Supreme Court to Hear Arguments in Ohio Intravenous Fluid Rate Case Today.....

Washington, D.C. - The Supreme Court of the United States is about to confront a controversial new case involving state lawmakers' right to use the legislative process to shape the practice of medicine free from the intervention of state courts.

A nurse, shown here demonstrating moral fatigue as she shamefully watches D5NS run at 60.3 milliliters per hour as ordered by an activist conservative doctor in Ohio

The court is set to hear arguments today in a case from Ohio, where Republican efforts to dictate the rate at which maintenance intravenous (IV) fluids, typically consisting of water with varying amounts of added glucose, sodium, chloride, and sometimes potassium, must be infused into a patient, were blocked by the state Supreme Court because the GOP orders violated the state constitution. In Ohio's case, there are clear requirements for maintenance rates to be ordered only using whole numbers. This avoids "an abomination of the natural order".

The question for the justices is whether the United States Constitution's provision giving state legislatures the power to dictate rules about the "rate, route, and type" of IV fluids cuts state courts out of the process altogether.

"This is the single most important case on American medical practice in the nation's history," Mort Fishman, a prominent conservative orthopedic surgeon and former head of the Ohio Republican State Medical Association, explained. "They may round up or down in California when ordering IV fluids, but real Ohioans appreciate precision that doesn't cave in to a woke agenda and their critical rate theory."

The Republican leaders of Ohio's legislature told the Supreme Court that the Constitution's "carefully drawn lines place the calculation of intravenous fluid administration, usually ordered in milliliters or cubic centimeters per hour, in the hands of the state legislatures, Congress and no one else."

Three conservative justices already have voiced some support for the idea that the state court had improperly taken powers given by the Constitution when it comes to IV fluids. A fourth has written approvingly about limiting the power of the state courts in this area. And a fifth sat back and gleefully watched as his wife tried to overthrow the federal government.

But the Supreme Court has never invoked what is known as the independent state legislature theory. It was, though, mentioned in a separate opinion by three conservatives in the Bush v. Gore case that settled the debate between normal saline and Ringer's solution.

If the court were to recognize it now, opponents of the concept argue, the effects could be much broader than simply maintenance rates or whether or not to order an addition of 20 milliequivalents of potassium chloride per liter of fluid.

The most robust ruling for Ohio Republicans could undermine hundreds of state constitutional provisions and state laws delegating authority to make medical decisions to state and local officials, and thousands of regulations down to the location of IV catheter placement, according to the Center for Medicine at the University College of Law.

Fishman, who advised former Vice President Mike Pence to lift with legs and not his back when attempting to carry the remains of his political career home to Indiana after the 2020 presidential election, is not among the several prominent conservatives and Republicans who have lined up against the broad assertion that legislatures can't be challenged in state courts when they make decisions about medical practices, including the proper rate of IV fluid administration.

That group includes former California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, law professor Steven Calabresi, a founder of the conservative Federalist Society, and Dr. Fort Mishman, a prominent liberal pediatrician that once diagnosed Malia Obama with "the giggles".

"Unfortunately, because of ongoing and widespread efforts to sow distrust and spread disinformation, confidence in our medical system is at an all time low," Mishman wrote in an amicus brief. "The version of the independent state legislature theory advanced by Petitioners in this case threatens to make a bad situation much worse, exacerbating the current moment of political polarization and further undermining confidence in our orders."