Monday, November 25, 1996
Prop. 209 court case to depend on definitions
Like the political campaign over Proposition 209, the court test
that starts Monday depends largely on which side’s definition of
the measure will prevail.
To the state, which is defending the newly passed initiative,
its terms are simple and unassailable: equal treatment for all,
special preferences for none. Such a law, by definition, cannot be
discriminatory and does not violate the constitutional command of
equal protection of the laws, he said.
Civil rights groups trying to overturn Proposition 209 see it
much differently: as a measure that, however neutral and benign its
wording, has the sole effect of eliminating programs that benefit
minorities and women.
But the two sides will be playing Monday to a different
audience: Chief U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson, a former
Justice Department civil rights lawyer whose record stamps him as
one of the most liberal jurists in the state.
His first task is to decide whether to issue a temporary
restraining order blocking implementation of Proposition 209 for up
to two weeks.
After that, opponents seek a preliminary injunction that would
bar enforcement for an extended period until the suit went to trial
 unless a higher court intervened.
Henderson, and the courts reviewing his rulings, must decide
whether affirmative action programs, adopted voluntarily to benefit
historically disfavored groups, can be abolished by a state without
violating the constitutional protections those groups enjoy.
The state argues, first, that it was not obliged to create the
programs to begin with; second, that equal treatment violates no
rights; and third, that preferential programs infringe on the
rights of others, the nonpreferred.
In reply, opponents of Proposition 209 note that it is a state
constitutional amendment which cannot be changed without another
vote of the people.
FDA divided on new AIDS drug
The government will have to determine how much proof is needed
that a new AIDS medicine is effective enough to sell after
scientific advisers deadlocked over whether to endorse the
drug.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisers said Friday that
Pharmacia & Upjohn’s delavirdine appears "leaps and bounds
safer" than other AIDS drugs. But they cited conflicting evidence
that it works, unable to break a 4-4 tie vote on whether the FDA
should approve the drug.
"As a clinician, I wouldn’t know how to use this drug," said Dr.
Christopher Mathews of UC San Diego. "A year ago, I would have
viewed this very differently,” he added, noting that three
powerful new AIDS drugs that promise significant patient
improvement recently hit the market.
Pharmacia contends that delavirdine, when combined with older
medicines, helps kill the AIDS-causing HIV virus in the blood of
early-stage patients and slightly boosts their immune system.
But the drug failed in severely ill patients, leaving the FDA’s
advisers wondering whether the slight improvement in healthier
people was real.
Doctors are analyzing another study that might provide proof of
the small benefit. That set of data is due to be completed by
mid-January. The panelists urged the FDA to consider that study
before making a decision.
The FDA said it will consider the panelists’ concerns. The tie
vote came after mothers tearfully protested that Pharmacia, like
almost every AIDS drug manufacturer, had not even begun testing to
determine whether delavirdine would help HIV-infected children.
Of the nine AIDS drugs sold today, only three are approved for
children’s use  and they do not include the newest, most
potent therapies.
Delavirdine does not attack the HIV virus in the same manner as
protease inhibitors, working instead more similarly to AZT.
Compiled from Daily Bruin wire reports.