How A Ruling On Gay Jurors Could Have A Huge Effect On The Gay Rights Movement

[pinto]

1. Something's missing here. I don't see how a higher priced medication from one company could hurt

the lower priced medication producer's bottom line. Would seem that, all things being equal, medical prescribers and pharmacists would recommend the lower priced drug. Reinforcing that company's bottom line.

My guess is that both are likely under patent and different medications. Could be that the newer(?), higher priced drug was recommended as a better treatment choice. The AIDS advocate communities objected to price gouging, not discrimination, per se. I wish the article mentioned both meds by name, would clarify the situation. Both Abbott and SmithKline are major marketers of HIV medications.

The other issue is the jury selection call. All parties have a right to challenge jury selection. I think the judges made the right call. A gay juror who has a friend with HIV cannot be assumed to have a lack of objectivity based solely on those two points. Abbot tried and lost the call. And the Circuit Court agreed with the initial judicial panel's determination.