<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>ADF Alliance Alert &#187; ZZ: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.alliancealert.org/tag/zz-bruesewitz-v-wyeth/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.alliancealert.org</link>
	<description>news from the frontlines of the culture war</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 May 2012 23:12:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Explanation of arguments heard by the Justices last Tuesday in vaccination case</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/22/explanation-of-arguments-heard-by-the-justices-last-tuesday-in-vaccination-case/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/22/explanation-of-arguments-heard-by-the-justices-last-tuesday-in-vaccination-case/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:30:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Sanctity of Life]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Vaccinations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=77909</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Lisa McElroy <a href="http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/10/octobers-arguments-in-plain-english/">writing at SCOTUSblog</a>: "Let’s start with <em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth</em>, a case about whether vaccine manufacturers can be held liable for design defects in their vaccines.  In 1986, Congress passed the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA), providing that vaccine manufacturers cannot be sued for injuries from vaccines if the injuries resulted from side effects that were 'unavoidable' . . . The petitioners in this case are the parents of Hannah Bruesewitz, who when she was six months old suffered severe seizures after receiving one of her childhood vaccines . . . This case is a great example of one major class of Supreme Court cases – cases involving statutory interpretation.  Here, the parties disagree about what the statutory language of the Act means." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/22/explanation-of-arguments-heard-by-the-justices-last-tuesday-in-vaccination-case/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/22/explanation-of-arguments-heard-by-the-justices-last-tuesday-in-vaccination-case/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>NYT: The Court&#8217;s pre-emption test at issue in vaccination case</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/19/nyt-the-courts-pre-emption-test/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/19/nyt-the-courts-pre-emption-test/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 19 Oct 2010 17:42:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Court: U.S. Supreme]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Vaccinations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=77172</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/19/opinion/19tue1.html">New York Times Editorial</a>: "[Bruesewitz v. Wyeth] is about whether the family of a girl, who they said was badly injured by a vaccine, can sue the manufacturer in a state court. Or are they barred by a 24-year-old federal law that blocks this sort of lawsuit if 'the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable?' That prohibition is called pre-emption, a hot issue in constitutional law because it is at the heart of the balance of power between states and the federal government — the meaning of federalism." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/19/nyt-the-courts-pre-emption-test/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/10/19/nyt-the-courts-pre-emption-test/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>More on the Starr-Chemerinsky pre-emption brief in vaccinations litigation</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/23/more-on-the-starr-chemerinsky-pre-emption-brief-in-vaccinations-litigation/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/23/more-on-the-starr-chemerinsky-pre-emption-brief-in-vaccinations-litigation/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 16:59:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Admin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Bench & Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Bench and Bar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Vaccinations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/?p=73411</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleSCI.jsp?id=1202472346396&#038;slreturn=1&#038;hbxlogin=1">Law.com</a>: "A brief filed in a major upcoming pre-emption case makes a single point about the meaning of federalism and how Congress must speak clearly if it seeks to pre-empt states from an area of regulation . . . Kenneth Starr and Erwin Chemerinsky . . . joined together for the amicus filing in <em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth</em>, which asks whether federal vaccine law pre-empts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers in state courts . . . Their brief argues that the robust role for states under the concept of federalism requires Congress to give evidence of a 'clear and manifest pre-emptive purpose' when it seeks to take over a field of regulation from states." <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/23/more-on-the-starr-chemerinsky-pre-emption-brief-in-vaccinations-litigation/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/09/23/more-on-the-starr-chemerinsky-pre-emption-brief-in-vaccinations-litigation/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Supreme Court May Hold Key for Vaccine Foes</title>
		<link>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/supreme-court-may-hold-key-for-vaccine-foes/</link>
		<comments>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/supreme-court-may-hold-key-for-vaccine-foes/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 05 Apr 2010 15:22:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>ADF Alliance Alert</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Marriage & Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Marriage and Family]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Category: Religious Freedom]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Parental Rights]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Topic: Vaccinations]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ZZ: Bruesewitz v. Wyeth]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.alliancealert.org/wordpress/2010/04/05/supreme-court-may-hold-key-for-vaccine-foes/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Tony Mauro writes at <a href="http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202447491929&#038;Supreme_Court_May_Hold_Key_for_Vaccine_Foes">National Law Journal (Law.com)</a>: "In spite of recent courtroom losses, parents who blame their children's autism at least in part on childhood vaccines say their legal battle is far from over . . . the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear next fall the case of <a href="http://otd.oyez.org/cases/2009/bruesewitz-v-wyeth" target="new"><em>Bruesewitz v. Wyeth</em></a>, a non-autism case that asks the justices to decide whether the federal vaccine law pre-empts state law tort claims of vaccine design defects . . . " <a href="http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/supreme-court-may-hold-key-for-vaccine-foes/"> <span class="meta-nav"></span></a>]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://www.alliancealert.org/2010/04/05/supreme-court-may-hold-key-for-vaccine-foes/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

