively vests in the legislature the power of declaring a state of war… The separation of the power of declaring war, from that of conducting it, is wisely contrived…”

It is the Congress, not the executive, which must determine America’s foreign policy. For example, Article II, Section II of the Constitution states that the president has the power to make treaties, provided he has received the advice and consent of the Senate. A treaty obligation such as Montenegro’s accession into NATO is effectively an agreement to come to the military defense of that country if it is attacked.
However, the members of the Senate originally did not want to even debate admitting Montenegro into the alliance or if it’s membership would enhance American security. They initially wanted to let the resolution of accession pass through a process that does not require any debate or even an affirmative vote.
Only two Senators objected to this procedure. This forced a Roll Call vote. The resolution passed 97-2. Montenegro will now be a Member of NATO.
When Congress refuses to take its responsibility to limit U.S. involvement in foreign wars seriously, what can be done?
We should start thinking along the same lines of the Tenth Amendment Center’s Defend the Guard legislation. States can and should withhold members of their national guard if they have orders to go to countries or war zones that have not been appropriately debated and voted on in the Congress.

P.A. Deacon
April 18, 2017 at 03:47PM


from Tenth Amendment Remembered

Big Wins for the Nullification Movement!

...from Tenth Amendment Center http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
Today is the 89th day that the GOP has failed to repeal Obamacare. Some states are taking steps to expand freedom instead of waiting on the feds to do it. In this episode of Tenther Tuesday, Michael Boldin and Mike Maharrey talk about these bills to support health freedom, along with legislation relating to gun rights, industrial hemp, the FDA, and asset forfeiture.
WATCH IT
SHOW LINKS
JOIN TAC, Support the Constitution and liberty: http://ift.tt/1GcUs6Z
Arizona Asset Forfeiture
Could Montana become a firearms sanctuary state?
Montana ALPR
West Virginia ending state-run Obamacare exchange
West Virginia Hemp
Arkansas Direct Primary Care
Indiana Direct Primary Care
Colorado Direct Primary Care
Maryland Right to Try
Rhode Island Right to Try
Alaska Right to Try


Mike Maharrey
April 18, 2017 at 03:21PM


from Tenth Amendment Remembered

Colorado Bill Would Close Federal Asset Forfeiture Loophole in Most Situations

...from Tenth Amendment Center http://ift.tt/eA8V8J
DENVER Colo. (April 18, 2017) – A bill introduced in the Colorado House would take big steps towards closing a federal loophole that allows state and local police to circumvent more stringent state asset forfeiture laws by passing cases off to the feds.
A bipartisan coalition of two representatives and two senators introduced House Bill 1313 (HB1313) on April 3.
The legislation primarily creates an extensive reporting system related to asset forfeiture that law enforcement agencies would have to follow. But important provisions in the bill would prohibit Colorado law enforcement agencies from transferring seized property to a federal agency unless it has a net value of more than $50,000. It would also prohibit state and local police from accepting payment or distribution from a federal agency of all, or part of, any forfeiture proceeds resulting from the adoption, a joint task force, or other multijurisdictional collaboration, unless the aggregate net equity value of the property and currency seized in the case is in excess of $50,000, the case is commenced by the federal government, and it relates to a filed criminal case.
In most situations, passage of HB1313 would slam closed a loophole that allows state and local police to get around more strict state asset forfeiture laws.
Last month, a similar Senate bill sponsored by the same coalition failed to move out of the Senate Committee on Judiciary by a vote of 2-3. The vote was along party lines, with two Democrats in favor and three Republicans opposing. With the setback in the Senate, the same coalition tweaked the language and reintroduced the legislation in the House.
While Colorado asset forfeiture laws don’t provide the level of protection they should, they are stricter than federal law. The Institute of Justice gives Colorado forfeiture laws a C. They do include a high bar to forfeit property, but they do not require a criminal conviction. They also provide relatively robust protections for innocent third-party property owners, and law enforcement can only keep up to 50 percent of proceeds.
With these relatively stringent policies in place, police have an incentive to pass cases to the feds in order to circumvent them. Unsurprisingly, the state ranks 15th in the country in the amount of federal asset forfeiture money it brings in.
The situation in California was similar until recently. The state has some of the strongest state-level restrictions on civil asset forfeiture in the country, but law enforcement would often bypass the state restrictions by partnering with a federal asset forfeiture program known as “equitable sharing.” Under these arrangements, state officials would simply hand over forfeiture prosecutions to the federal government and then receive up to 80 percent of the proceeds—even when state law banned or limited the practice.
According to a report by the Institute for Justice, Policing for Profit, California ranked dead last of all states in the country between 2000 and 2013 as the worst offender. In other words, California law enforcement was passing off a lot of cases to the feds and collecting the loot. During the 2016 legislative session, the state closed the loophole.
Passage of HB1313 would close the federal loophole in most situations and significantly increase protections for Colorado property owners.
As the Tenth Amendment Center previously reported the federal government inserted itself into the asset forfeiture debate in California. The feds clearly want the policy to continue.
Why?
We can only guess. But perhaps the feds recognize paying state and local police agencies directly in cash for handling their enforcement would reveal their weakness. After all, the federal government would find it nearly impossible to prosecute its unconstitutional “War on Drugs” without state and local assistance. Asset forfeiture “equitable sharing” provides a pipeline the feds use to incentivize state and local police to serve as de facto arms of the federal government by funneling billions of dollars into their budgets.
WHAT’S NEXT
HB1313 has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee where it must pass by a majority vote before moving forward in the legislative process. It is scheduled for a committee hearing on April 20, at 1:30 p.m. in room 0112.

Mike Maharrey
April 18, 2017 at 09:52AM


from Tenth Amendment Remembered

Reread, Not Rewritten

  My good friend, Senator Nathan Dahm, posted this video about the constitution.

His central thesis in government service is that the document needs to be reread.

'Left vs Right' ? Or Is It 'Tyranny vs Freedom'?

This little meme is floating around social networks. It leads to a whole host of discussions for any liberty-loving citizen of our republic.