Popular Articles

Reps. Ryan, DeLauro Announce Bill To Reduce Unplanned Pregnancies, Provide Social Supports
Abortion opponent Rep. Tim Ryan (D-Ohio) and abortion-rights supporter Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) held a press conference on Thursday to announce a bill that aims to reduce the need for abortion by preventing unintended pregnancies, among other proposals, the New York Times" "The Caucus" reports. The bill -- crafted in part by the centrist group Third Way -- would increase access to contraceptive services, sex education, health care coverage for pregnant women and children, and adoption. It also would expand access to comprehensive sex education and adoption programs.The bill has the support of abortion-rights groups like the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and NARAL Pro-Choice America, both of which had representatives at the press conference. The bill also has the support of antiabortion-rights religious leaders like Joel Hunter of Northland, Fla., and Derrick Harkins of Washington, D.C.The bill, which has been introduced in each of the past three congressional sessions, could "broker a detente" and help "turn down the volume on the culture war," DeLauro said at the press conference. Ryan called the bill an "idea whose time has come," noting that it has gained support from advocates on both sides of the abortion-rights debate.During the press conference, Hunter said advocates of the bill, regardless of their side in the abortion-rights debate, are "taking heat" from other members of their side. He added that the bill is important because it "links together traditional adversaries in a way that advances each of our goals without compromising any of our values" (Becker, "The Caucus," New York Times, 7/23). Harkins said that he is "more optimistic now than I ever have been," adding that women "need real support that divisive debates cannot provide" (Stephenson, CQ HealthBeat, 7/23).Despite support from some antiabortion-rights advocates, the bill has not been welcomed by all groups opposed to abortion rights, including conservative groups Family Research Council, National Right to Life and Democrats for Life of America. Kristen Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said her group does not support the bill because preventing unintended pregnancies already is a goal of other programs. She noted that her group instead supports the Pregnant Women Support Act (HB 2035, SB 270), which focuses on services for women who carry their pregnancies to term but does not include prevention (CQ HealthBeat, 7/23). In a statement, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins said the bill is "fraught with funding for abortion providers and provisions that further encourage promiscuous sex and discourage parental involvement."Although the White House has not voiced a position on the bill, there are "reasons to believe" that the Obama administration will support some of the legislation"s proposals, "The Caucus" reports ("The Caucus," New York Times, 7/23). DeLauro said that she and Ryan plan to seek Republican co-sponsors for the bill, although they do not yet have any. She added that she thinks President Obama will support the bill because it includes language similar to his rhetoric on reducing the need for abortion. In addition, Obama"s chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, was a co-sponsor of the bill when he served in the House (CQ HealthBeat, 7/23). Ryan said that the bill, which does not yet have an estimated cost, is "now open for support from all quarters."According to "The Caucus," the bill is being introduced at a time when abortion is a growing topic in health care reform legislation. Policymakers on both sides of the abortion-rights debate are expressing concern about how private insurance coverage of abortion is treated in health care reform. Ryan and DeLauro both support a policy that would neither require nor forbid insurance companies from covering the procedure ("The Caucus," New York Times, 7/23). During the press conference, DeLauro said that the new bill would not force insurance providers to cover abortion services. She said, "What we don"t want to do is go backward. We
drugs without prescription
Drop In Access To Abortion Would Reward Antiabortion-Rights Violence, Opinion Piece Says
After the murder last month of Kansas abortion provider George Tiller, "there is a very real danger" that the availability of abortion later in pregnancy "will end in this country -- not after public deliberation, legislative debate and majority vote, but because antiabortion absolutists on the fringe have intimidated and blacklisted doctors and successfully threatened violence against them," Jim Buie, author of the blog The Buie Knife, writes in a Newsweek.com opinion piece. Buie writes that his parents in the early 1950s chose to institutionalize his three-year-old-brother, who was born with severe Down syndrome, after their attempts to care for him left them with "severe emotional distress" and unable "to meet the needs of their healthy children."Buie continues that he "cannot say that the option of a late-term abortion would have been the right one for my parents." However, "some of the arguments advanced by pro-life forces disturb me," he says, especially a "tendency to romanticize, sentimentalize and idealize life with a cute, forever-young Down-syndrome "angel child."" Buie adds, "It"s an argument I find off-putting, especially when it"s espoused by people who have never been through the wringer trying to care for a child whose disability level is on the most severe end of the scale." He continues, "At the same time, it is very disturbing that until recently, the majority of Down-syndrome fetuses were aborted without expectant mothers receiving proper information or support."Because of Tiller"s murder, it is "possible there won"t be any doctors in the country willing to perform" abortion later in pregnancy, "even if prenatal tests indicate severe retardation," according to Buie, who adds that this would mean that "domestic terrorism could win." He concludes, "It would mean that parents like my own would no longer have a choice, and would instead be forced to endure the same harsh realities that were present in the 1950s" (Buie, Newsweek.com, 6/17).
News of the day
WMA Urges Sri Lankan President To Intervene On Behalf Of Government Doctors
The World Medical Association has urged the President of Sri Lanka to intervene on behalf of three government employed doctors, two of whom have been detained and the third taken to an unknown destination, after working in the conflict zone in Sri Lanka.
Cardiovascular

Family Planning A Major Environmental Impact

Some people who are serious about wanting to reduce their "carbon footprint" on the Earth have one choice available to them that may yield a large long-term benefit - have one less child. A study by statisticians at Oregon State University concluded that in the United States, the carbon legacy and greenhouse gas impact of an extra child is almost 20 times more important than some of the other environmentally sensitive practices people might employ their entire lives - things like driving a high mileage car, recycling, or using energy-efficient appliances and light bulbs. The research also makes it clear that potential carbon impacts vary dramatically across countries. The average long-term carbon impact of a child born in the U.S. - along with all of its descendants - is more than 160 times the impact of a child born in Bangladesh. "In discussions about climate change, we tend to focus on the carbon emissions of an individual over his or her lifetime," said Paul Murtaugh, an OSU professor of statistics. "Those are important issues and it"s essential that they should be considered. But an added challenge facing us is continuing population growth and increasing global consumption of res." In this debate, very little attention has been given to the overwhelming importance of reproductive choice, Murtaugh said. When an individual produces a child - and that child potentially produces more descendants in the future - the effect on the environment can be many times the impact produced by a person during their lifetime. Under current conditions in the U.S., for instance, each child ultimately adds about 9,441 metric tons of carbon dioxide to the carbon legacy of an average parent - about 5.7 times the lifetime emissions for which, on average, a person is responsible. And even though some developing nations have much higher populations and rates of population growth than the U.S., their overall impact on the global equation is often reduced by shorter life spans and less consumption. The long-term impact of a child born to a family in China is less than one fifth the impact of a child born in the U.S., the study found. As the developing world increases both its population and consumption levels, this may change. "China and India right now are steadily increasing their carbon emissions and industrial development, and other developing nations may also continue to increase as they seek higher standards of living," Murtaugh said. The study examined several scenarios of changing emission rates, the most aggressive of which was an 85 percent reduction in global carbon emissions between now and 2100. But emissions in Africa, which includes 34 of the 50 least developed countries in the world, are already more than twice that level. The researchers make it clear they are not advocating government controls or intervention on population issues, but say they simply want to make people aware of the environmental consequences of their reproductive choices. "Many people are unaware of the power of exponential population growth," Murtaugh said. "Future growth amplifies the consequences of people"s reproductive choices today, the same way that compound interest amplifies a bank balance." Murtaugh noted that their calculations are relevant to other environmental impacts besides carbon emissions - for example, the consumption of fresh water, which many feel is already in short supply. Paul Murtaugh Oregon State University


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):