Morning Wire XX
[0] The Supreme Court has struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
[1] It's vindication.
[2] All I wanted was for people to be treated on their merits.
[3] Is this really the end of race -based college admissions?
[4] I'm Daily Wire, editor -in -chief John Vickley, with Georgia Howl.
[5] It's Friday, June 30th, and this is Morning Wire.
[6] Unprecedented high temperatures gripped the southern U .S. as smoke from Canadian wildfires engulfs northern cities.
[7] To have this so early in the season, so widespread and so prolific, is really unprecedented, is the only word I could use to describe it.
[8] When will this smoke clear and what can we expect for the summer season?
[9] And the FDA says it will not amend COVID vaccine labels to add a list of side effects following a request from a group of experts in academics.
[10] Just like when you see a TV commercial and they say side effects include nausea, vomiting fever, we felt that the COVID vaccine should also have the known side effects.
[11] Thanks for waking up with Morning Wire.
[12] Stay tuned.
[13] We have the news you need to know.
[14] This is a momentous day.
[15] Race is like the least important factor about any person's life.
[16] What matters more is your abilities, your interests, your ambitions.
[17] That's what makes America.
[18] This is more than just about Asian Americans or a few spots at Harvard.
[19] This is about treating people according to the content of their character, not the color of their skin.
[20] That was Kenny Shoe, board member of Students for Fair Admitted.
[21] the group which sued Harvard and the University of North Carolina reacting to the momentous ruling yesterday just moments after the Supreme Court struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
[22] Joining us to discuss is Heritage Senior Legal Fellow Sarah Partial Perry.
[23] Hey Sarah.
[24] So major affirmative action rulings yesterday, students for fair admissions versus Harvard College and University of North Carolina.
[25] Could you outline the arguments on both sides at these cases?
[26] Yeah.
[27] So students for fair admission is an organization that brought suit against both universities.
[28] One for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and one under Title VI at the Civil Rights Act, which guarantees for both of them a colorblindness, equal protection, promises of equality and colorblindness in both.
[29] The claims were different, but they were related.
[30] So they combined both, but they ruled separately.
[31] The decision in the Harvard case was six to two.
[32] And remember, Justice Katanji Brown Jackson had to accuse herself.
[33] She's on the board at Harvard.
[34] And the decision in the UNC case was six to three.
[35] The three liberal justices, Katanji Brown Jackson, Sotomayor, and Kagan dissented.
[36] But the conservative majority ruled as a block in both cases, ultimately deciding that, yes, indeed, this was a violation.
[37] The Supreme Court's promise of colorblindness, the promises of Brown versus Board of Education, and that the use of race consciousness admission plans had to come to an end.
[38] What were some of the points that stuck out to you that were the most significant that the majority made?
[39] Yeah, so there were a couple of points.
[40] Now, of course, the court had been asked to overrule a case called Grutter v. B. Bollinger.
[41] Grutter dates back to 2003.
[42] It was an opinion authored by Sandra Day O 'Connor, and that was a case in which the court determined that, yes, race was an acceptable criteria for admission, but only to achieve the educational diversity that might ultimately be subject to beneficial higher education policies.
[43] They saw diversity as an end in and of itself, but they were very clear that in 25 years or so, they anticipated that the use of race would come to an end.
[44] Well, students for fair admission raised the question of overturning Grutter v. Bollinger, and while the court explicitly declined to say that they were overruling it, Justice Thomas and his separate concurrence actually said, we are, for all intents and purposes, overruling it today.
[45] That's a big statement, particularly because Justice Thomas, I think, had one of the most impactful statements of the entire opinion.
[46] While he joined with the majority, his separate concurrence was beautiful in which he said he is painfully aware of the social and economic ravages of discrimination but holds out enduring hope that the country will live up to the principles so clearly enunciated in the Declaration and the Constitution.
[47] It is a brilliant refutation using race, continuing to use race, which the dissents had argued for, arguing that essentially this was remedying the past societal effects of discrimination, but as the chief wrote for the majority and stressed over and over again, there is no end in sight.
[48] The use of race has actually gotten worse and not better.
[49] So this ruling obviously has some pretty broad implications.
[50] What kind of effect do you expect this to have?
[51] Well, interestingly, they didn't eliminate the use of or consideration of race all.
[52] In fact, one of the things that they said was that universities can consider an applicant's discussion of how race affected their lives, as long as the discussion is tied to, for example, quality of character or a unique ability that that particular applicant can bring to the university, particular circumstances in their own lives.
[53] So we anticipate that students will continue to have the opportunity to weigh in about their racial experiences if relevant to their applications.
[54] And in fact, the Hervord Board has already issued its tweet saying that they will abide by the Supreme Court's opinion, but they will also encourage discussion of life experiences related to their own racial backgrounds and unique experiences.
[55] Well, another historic ruling from the conservative majority court.
[56] Sarah, thanks so much for joining us.
[57] That was Heritage Senior Legal Fellow, Sarah Partial Perry.
[58] Coming up, extreme weather conditions in the south and north.
[59] Smoke from massive wildfires in central Canada is causing record low air quality in the upper U .S. Meanwhile, an unprecedented heat wave is scorching the south.
[60] Joining us to discuss is meteorologist for the capital weather gang, Matthew Capucci.
[61] Matthew, thanks for coming on.
[62] course.
[63] So first off, tell us about these Canadian wildfires and how they're affecting air quality in the U .S. Yeah, most definitely.
[64] So one of the issues with this is that these wildfires cropped up during the end of Maine to very early June.
[65] They developed beneath a heat dome or pocket of high pressure, which brought huts sinking air to much of central Canada, which dried out the landscape.
[66] Then around June 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, we had a round of thunderstorms ignite those wildfires, and they've been burning ever since.
[67] So far, they've torched about 19 million acres.
[68] So the smoke, amounts is pouring into the sky.
[69] The issue the U .S. has been facing is that periodically, when we get north or northwesternly winds, that pulls the smoke down into the lower 48 and degrades our air quality.
[70] It's dangerous to breathe in, and a number of cities are seeing their all -time worst air qualities on record.
[71] You know, to be honest, until this past month, I didn't know in the United States, we had such thing as a code purple.
[72] And since then, I forecast several code purple days here in the nation's capital where I'm based out of, and across the entire northern U .S., folks have had several sort of run -ins with the smoke and more likely to continue throughout the entire summer, and perhaps into the fall.
[73] Now, we're also seeing extremely high temperatures here in the U .S. I don't know if that has anything to do with this heat dome.
[74] Is there any connection between the high temperatures down here and what we're seeing in Canada?
[75] There is.
[76] And part of this is due to something called blocking.
[77] Essentially, sometimes you have the atmosphere kind of act like a log jam where one weather system will get stopped and prevent the next ones from moving along and moving along and moving along.
[78] So in the eastern United States, people may be saying, well, it's been really dry, kind of cool lately.
[79] We haven't seen many thunderstorms.
[80] Over the central states, they might be saying it's been so hot, it's been so humid.
[81] It feels like we're having storms every day.
[82] Over the deep south, they've been seeing rounds of severe weather that are more typical of like late March, April into May during peak tornado season.
[83] And then the West hasn't really seen a big warm up until this week, thanks to this kind of stagnant blocked weather pattern.
[84] So in the coming days, Memphis will likely hit 100 degrees with heat indices, feels like temperatures pushing past 110.
[85] Same thing in places like New Orleans, Nashville, Tennessee, Jackson, Mississippi, even Oklahoma City and Dallas could top 100 degrees.
[86] And keep in mind, one of the bigger issues is that the overnight lows won't fall below 80 for a number of places, which compounds heat risk and is a big danger to elderly and vulnerable populations.
[87] All right.
[88] Well, Matthew, thanks so much.
[89] for coming on.
[90] My pleasure.
[91] Thanks for having me. That was Matthew Capucci, meteorologist for the Capitol Weather Gang.
[92] The FDA has rejected a request to update the COVID vaccine label to reflect the risk now known to be associated with the vaccine.
[93] Daily Wire investigative reporter Maraida Lorty is here with the details.
[94] So Marade, tell us about the FDA's decision.
[95] Hi, Georgia.
[96] The FDA rejected a request from a group of current and former FDA advisors and academics who asked the FDA to update the labels for the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to warn about serious side effects.
[97] The group made their request in January, and the FDA responded nearly three months later in April with a 33 -page response letter that denied almost every single request.
[98] What were the side effects that this group of FDA advisors were concerned about?
[99] The most high -profile example the group mentioned is myocarditis.
[100] That's a heart inflammation condition that can cause long -term damage and in some cases death.
[101] Myocarditis has been associated with the MRNA COVID vaccines, especially among young men.
[102] The group of FDA advisors and others also mentioned that heavy menstrual bleeding has been associated with the mRNA COVID vaccines.
[103] A European regulator has actually already recommended that heavy menstrual bleeding be added to the Pfizer and Moderna vaccine's product information.
[104] Other serious issues the group once added to the vaccine labels are multisystem inflammatory syndrome or MIS in children, pulmonary embolism, neuropathic and autonomic.
[105] disorders, decreased sperm concentration, and MRNA found in breast milk.
[106] A separate issue raised with the current vaccine labels is that they don't inform people that the vaccine does not prevent viral transmission, so there can be a false sense of safety.
[107] The group also requested the FDA to have the Pfizer label warn patients that the vaccine's efficacy fades after about two months.
[108] And the FDA rejected all of these suggestions.
[109] Yes, the FDA declined to update the Pfizer or Moderna labels with any of the vaccine.
[110] risk information.
[111] The one request the FDA did grant had to do with adding data from the COVID booster trials.
[112] One of the FDA advisors who petitioned the FDA to change the labels was Kim Witzack, who has been a consumer safety representative at the FDA for many years.
[113] Back in 2005, Witzek won a lawsuit against Pfizer after she lost her husband due to suicide while he was taking the antidepressant Zoloft.
[114] Since then, she has fought to make sure consumers are aware of any serious risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs.
[115] We spoke with Witsack about the FDA's reluctance to update the vaccine labels to reflect the risks.
[116] Here's what she had to say.
[117] I will never understand why the FDA hasn't been upfront and transparent with the public.
[118] Instead, they're deciding what information we need or don't need.
[119] The public deserves the good, the bad, and ugly in real time.
[120] Informed consent is not possible when we don't have all the information to make an informed decision.
[121] We also spoke to Johns Hopkins Dr. Marty McCarrie, who was on the committee that petitioned the FDA to include those risks.
[122] According to Dr. McCarrie, the FDA did not respond directly to concerns about risks like myocarditis, but they did put out a statement regarding pregnancy.
[123] Here's what he had to say.
[124] The FDA got back to our petition and basically said that the petition, quote unquote, fails to explain how including the fact that no results have been reported in referring to the vaccine and pregnancy trial, that that would actually contribute to the same.
[125] safe and effective use of the vaccine.
[126] In other words, pregnant women don't need to know anything that there's no good formal randomized trial data in pregnancy.
[127] Just get the vaccine.
[128] There's never been a randomized control trial of the COVID vaccine and pregnant women.
[129] They were excluded from the primary COVID vaccine trials.
[130] So we basically said this is a bit of an unknown and pregnant women should know.
[131] And they basically said, no, they don't need to know.
[132] As of now, the CDC is recommending everyone age six and up get the vaccine and people over 65 get a booster.
[133] Notably, they are no longer recommending the monovalent vaccine, which was the first -generation COVID vaccine, and instead are recommending the bivalent version, which was released last September.
[134] Well, it'll be interesting to see what percent of Americans are following these recommendations now.
[135] There's been a real loss of trust.
[136] Marade, thanks for reporting.
[137] Thanks, Georgia.
[138] That's all the time we've got this morning.
[139] Thanks for waking up with us.
[140] We'll be back this afternoon with more of the news you need to know.