JFX Health Online & Mental Health

three (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

Portuguese President Anibal Cavaco Silva on Tuesday ratified a bill that legalizes abortions throughout the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (AP/International Herald Tribune, 4/10). Abortion is illegal in Portugal except when needed to protect the life or wellness of a woman or if a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. Voters within the country in February approved a referendum that asked, “Do you agree with the decriminalization of the voluntary interruption of pregnancy, in the first 10 weeks, in a legally authorized well being establishment?” Even so, the referendum was deemed invalid since fewer than half with the country’s registered voters cast a ballot. The bill ratified by Silva, passed by the Portuguese Parliament in March, requires a mandatory three-day “reflection period” before a woman can pick to receive the procedure (Kaiser Daily Women’s Health Policy Report, 3/12). Based on the AP/Herald Tribune, Portugal’s Constitution dictates that bills passed by Parliament need to be “rubber stamped” by the president. The law will take effect when it is published within the official government records, which will most most likely occur next month, the AP/Herald Tribune reports.

President’s Recommendations, Reaction
Silva in a statement stated that females seeking abortions needs to be shown an ultrasound of the fetus and that doctors who oppose the process ought to be allowed to counsel them. He added that girls also should be informed about the possibility of adoption along with the psychological and physical consequences of abortion (AP/International Herald Tribune, 4/10). “The president cannot stay indifferent towards the fact that there were 59.25% of votes to lift the ban on abortion,” Silva’s office said in a statement, adding, “After the law is implemented, it should be monitored to evaluate whether it effectively reduces not only the number of clandestine abortions but also the number of abortions in general” (Reuters/Irish Times, 4/10). Silva described abortion as “a social evil to be avoided,” adding that his recommendations seek to strike “a reasonable balance between the various points of view.” Alberto Martins, parliamentary leader for the governing Socialist Party, said Silva’s recommendations would be examined but added that there were no plans to change the law (AP/International Herald Tribune, 4/10).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Every day Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a cost-free service with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

five (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3 (1 votes)

The full 11-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis on Wednesday heard arguments in a lawsuit difficult a 2005 South Dakota law (HB 1166) that would require abortion providers in the state to tell ladies before performing the process that it would “terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being,” the AP/Belleville News-Democrat reports (Wittenauer, AP/Belleville News-Democrat, 4/11). The law, which was signed by Gov. Mike Rounds (R) in March 2005 and was scheduled to take effect in July 2005, requires physicians to fully inform women about risks, consequences and alternatives to abortion, such as adoption, a minimum of two hours before performing the procedure. The law also says that women have a relationship using the fetus until birth and that the state has an interest in protecting that relationship. Planned Parenthood of Minnesota-North Dakota-South Dakota in June 2005 filed suit requesting that the law be blocked simply because it violates doctors’ cost-free speech rights by requiring them to provide inaccurate and ideological data to girls seeking abortion. The state argues that the law would not restrict access to abortion and that the required data is accurate and supported by science. U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier in July 2006 issued a temporary injunction blocking enforcement with the regulation and said the state cannot violate abortion providers’ First Amendment rights by requiring them to “espouse the state’s theology.” A three-judge panel with the 8th Circuit Court in October 2006 ruled 2-1 to uphold Schreier’s ruling and sent the case back to her for a final opinion. The case represents the first time a federal appeals court will address whether abortion terminates a human life, increases the woman’s risk for depression and suicide, and ends a relationship between the woman as well as the fetus (Kaiser Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 4/11).

Arguments
During the one-hour hearing on Wednesday, Chief Judge James Loken said the law requires doctors to divert their attention from medical consultation to “preach ideology,” adding that it raises First Amendment concerns related to compulsory speech and government regulation of a professional relationship. State Assistant Attorney General John Guhin stated doctors could paraphrase the pregnancy details. The South Dakota Legislature drafted the measure simply because it “became convinced females are not getting details about the unborn life within them,” Guhin said, adding that lawmakers wanted to inform females of their constitutional appropriate to carry a pregnancy to term (AP/Belleville News-Democrat, 4/11). “Every week, women are losing their rights in South Dakota, every week that this injunction is in place,” Harold Cassidy, an attorney for two pregnancy centers that support the law, stated. “We’re within the enterprise of sorting out rights,” Loken stated, adding, “What rights?” Cassidy stated, “The rights to a relationship with their children” (O’Connell, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 4/11). Tim Branson, an attorney for Planned Parenthood, named the law’s language “highly misleading and calculated to mislead,” adding that it interferes with a Supreme Court ruling that ladies are free of charge to form their own opinion about whether a fetus is actually a person. Based on the AP/News-Democrat, Judge Raymond Gruender, who dissented from three-judge panel’s ruling last year, challenged Planned Parenthood’s argument that the information is scripted and deceptive, asking, “What part of it really is untruthful?” Gruender also asked if it was reasonable to request that a doctor explain “these legal concepts that the courts frequently wrestle with.” The court is not expected to rule on the South Dakota case for a number of months (AP/Belleville News-Democrat, 4/11).

Los Angeles Times Examines State Informed Consent Laws, Bills
The Los Angeles Times on Thursday examined South Dakota’s law along with other state bills and laws related to informed consent for abortion. According to the Times, 32 states have some form of an informed-consent law, but abortion-rights opponents are increasingly “pushing for females to receive more-detailed — and more-emotionally charged — data.” State lawmakers last year introduced 92 bills to expand informed-consent laws, according to the Center for Reproductive Rights (Simon, Los Angeles Times, 4/12).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Everyday Wellness Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a cost-free service with the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

five (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3 (2 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts
These last few days have seen the media splashed with articles about an impending crisis in the UK’s National Wellness Service, suggesting fewer doctors are willing to perform abortions, either for ethical reasons or because they prefer to specialize in other areas, while demand for terminations is greater than ever.

The concern has been highlighted by a comment from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) that it was concerned about what it saw as a “slow but growing problem”.

The RCOG stated it recognizes that abortion is an vital part of women’s healthcare and must be adequately resourced. But they have noticed trainees are “opting out” of doing terminations and this will result in a shortage of doctors to meet demand within the future.

The RCOG acknowledges the right of doctors to object to performing abortion, and emphasizes the importance of having a workforce in this essential location of sexual healthcare that’s sympathetic and supportive toward its women patients, most of whom do not make the choice to terminate a pregnancy lightly.

As far as we know nobody has systematically studied why doctors seem to be opting out of this location of healthcare provision and how this will impact the NHS and more than what timescale.

Several individuals are speculating as to what the reasons could be, each within and outside the medical profession. Blogs and online commentaries are flooded with with passionate and sanguine opinions and observations.

The issues that several comments are focusing on incorporate:

– A generation of doctors who remember what it was like inside the days before the UK’s 1967 act legalized abortion are approaching retirement or have already stopped practising.
— Several (younger) doctors have no first hand encounter of back street or self-induced abortions as well as the damage they inflict.
– Changes in training and working hours are causing trainee doctors to choose areas which will boost their career, whereas performing terminations is just bog standard practice.
– Admitting to being an abortionist is actually a conversation stopper, reflecting what is perhaps a growing social distaste for this darker and less glamourous side of medicine.
– Unwanted pregnancies as well as the demand for terminations is increasing, in spite with the number and ease of contraceptive options obtainable.
– There will always be females who will do anything to stop an unwanted pregnancy, including seeking illegal means if the legal ones are denied to them.

BPAS, among the UK’s leading charities specializing in sexual healthcare and abortion services, released a statement from its chairman, Ann Furedi that stated the NHS and charities like BPAS had been offering safe abortions since it became legal in 1967.

She stated today’s medical students inside the UK are too young to have witnessed females dying slowly and painfully after self-induced and unsafe abortion, but if they were to travel to other countries where abortion is still illegal they would.

Ann Furedi said that:

“Abortion is an absolutely vital, life-saving part of medical care.”

“It may not be one of the most glamorous medical speciality on the face of it, compared to stem cell research or neurosurgery, however it is seen as heroic work by the girls that it helps,” she added.

Dr Kate Paterson is actually a consultant obstetrician in abortion care for BPAS and also the NHS. She has been working within abortion, maternity care and contraceptive services for the last 20 years and stated she does the job since:

“Becoming pregnant is either the best, or the worst thing that will happen to a woman.”

“There are an awful lot of doctors already working helping girls to get pregnant inside the NHS and inside the private IVF sector. There are a hell of a good deal much less, who want to help girls when they are pregnant and can’t cope,” she stated.

She talks about her sympathy for females who’re already struggling to cope with their lives and for whom becoming pregnant is the last straw. There could be a lot of reasons why they feel they just can’t have the baby: health, family, too a lot of children, bad housing and poverty.

Dr Paterson mentions she has seen ladies who have been raped who’re trying to come to terms together with the trauma and who just can’t cope with the prospect of having a baby too.

She compares her knowledge of working in maternity with that of helping girls who come for help to discuss abortion. She said the females who come to talk about abortion are far more grateful for her help and also the most most likely to say a genuine “thank you” afterwards.

“There is actually a desperate require for this kind of work and women may be in really extreme situations. So I do feel pleased that I can help them and that I do a job that’s extremely, really useful to folks,” stated Dr Paterson.

For a lot of doctors the ethical issues are not straightforward or black and white. If no doctors performed terminations, this would cause desperate ladies to pursue unsafe and sometimes fatal options, which in 1 sense is contrary to a doctor’s belief that medicine must save lives.

And an increasing number of doctors seem to view abortion itself not as a life saving act but 1 of terminating life.

It cannot be easy to come to terms with the fact that medical technology may soon reach the stage where a fetus scheduled for termination in 1 part of the hospital is the same age as one born prematurely and on life support in the ward next door.

Marie Stopes International, the UK’s largest provider of family planning and abortion services outside the NHS and operating in 40 countries, is holding a conference in London on 23-24 October 2007 which will focus on abortion.

It is planned to coincide with all the 40th anniversary of the UK’s 1967 abortion act, on which Liz Davies, Director of UK Operations made the following comment in November last year when the conference was announced:

“In this day and age, the 1967 Act is an anachronism. It’s a paternalistic piece of legislation that denies ladies the right to determine for themselves whether or not to have an abortion. We will use this conference as a platform to advocate for much needed law reform.”

It would seem that this problem isn’t going to fade, but if anything, will gather in pace as that date approaches.

Click here for far more details on abortion from NHS direct.

Click here for a range of resources on abortion and ethics (University of San Diego).

Written by: Catharine Paddock
Writer: Medical News Today
Copyright: Medical News Today
Not to be reproduced without permission of Medical News Today

5 (3 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The U.S. Supreme Court nowadays rejected a legal challenge towards the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, allowing the law to go into effect for the first time since it was signed by President George W. Bush in 2003.

“Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, and their allies blocked this law for 12 years — but finally, it’s illegal in America to mostly deliver a premature infant before puncturing her skull and removing her brain, that is what a partial-birth abortion is,” commented Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Appropriate to Life Committee (NRLC).

Writing for a 5-4 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The Act proscribes a approach of abortion in which a fetus is killed just inches before completion with the birth procedure. . . Congress determined that the abortion techniques it proscribed had a ‘disturbing similarity towards the killing of a newborn infant.’ . . .” The majority ruled that a general ban on the method is permissible and doesn’t violate the general “abortion right” enunciated in past decisions such as Roe v. Wade (1973) and Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992).

NRLC, the nation’s major right-to-life organization, led the coalition that resulted in enactment of the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2003, after an eight-year fight. President Bill Clinton vetoed the ban twice. When it passed the Senate in 2003, it was more than the nay vote of Senator Hillary Clinton.

WHAT THE LAW DOES

The federal law bans “partial-birth abortion,” a legal term of art, defined inside the law itself as any abortion in which the baby is delivered feet-first “past the [baby's] navel . . . outside the body with the mother,” or “in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body with the mother,” before being killed. The complete official text of the law, in a searchable format, is here.

In current months, some commentators, including Linda Greenhouse with the New York Times and Kenneth Jost of Congressional Quarterly, have argued that the term “partial-birth” is misleading since the approach is usually used months before the end of a full-term pregnancy. (It is most typically utilised within the fifth and sixth months, but sometimes later.) These objections rest on a baffling failure to recognize that legal “live births” commonly occur lengthy before full term — indeed, “live births” are commonplace even early inside the fifth month of pregnancy. Legally, below the laws of virtually every state and below federal law, once a human is entirely outside the mother and draws breath, or shows other signs of life such as heartbeat or movement of voluntary muscles, a live birth has occurred, and all the protections of law attach – whether or not the baby is “viable” (capable of long-term survival). At the stages of development at which most partial-birth abortions are performed, the great majority of babies would be legal “live births” if they were expelled by spontaneous premature labor, and several would be long-term survivors. For further discussion of the relationship between the legal definition of “live birth” and the legal definition of “partial-birth,” click here.

In February 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, the executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, told the New York Times that “in the vast majority of cases” the strategy is used on “a healthy mother using a healthy fetus that’s 20 weeks or far more along” (New York Times, Feb. 26, 1997). Twenty weeks is halfway through a full-term pregnancy – the middle with the fifth month.

Extra DOCUMENTATION

The NRLC website contains the Internet’s most expansive archive of documents pertaining to all facets of the debate over partial-birth abortion, here.

Any journalist or editorialist examining the problem of partial-birth abortion will benefit from reading Partial-Birth Abortion: Misconceptions and Realities, a memo written by NRLC Legislative Director Douglas Johnson. This memo addresses common misconceptions and misinformation about partial-birth abortion, with links to primary documents, including interviews with partial-birth abortionists and investigative reports in American Medical News, the New York Times, PBS, and other news media. The memo addresses these topics: the actual language and legal intent with the bill; why “partial-birth abortion” is actually a required and appropriate legal term of art that fits into the framework of existing law regarding what constitutes a “live birth”; how the media’s use of the nebulous label “late-term abortion” distorts the debate over the law; whether President Bush’s statement (November five, 2003) that partial-birth abortion is violence directed against people who are “inches from birth” is medically and legally accurate; and polls of doctors, obstetricians, nurses, and the general public regarding the ban.

The memo also discusses how documented medical illustrations of two different abortion strategies can allow the public to better evaluate claims and counterclaims on what the law actually covers and doesn’t cover.

A collection of key documents (some of them real eye-openers) pertinent to various medical claims surrounding partial-birth abortion are posted here.

In the course of the summer of 2004, U.S. District Judge Richard Casey presided more than a trial in New York in 1 of the 3 legal challenges to the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (National Abortion Federation v. Gonzales), during which he directly questioned a number of abortionists regarding how partial-birth abortions are performed. Attorney Cathy Cleaver Ruse’s distillation of that revealing testimony, published inside the Spring 2005 problem with the Human Life Review below the title “Partial-Birth Abortion on Trial,” is posted in PDF format here.

www.nrlc.org

2.46 (13 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3.5 (four votes)

Several candidates for the Republican presidential nomination gathered on Saturday in Des Moines, Iowa, to discuss their views on abortion rights along with other issues, the New York Times reports. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee defined themselves as “lifelong opponents of abortion rights, drawing clear, if unspoken, contrasts with” former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, who supports abortion rights, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who previously supported abortion rights but now opposes them, based on the Times. “I’m not late in declaring that life begins at conception and we ought to shield human life,” Huckabee said (Nagourney, New York Times, 4/15). McCain, who spoke last, stated that he has supported “the rights of the unborn” for 24 years “without changing, without wavering,” the Los Angeles Times reports (Finnegan, Los Angeles Times, 4/15). After the event, McCain was asked what he would do in regards to abortion as president, and he stated he “would try to help change the culture in America” (Baker, Washington Post, 4/15). Sen. Sam Brownback (Kan.), who entered the campaign event with supporters chanting “pro-life is whole life,” said, “We want a culture that does not corrode and does not corrupt.” Romney stated what “makes America strong” is “the American men and women — hard working, risk-taking, opportunity-seeking, God-loving, family oriented, patriotic American individuals who respect the sanctity of human life” (Los Angeles Times, 4/15).

Clinton Criticizes Bush Administration on Plan B, Stem Cell Research
In related news, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who is running for the Democratic nomination for president, in a speech in New Hampshire stated the Bush administration “has tried to turn Washington, [D.C.], into an evidence-free zone, whether it’s on stem cell research or [Barr Laboratories' emergency contraceptive] Plan B … or pollution or global warming or the safety of our food or the quality of our air.” Clinton said the administration’s record is evidence for the have to reinstitute the Office of Technology Assessment, which was created within the 1970s to evaluate government and advise Congress on new technologies, the New York Times reports. Congressional Republicans abolished the office in 1995, according to the Times (Confessore, New York Times, 4/14).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Every day Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Everyday Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free of charge service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

five (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Article Opinions:1 posts
The Roman Catholic Church has launched an “aggressive campaign” in Mexico City against a bill that would allow pregnant ladies to obtain a legal abortion throughout the first 3 months’ gestation, the Washington Post reports (Roig-Franzia, Washington Post, 4/15). Below current Mexican law, abortion only is permitted if the life of the pregnant woman is endangered or if the woman has been raped. Lawmakers from Mexico’s Party with the Democratic Revolution in March proposed the measure in the city’s Legislature. The party holds Mexico City’s mayorship as well as the majority in the city’s Legislature (Kaiser Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 3/29). In accordance with the Post, the Mexico City Legislature is “widely expected” to approve the legislation, despite opposition from the church. “The Catholic Church has lost a whole lot of influence as Mexicans have become more aware of their rights as citizens and not just their rights as baptized Catholics,” Mario Canseco — global studies director at Angus Reid Global Monitor, a research group that tracks public opinion — stated. Nevertheless, thousands of abortion-rights opponents earlier this month were led by church officials to Mexico City’s Basilica de Guadalupe, where they waved banners together with the phrase, “a culture of death,” the Post reports (Washington Post, 4/15). Marcelino Hernandez, auxiliary bishop of the Archdiocese of Mexico, lately said that if the proposed Mexico City bill passes, any lawmaker who voted in favor with the measure would be excommunicated from the Catholic Church when the first abortion is performed under the law (Kaiser Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, 4/6). The Vatican also sent its top abortion-rights opponent, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, to Mexico City, in accordance with the Post. A measure similar towards the Mexico City legislation lately filed by the Democratic Revolution party in the national Congress “faces a a lot more difficult challenge” simply because the ruling National Action Party opposes abortion rights and since President Felipe Calderon last month stated that he considers the current law “adequate” and that he would oppose changes to it (Washington Post, 4/15).

Washington Post Mexico City bureau chief Manuel Roig-Franzia on Monday participated in a washingtonpost.com chat about proposals to expand access to legal abortions in Mexico. A transcript of the chat is available on-line.

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Day-to-day Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Wellness Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free of charge service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

three.five (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3.67 (3 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts
Female births are decreasing in India as sales of ultrasound machines are increasing, causing some government officials and advocates to link wider availability of ultrasounds to sex-selective abortions, the Wall Street Journal reports (Wonacott, Wall Street Journal, 4/18). The country in 1994 approved the Prenatal Determination Act, which bans the use of technologies, such as ultrasounds and sonograms, for the purpose of sex-selective abortion. The law also bans advertisements for prenatal sex determination, along with the practice of preconception sex selection law (Kaiser Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, 3/1). In accordance with the Journal, all clinics that have an ultrasound machine are required to register together with the government and offer an affidavit saying it will not perform sex-selective abortions. General Electric, the leading seller of ultrasound machines inside the country, has educated its sales force about the issue, requires its customers to sign a GE affidavit saying they will not use the machines for sex selection and conducts periodic audits, company executives stated. V. Raja, CEO of GE Healthcare South Asia, stated the company “stress[es] emphatically that the machines aren’t to be used for sex determination,” adding that the increased availability of ultrasound scans “is not the root cause of female feticide in India.” Some advocates have stated GE isn’t performing adequate to prevent its machines from being utilized for sex-selective abortions, in accordance with the Journal. Puneet Bedi, a New Delhi-based obstetrician, stated GE and other companies market the machines as an crucial tool for prenatal care even though ultrasounds are typically unnecessary for pregnant women in low-risk groups. According to the Journal, GE cannot tell if physicians sell their machines to unregistered physicians and if different Indian states interpret registration rules differently.

Prevalence of Sex-Selective Abortion Still High
“Ultrasound is the main reason why the sex ration is coming down,” Kalpana Bhavre, head of ladies and child welfare for the Datia district government, stated, adding that couples typically view having a daughter as incurring debt for parents because of marital dowry payments (Wall Street Journal, 4/18). Based on a UNICEF report released in December 2006, about 7,000 fewer girls than expected are born day-to-day in India, and about 10 million fewer girls than expected were born in the past 20 years. Probably the most current Indian census figures found that the gender ratio decreased from 947 girls per 1,000 boys to 927 girls per 1,000 boys from 1991 to 2001 (Kaiser Day-to-day Women’s Well being Policy Report, 3/1). Raja said, “What’s really needed is actually a change in mindsets. A good deal of education has to happen, along with the government has to do it.” The Indian Ministry of Well being and Family Welfare is investigating 422 instances against physicians who are accused of employing ultrasounds for sex selection. The ministry in a statement stated that “legislation is not adequate to deal with this problem,” adding that the situation will “change only when the daughters are not treated as a burden along with the sons as assets” (Wall Street Journal, 4/18).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Everyday Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

5 (9 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3 (3 votes)

Human rights advocate Mao Hengfeng, who has protested for the past 19 years against China’s one-child-per-family policy, lost an appeal against a two-and-a-half year prison sentence for allegedly breaking two lamps while in a detention house in Shanghai, the advocacy group Human Rights in China stated on Tuesday, the AP/International Herald Tribune reports (AP/International Herald Tribune, 4/17). Mao in 1988 was fired from her job at a Shanghai soap factory after becoming pregnant having a second child. She carried her pregnancy to term despite pressure from the government to have an abortion. After Mao became pregnant once again, she sued the soap factory for firing her, and also the presiding judge told her he would rule in her favor if she aborted her third pregnancy. She then aborted her pregnancy at seven months gestation, but the court ruled against her, saying that the factory had a proper to dismiss her simply because she violated China’s family planning policy. Mao in April 2004 was sentenced to 18 months in a prison labor camp for refusing to stop protesting the government’s family planning policy. Based on Human Rights in China, Chinese authorities in January 2005 added 3 months towards the sentence, and Mao allegedly has been tortured while in custody because of her protests. However, China’s State Council in a January 2005 statement said Mao’s incarceration “had nothing to do with all the family planning policy” and her firing from the soap factory was due to the fact she missed 16 days of work, not due to the fact she was pregnant for a second time. Mao in January was sentenced to an further two-and-a-half years in prison for breaking two lamps while in a detention house in Shanghai, according to Human Rights in China (Kaiser Every day Women’s Well being Policy Report, 1/18). The group in a statement stated that Mao’s appeal to the sentence was denied “following a 10-minute session at which only her judgment was read.” Mao’s attorney was not permitted to present evidence on the value of the lamps to show “the disproportionate nature of her sentence,” according to the statement (AP/International Herald Tribune, 4/17).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Day-to-day Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Day-to-day Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a cost-free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.

four (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

4 (2 votes)

Today the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Act of 2003 and its stated purpose to protect “innocent human life from a brutal and inhumane process.” Congressman Bartlett stated, “This is an essential landmark inside the fight to shield the life of unborn children. Eliminating the cruel and unusual punishment of partial-birth abortion is a step inside the correct direction for the United States as a civilized society.”

In 2003, Congressman Bartlett spoke in support of approval with the bill that was challenged by abortion supporters. He said, “Ending partial-birth abortion will reaffirm the principle in our Declaration of Independence that human beings . . . are endowed by their creator using a proper to life.” He also said, “We would never ever tolerate such a brutal form of execution for one of the most heinous criminal. It really is proper to end this approach of killing innocent, unborn children in their mother’s womb.” Regarding today’s decision, Congressman Bartlett added, “It is heartening that the Highest Court in our country has recognized that the ‘government has a legitimate, substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.’”

In this crucial, resounding judicial opinion, Justice Kennedy wrote, “[T]he government may use its voice and its regulatory authority to show its profound respect for the life within the woman.” Justice Kennedy reasoned, “The Act’s ban on abortions involving partial delivery of a living fetus furthers the Government’s objectives. Congress determined that such abortions are similar to the killing of a newborn infant. This Court has confirmed the validity of drawing boundaries to avoid practices that extinguish life and are close to actions that are condemned.”

The Act prohibits “knowingly perform[ing] a partial-birth abortion … which is [not] necessary to save the life of a mother.” It essentially defines, “partial-birth abortion,” as a procedure in which the physician intentionally delivers a living fetus until, inside the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the mother’s body and performs the “overt act,” other than completion of delivery, that kills the unborn baby.

http://www.bartlett.house.gov

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3.67 (three votes)

The Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled 5-4 to reinstate a federal law banning so-called “partial-birth” abortion, overturning the rulings of 3 appeals courts, the New York Times reports (Greenhouse, New York Times, 4/19). Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined Justice Anthony Kennedy within the majority opinion and Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg within the dissent, the Boston Globe reports (Savage, Boston Globe, 4/19). President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S 3) into law in November 2003. The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the National Abortion Federation, and also the Center for Reproductive Rights on behalf of 4 abortion providers filed lawsuits alleging that the law is unconstitutional as a result of the absence of an exception for procedures preformed to defend the health of the pregnant woman. In location of a well being exception, the law includes a lengthy “findings” section with medical evidence presented throughout congressional hearings that, in accordance with supporters of the law, indicates the procedures banned by the law are never ever medically necessary. Federal judges in California, Nebraska and New York every issued temporary restraining orders to stop enforcement with the ban. The decisions were upheld by three-judge panels with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City and the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis. The Supreme Court in February 2006 agreed to hear oral arguments in Gonzales v. Carhart, which was the Department of Justice’s appeal with the 8th Circuit Court panel’s ruling. The court in June 2006 also agreed to hear arguments within the appeal of the 9th Circuit Court panel’s ruling, known as Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood (Kaiser Everyday Women’s Health Policy Report, 11/9/06).

Banned Procedures
The act bans “an abortion in which a physician deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living, unborn child’s body until either the entire baby’s head is outside the body with the mother, or any part of the baby’s trunk past the navel is outside the body with the mother and only the head remains inside the womb, for the purpose of performing an overt act (usually the puncturing of the back with the child’s skull and removing the baby’s brains) that the person knows will kill the partially delivered infant” (Kaiser Day-to-day Women’s Well being Policy Report, 1/31/06). The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has stated that the procedures banned under the measure — known as “intact dilation and extraction and evacuation” and “dilation and extraction” — are increasingly regarded as the safest abortion procedures for the duration of the second trimester of pregnancy. The American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has said that other second-trimester abortion procedures not banned under the law — such as drug-induced labor along with a dilation and evacuation procedure in which the physician “dismembers” the fetus inside the uterus — are “medically appropriate” for all women. U.S. Solicitor General Paul Clement, who argued the appeal for DOJ, in November 2006 stated that even though there is certainly disagreement among medical experts concerning the necessity with the banned procedures, the Supreme Court must defer to the congressional findings section (Kaiser Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 11/9/06). The law says a physician who performs the banned procedures could face criminal prosecution, fines and as much as two years in jail (New York Times, 4/19). According to the Chicago Tribune, the law enables an exception for cases in which the life with the woman is in danger, however it doesn’t permit doctors to make use of the procedure since they believe utilizing another strategy would increase risks to the woman’s well being (Peres, Chicago Tribune, 4/19). DOJ had no comment about how it plans to enforce the law, the Wall Street Journal reports (Bravin, Wall Street Journal, 4/19).

Ruling Details
“The law require not give abortion doctors unfettered choice in the course of their medical practice,” Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion, adding that the “medical uncertainty over whether the act’s prohibition creates significant wellness risks provides a sufficient basis to conclude … that the act does not impose an undue burden” (Sherman, AP/Forbes, 4/19). Kennedy also wrote that “the government has a legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life,” adding that the ban is in fact excellent for girls, protecting them against terminating their pregnancies by a method they may well not fully understand in advance and could regret later (New York Times, 4/19). “While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon … it seems unexceptionable to conclude some girls come to regret their option to abort the infant life they once created and sustained,” he wrote (Biskupic, USA Today, 4/19). Kennedy added that the government cannot forbid abortion outright but “may use its voice and its regulatory authority” to deter females from ending pregnancies, the Los Angeles Times reports. The ban on the process will “encourage some females to carry the infant to full term, thus reducing the absolute number” of such abortions, he wrote (Savage, Los Angeles Times, 4/19).

Dissent
Ginsburg inside the dissenting opinion wrote that the majority was being paternalistic when expressing concerns about women’s regret more than an abortion, adding that the “solution the court approves” is “not to require doctors to inform ladies adequately of the different procedures they may select and also the risks every entails. Rather, the court shields ladies by denying them a option inside the matter” (USA Today, 4/19). The law “cannot be understood as anything other than an effort to chip away at a correct declared again and once again by this court — and with increasing comprehension of its centrality to women’s lives,” Ginsberg wrote (Barnes, Washington Post, 4/19). She wrote that the “law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion” (Stohr, Bloomberg, 4/18).
The ruling marks the first time since the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling, which effectively barred state abortion bans, that the court has “blesse[d]” a “prohibition” on certain abortion procedures “with no exception safeguarding a woman’s well being,” Ginsberg wrote, adding that the majority “tolerates, indeed applauds, federal intervention to ban nationwide a procedure found needed and proper in certain instances by” ACOG (AP/Forbes, 4/19).

The majority opinion and dissent are offered on the internet.

Bush’s, Presidential Candidates’, Legislators’ Reactions
Bush in a statement stated the court’s ruling “affirms that the Constitution does not stand in the way with the people’s representatives enacting laws reflecting the compassion and humanity of America” (AP/Guardian, 4/19). Bush stated the ruling is an “affirmation with the progress we have made more than the past six years in protecting human dignity and upholding the sanctity of life,” adding, “We will continue to work for the day when every child is welcomed in life and protected in law” (White House release, 4/18). Reaction from presidential candidates towards the ruling was “quick,” along “party lines” and primarily targeted at their party’s base, the New York Times reports (Toner, New York Times, 4/19). Democratic candidates Sens. Barack Obama (Ill.), Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.) said they are “disappointed” or “troubled” by the court’s ruling. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) in a release said, “I could not disagree a lot more strongly with” the decision, adding, “This hard correct turn can be a stark reminder of why Democrats cannot afford to lose the 2008 election” (Youngman, The Hill, 4/19). Obama stated, “I strongly disagree with today’s Supreme Court ruling, which dramatically departs from previous precedents safeguarding the health of pregnant women” (New York Times, 4/19). Clinton said, “It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations” of Roberts and Alito. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who voted for the 2003 ban on the process, called the ruling “a victory for those who cherish the sanctity of life and integrity with the judiciary” (Murray/Cillizza, Washington Post, 4/19). Former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R), who supports abortion rights, stated the court “reached the correct conclusion” (Finnegan, Los Angeles Times, 4/19). Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan) said he “hope[s] that this decision signals the court’s willingness to revisit and reverse” Roe, the AP/Guardian reports. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stated that she is “disappointed” by the court’s ruling, adding, “Criminalizing doctors for performing medically necessary procedures to save a woman’s life or safeguard her health is wrong. The court’s decision can be a significant step backward.” House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) applauded the court for its ruling, saying that his “hope is that it sets the stage for further progress within the fight to ensure our nation’s laws respect the sanctity of unborn human life” (AP/Guardian, 4/19).

Advocates’, Experts’ Reaction
Bellevue, Neb.-based physician LeRoy Carhart, who challenged the law, in a statement stated he is devastated by the decision, adding, “When the Supreme Court regarded as this issue seven years ago, they agreed that women’s health was a paramount concern and doctors, not politicians, were inside the very best position to determine what procedures were safest. … What a difference seven years, a new president and two new justices can make” (Sherman, AP/Beatrice Daily Sun, 4/18). Eve Gartner, deputy director of litigation and law at PPFA, said, “Today the court took away an crucial selection for doctors who seek to offer the most effective and safest care to their patients,” adding, “This ruling tells women that politicians, not doctors, will make their well being care decisions for them.” Roberta Combs, president with the Christian Coalition of America, stated, “With today’s Supreme Court choice, it really is just a matter of time before” Roe “will also be struck down by the court” (AP/Mail and Guardian, 4/19). The ruling “leaves no doubt that women’s wellness in America is perceived as being of small consequence,” Douglas Laube, president of ACOG, stated (Jones/Biskupic, USA Today, 4/19). “From a clinical perspective, what this means is that females are just not going to get the top probable care,” Paul Blumenthal, an ob-gyn professor at Stanford University School of Medicine, said (Allday, San Francisco Chronicle, 4/19). Clarke Forsythe, president of Americans United for Life, said, “The majority has indicated that federal courts ought to henceforth give greater deference to state and federal regulations of abortion,” adding, “Today’s choice … really should encourage states to utilize what is left of the 2007 legislative session to pass a lot more common-sense pro-life laws” (Chicago Tribune, 4/19).

Broadcast Coverage