According to Politico, the race between Titus and Heck is "one of the most competitive House contests" this election cycle, with a mid-August Mason-Dixon poll showing the two candidates in a statistical tie of 43% for Titus and 42% for Heck. A "significant offensive" against Heck could give Titus a boost in the campaign, Politico reports.
The new ad attacks a vote Heck made while serving in the Nevada state Senate against a bill that would have required health plans to cover the human papillomavirus vaccine, which prevents some forms of HPV that can cause cervical cancer. The ad states that Heck "actually voted against requiring insurance companies to cover the vaccine" and "said women wouldn't need it if they did not engage in risky behavior." The ad continues, "This from a man who graduated from medical school. ... If we can't trust Heck with our health, can we trust him with our future?"
The ad campaign is "precision-targeted" toward women ages 18 through 49, Politico reports. It will air on TV shows and websites where young Nevada women are likely to see it, including during MTV's "Teen Mom" and "Jersey Shore," on the Internet TV site Hulu, and during TV shows like "Grey's Anatomy," "30 Rock," and "Real Housewives of New Jersey." A simultaneous campaign will run on Facebook, with ads reading "What the Heck?" and "Heck: Bad for Our Health."
EMILY's List spokesperson Jen Bluestein Lamb said the group "will do everything we can to ensure voters know the truth and get out to vote" (Burns, Politico, 9/8).
Associated Press Fact Checks Anti-Health Reform Claims
Several Republican candidates and their supporters are airing campaign ads attacking the federal health reform law (PL 111-148) and the Democratic candidates who voted for it, the AP/ABC News reports in a fact check of such ads. The ads "often resor[t] to exaggeration and omission to make their points," including claims regarding abortion, the AP/ABC News reports.
For example, radio ads by AUL Action, the legislative arm of Americans United for Life, claim that three House Democrats who voted for the health reform law -- Reps. John Boccieri (Ohio), Christopher Carney (Pa.) and Baron Hill (Ind.) -- "voted for taxpayer-funded abortion." The ads also call the law "the largest expansion of taxpayer-funded abortions ever."
However, the AP/ABC News reports that an executive order signed by President Obama after the bill's passage reaffirms that the reform law prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for abortion coverage.
AUL argues that Obama's executive order could be reversed and that courts "could interpret" the law as permitting federal funding for abortion services. Such situations "are hypothetical, and the trend is in the other direction," the AP/ABC News reports. For example, HHS announced in July that the high-risk insurance pools created under the law are prohibited from covering abortion except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman (Kuhnhenn, AP/ABC News, 9/8).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.
© 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.
четверг, 26 апреля 2012 г.
EMILY's List Launches Campaign Against Nev. Congressional Candidate Heck
четверг, 19 апреля 2012 г.
FDA Warns Bayer About Two Illegal Aspirins
aspirins that contain supplements and claim to be effective not only for pain relief but against heart disease, and this constitutes a use for which the
drugs have not been given approval and therefore makes them illegal said the agency in a statement on Tuesday.
The two aspirins are: Bayer Women's Low Dose Aspirin + Calcium (Bayer Women's) and Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage (Bayer Heart
Advantage).
Bayer Women's has aspirin and calcium carbonate in a single tablet and Bayer Heart Advantage has aspirin and phytosterols in a single tablet. They
both carry labels that describe them as being a drug and a dietary supplement, but when these are together in one tablet the product is subject to FDA
regulation said the FDA.
Mike Chappell, the FDA's acting associate commissioner for regulatory affairs said in a statement that:
"The FDA considers these products new drugs and thus they must undergo the FDA's drug approval process."
Chappell said the federal agency was prepared to enforce action against manufacturers who broke the law or who tried to get around the drug approval
process.
The two aspirins are labelled not only as pain relievers, but also carry claims that they reduce the risk of heart disease, said the FDA statement. Bayer's
Women's also claims to "fight" osteoporosis. Neither of these uses is approved by the FDA. Moreover, the drugs are misbranded said the agency since such uses take the products out of the OTC
category because these conditions should be diagnosed by a healthcare professional who then advises which medication to take and then supervises the
patient on the drug.
Dr Janet Woodcock, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research said she was troubled by the marketing of these unapproved
drugs.
"Because OTC drugs are widely used by consumers, without supervision by a doctor or other health care professional, the overuse or misuse of these
aspirin-containing products can put consumers at risk for internal bleeding and other adverse events."
"It is essential that companies obtain FDA approval and fully comply with FDA regulations."
The FDA said the labels also carry mixed messages about long versus short term use because the instructions for the aspirin content conflict with the
instructions for the supplement content.
It would seem that part of the problem is in the wording. Claiming to fight a disease or directly claiming to lower cholesterol is not the same as
claiming to reduce the risk of these conditions.
The label on the Bayer Heart Advantage product claims that the phytosterols are intended to lower blood cholesterol and the label on the Bayer
Women's product claims that the calcium is intended to strengthen bones to "fight" osteoporosis.
Although some dietary supplements that contain calcium are allowed to claim to "reduce the risk of osteoporosis", claims to fight or treat the
condition directly requires approval by the FDA. Similarly, some supplements containing phytosterols are allowed to claim they "reduce the risk of
coronary heart disease" and may say they do this by lowering blood cholesterol, but a direct claim to lower cholesterol is the same as saying the drug
prevents or treats coronary heart disease and hypercholesterolemia, for which FDA approval is necessary.
Not only should the company apply for new drug approval for such claims, but they would not be approved for OTC use anyway and to market them as
such is another reason that makes them illegal, said the FDA.
There are some conditions under which the FDA allows OTC drugs to be marketed without first getting FDA approval but the agency said these two drugs
do not meet the conditions because they do not comply with "set requirements for the drugs' labeling and formulation, as well as the indications (uses)
for which the drugs can be marketed".
The FDA said it was not aware of any significant adverse events arising from use of these products.
According to Reuters, a Bayer spokesperson told the press that the company stands by both products and defends its right to market them as labelled.
The drug company said advertisements tell consumers to check with their health professional before taking aspirin with supplements, and the label on
the Bayer Aspirin with Heart Advantage also says it does not replace cholesterol-lowering medication.
Sources: FDA, Reuters.
: Catharine Paddock, PhD.
четверг, 12 апреля 2012 г.
Blogs Comment On Catholics' Support For Health Reform, Chicago 'Bubble Zone' Law, Other Topics
"Survey of Catholics: Strong Support for Health Reform and Women's Rights," Kathleen Reeves, RH Reality Check: A recent survey by Catholics for Choice found that, "lo and behold, the Catholic hierarchy is not in line with [U.S] Catholics" on the issue of abortion coverage under health care reform, Reeves writes. While many Catholic bishops "have voiced unconditional opposition" to any health reform legislation that does not explicitly exclude coverage for abortion services, 68% of Catholics surveyed "disagree[d] with the idea that Catholics should oppose the entire health care reform plan if it includes coverage for abortions," Reeves says. The survey also found that 21% of Catholics believe abortion should be legal in all cases, half of whom said health insurance plans should cover abortion services "whenever a woman and her doctor decide it is appropriate." She continues, "This is one of the survey's most valuable findings -- that is, you don't have to be 'pro-choice' in any traditional political sense to believe in a woman's right to choose an abortion" or "that insurance should cover this medical procedure." In addition, "even if some Catholics don't believe in abortion and don't believe that any health plan should cover abortion, these Catholics don't necessarily wish to sacrifice health care reform for these beliefs," Reeves writes. She concludes, "Perhaps Catholic bishops should look to their flock for a reminder of how religion does what it does best; that is, to fight suffering, degradation and despair" (Reeves, RH Reality Check, 10/12).
"Roundup: Abortion Clinic Safety Zones in Chicago; Misreading the Pew Poll on Attitude Toward Abortion," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: In a blog entry, Jacobson highlights recent news relating to abortion rights, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley's (D) announcement that he will sign an ordinance requiring protesters "to keep a healthy distance from women entering abortion clinics." Daley said, "Everybody has the right to demonstrate and picket," but "to use words and other things to frighten people going in to seek assistance, that is another question." Jacobson also references an American Prospect blog entry by Sarah Posner "argu[ing] that some commentators ... have misread recent polls on abortion," including the recent Pew Research Center poll on abortion attitudes. A commentary in The Politic Jonathan McCleod "suggests that U.S. health reform make room for federal funding on abortion care," Jacobson writes. McCleod wrote, "[I]t would be wrong for the government to start dictating the terms of valid insurance coverage, such that a common and basic procedure like abortion would be excluded. If the government is going to take taxpayer's money to create a subsidy, the government has no right to create disincentives to purchase that which an individual considers the optimal insurance coverage" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 10/12).
"Abortion: A Healthy Choice," Jacob Appel, Huffington Post blogs: Some abortion-rights opponents "have increasingly attempted to scare women away from abortion with specious claims that the procedure is unsafe," including suggesting links between abortion and breast cancer and mental health issues, writes Appel, a medical historian and bioethicist. "Even if these assertions were true -- and years of study have established categorically that they are not -- this data would obscure the larger truth regarding abortion and women's health," which is that "abortion is convincingly far safer for maternal health than bringing a fetus to term," he states. Appel notes that about 500 additional women would have died in childbirth if the 50 million abortions that have occurred since 1973 were carried to full-term deliveries. According to Appel, studies show that the risk of a woman in the U.S. dying in childbirth is approximately one in 7,500, compared with a risk of dying of one in one million for abortions in the first eight weeks of pregnancy, when the majority of procedures take place. The "shell game perpetrated by abortion opponents is quite clever" because they "focus public attention on a comparison between abortion and baseline health, rather than between abortion and pregnancy," Appel writes. He continues that although the "significant risks of childbirth may well be worth enduring for the rich joys of motherhood, ... "[w]hat is harder for me to understand is why anyone would take such risks in order to deliver a baby that they do not want." Appel adds, "That should be a woman's choice too, of course. But if you're going to put your own well-being at risk, you should certainly know all the risks" (Appel, Huffington Post blogs, 10/11).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
четверг, 5 апреля 2012 г.
European Court Of Human Rights Upholds Ruling That Rights Of Polish Woman Allegedly Denied Abortion Were Violated
Alicja Tysiac alleges that Poland's abortion law violated her rights under Article 8 and Article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantee "respect for privacy and family life" and "prohibition of discrimination," respectively. Polish law allows abortion only if a woman has been raped, if there is danger to the life of the woman or if the fetus will have birth defects. Three ophthalmologists in February 2000 told Tysiac she would go blind if she were to give birth to a third child. None of the doctors would refer her for an abortion procedure.
In April 2000, Tysiac had an appointment at a public hospital in Warsaw, Poland, where a gynecologist said there was no medical reason to have the procedure. Tysiac gave birth via caesarean section in November 2000. After her c-section, Tysiac experienced a retinal hemorrhage. Since then, "a panel of doctors concluded that her condition required treatment and daily assistance and declared her to be significantly disabled," court documents said.
Ruling, Reaction
Tysiac filed a complaint with the European Court in January 2003, and the court upheld her appeal in March 2007. The ruling stated that Poland failed to guarantee access to legal abortions, that Tysiac's privacy rights had been violated and that her treatment had caused her "severe distress and anguish." In the decision, the court said that Poland has no effective legal framework for pregnant women to assert their right to abortion on medical grounds. It added that Polish law "did not contain any effective mechanism capable of determining whether the conditions for obtaining a lawful abortion had been met" (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 6/21).
According to the Times, the ruling "enraged" the government of Prime Minister Jaroslaw Kaczynski (Irish Times, 9/25). The governing coalition in the country has been pushing for a total ban on abortion. However, Kaczynski's conservative party has tried to keep abortion-related issues "off the political agenda" since lawmakers in April rejected proposals for tougher abortion restrictions (Kaiser Daily Women's Health Policy Report, 6/21). Under the ruling, the government will be required to pay Tysiac 39,000 euros, or about $54,900 (Irish Times, 9/25).
Reprinted with kind permission from kaisernetwork. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery at kaisernetwork/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Daily Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork, a free service of The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation© 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.