Dog Articles, Puppy Articles   Pet Articles | Free Dog Articles | Free Cat Articles

Healthcare Prof:

Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Robert Moser said Monday that his office will a lot more strictly enforce a requirement under a 1998 law that abortion providers fill out detailed reports about any abortions they carry out right after 21 weeks of pregnancy, the AP/Kansas City Star reports. Moser was recently appointed by Gov. Sam Brownback (R), who opposes abortion rights. The law prohibits abortion of a viable fetus soon after 21 weeks of pregnancy unless the woman’s life is in danger or she faces “a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.” The law requires abortion providers to fill out a report for each abortion of a viable fetus performed following the 21-week mark, noting the reasons for why the process was necessary along with the basis for that assessment.

Moser stated his department is interpreting the law differently than previous departments, but added that the interpretation is in line with all the intent with the law. He added that the department will enforce the reporting requirement without having any change to state regulation or the reporting forms. He stated, “We’re not seeking at changing the forms at all. They are adequate. It is just the information that needs to be provided in there needs to be accurate, just like any other reporting form. That’s all we’re seeking for — accuracy.”

Based on the AP/Star, prior Democratic governors — Kathleen Sebelius and Mark Parkinson — had allowed abortion providers to use the “substantial and irreversible impairment” phrase in their reports with no any further info (Hanna, AP/Kansas City Star, 1/24).

In other Kansas abortion news, state Rep. Lance Kinzer (R) has introduced a bill (HB 2035) that would require minors to obtain consent from two parents before receiving an abortion, Ms. Magazine reports. Existing Kansas law requires only the consent of one parent (Ms. Magazine, 1/24).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. 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 actually a free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Girls & Families. All rights reserved.

3 (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

1 (1 votes)

Women who had abortions in the very first trimester of pregnancy had been no more likely to seek care for serious mental wellness issues after the procedure than they were before, while women who gave birth had an increased risk of mental wellness issues after delivery, according to a study by Danish researchers published within the New England Journal of Medicine, Reuters reports. The researchers looked at records of 365,550 teenagers and females who had an abortion or first-time delivery between 1995 and 2007; of those women, 84,620 had an abortion and 280,930 gave birth. The researchers looked at women who had mental health issues severe enough to have been admitted towards the hospital or receive outpatient care at a clinic, but not mild depression (Emery, Reuters, 1/26).

Within the initial year after an abortion, 15 out of every single 1,000 ladies received psychiatric counseling, similar to the rate who sought such care nine months before an abortion. Among girls who gave birth, seven in each and every 1,000 sought mental health help within a year of giving birth, compared with four of every single 1,000 who sought care before delivery.

“A woman should know that her risk of getting a psychiatric episode is not increased” following an abortion,” lead researcher Trine Munk-Olsen of Aarhus University, stated. The findings echo the results of a 2008 American Psychological Association report that discovered no evidence that having an abortion affects a woman’s mental well being.

Robert Blum, head of reproductive health at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, said the study is comparable towards the United States, which had similar access to abortion as Denmark. “Anyone who’s ever had a baby knows it’s stressful,” he stated, adding, “That stress doesn’t go away in a week or two” (AP/USA Today, 1/26). Blum praised the study for reaffirming that “There is no evidence that abortion predisposes a woman to psychiatric and mental well being problems” and that there is certainly “no post-abortion trauma, post-abortion syndrome” (Shute, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 1/27).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.

2.2 (five votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Article Opinions:1 posts
Bishop Thomas Olmsted’s choice to revoke St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center’s Catholic status in December “is a bellwether of a profound disagreement that is playing out at several Catholic hospitals around the country,” New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof writes. The loss of the hospital’s Catholic status is related to its authorization of an abortion to save a woman’s life. Hospital administrator Sister Margaret McBride, a member of the hospital’s ethics committee, was excommunicated for approving with the authorization.

Kristof cites a report issued by the National Women’s Law Center that quotes physicians at Catholic-affiliated hospitals as saying that church doctrine sometimes compels them to “provide substandard care to girls with miscarriages or ectopic pregnancies in methods that can leave the women infertile or even endanger their lives.” Kristof writes, “[T]his battle illuminates two rival religious approaches, within the Catholic church and any spiritual tradition. One approach focuses upon dogma, sanctity, rules as well as the punishment of sinners. The other exalts compassion for the needy and mercy for sinners — and, perhaps, above all, inclusiveness.” He adds, “If you look at Bishop Olmsted and Sister Margaret as the protagonists in this battle, one of them truly seems to me to have emulated the life of Jesus,” arguing, “it’s not the bishop, who has spent much of his adult life as a Vatican bureaucrat climbing the career ladder” but rather Sister Margaret and several other nuns and employees of Catholic hospitals who’ve “toiled for decades on behalf of the neediest and sickest among us” (Kristof, New York Times, 1/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. 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 Well being Policy Report is actually a free service with the National Partnership for Females & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Ladies & Families. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The Pennsylvania Senate Banking and Insurance Committee on Tuesday voted 12-2 to approve a bill (HB three) that would prohibit wellness insurance plans that participate in state-based wellness insurance exchanges from offering coverage for abortions, the Philadelphia Inquirer‘s “Commonwealth Confidential” reports. The federal wellness reform law (PL 111-148) mandates that the state-based exchanges should be operational by 2014 to supply a marketplace for individuals and small businesses to purchase coverage.

According to “Commonwealth Confidential,” some abortion rights advocates contend that the measure would be “a step backwards” in reproductive well being care due to the fact federal law already prohibits federal funding of abortion and also the state Senate proposal would restrict abortion coverage in private well being policies. Below state law, exceptions for abortion are permitted in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the woman. Individuals still could go outside the exchange to purchase a supplemental well being plan to cover abortion (Worden, “Commonwealth Confidential,” Philadelphia Inquirer, 1/25).

Wyo. House Defeats Ultrasound Bill

The Wyoming House on Tuesday voted 32-23 to reject a bill (HB 118) that would have needed abortion providers within the state to inform a woman searching for an abortion 24 hours ahead of the process that she could view ultrasound images, the AP/NECN reports. Bill sponsor Rep. Bob Brechtel (R) said he wanted females looking for abortions to know about “the haunting question and also the torture and pain that could be inflicted, especially for the duration of late-term abortions.”

However, Rep. Sue Wallis (R) stated, “If the intention would be to offer you females some information, why can’t that be provided over the phone? Why can’t that be provided on the day she travels across the state. It seems to me that the only reason that’s put in place is to make it much more tough.” NARAL Pro-Choice Wyoming Executive Director Sharon Breitweiser stated the group is “delighted that the Legislature voted down this ill-conceived piece of legislation,” adding, “We lobbied the way we always do, we relied on facts and cause, rather than trying to appeal to emotion” (AP/NECN, 1/25).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report is really a free service of the National Partnership for Girls & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Girls & Families. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

The Arkansas Senate on Thursday voted 27-8 to approve (SB 113) that would prevent health insurers participating within the new well being insurance exchanges from offering abortion coverage, the AP/Texarkana Gazette reports. If females purchasing well being coverage by way of the exchanges wish to have coverage for abortion, they would need to purchase separate policies or riders with private funds.

Bill sponsor Sen. Cecile Bledsoe (R) stated, “This is about tax dollars and Arkansans have said overwhelmingly we don??t want to spend tax dollars on abortions.” Even so, Sen. Joyce Elliott (D) stated, “Nobody plans to have an abortion. Nobody plans to be a victim of rape or incest.” Opponents with the bill noted that it does not permit exceptions for coverage of abortions for survivors of rape or incest (AP/Texarkana Gazette, 1/28). Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said lawmakers should not single out abortion from the rest of health care coverage. She stated, “Telling a woman to buy a separate abortion rider that doesn’t even currently exist is not an answer” (Nuss, AP/Ventura County Star, 1/27).

The Arkansas House will now consider the bill. A spokesperson for Gov. Mike Beebe (D) said the governor is studying the measure but has not yet taken a position on it (AP/Texarkana Gazette, 1/28).

Virginia House Approves Regulations for Abortion Clinics

The Virginia House on Wednesday passed a bill by a vote of 66-33 requiring abortion clinics to be licensed and regulated by the state Board of Wellness, the AP/WUSA9 reports. The legislation — sponsored by Del. Richard Bell (R) — now moves to the Democratic-controlled Senate, exactly where similar bills have failed in recent years (AP/WUSA9, 1/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report is really a free service of the National Partnership for Ladies & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Ladies & Families. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

One day following the House passed a bill (HR 2) that would repeal the federal well being reform law (PL 111-148), House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) “declared a far-reaching anti-choice bill (HR 3) to be one of his ‘highest legislative priorities’,” NARAL Pro-Choice America President Nancy Keenan writes in an opinion piece on The Hill‘s “Congress Blog.” The bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), said, “The fact that it really is designated as H.R. three speaks volumes about priorities” (Keenan, “Congress Blog,” The Hill, 1/25).

Keenan notes that the bill’s “alleged purpose would be to stop federal funding of abortion care under the new wellness care law, when in reality, the bill is an anti-choice attack that reaches far beyond public funding.” She writes, “We call Smith’s bill ‘Stupak on Steroids’ due to the fact it goes even further than former Rep. Bart Stupak’s [D-Mich.] failed attempt to impose an abortion coverage ban on the new wellness system.” HR three “is a very serious threat to women’s access to abortion,” Keenan says, simply because it “would force millions of American families to pay a lot more taxes if their health plan covers abortion care, jeopardizing abortion coverage in the private market.” She notes that 87% of insurance plans currently supply abortion coverage. Further, the bill would narrow exceptions towards the ban on federal funding for abortion care below the Hyde Amendment and deny Medicaid coverage of abortion for survivors of statutory rape or incest, Keenan writes.

“Alarmingly, ‘Stupak on Steroids’ is just one of many anti-choice proposals on the horizon,” Keenan says, noting that Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has introduced legislation (HR 217) that “would dismantle Title X, the country’s family-planning network, which provides basic wellness care services, such as birth control and cancer screenings.” She concludes, “Best we can tell, Boehner assigning Reps. Smith, Pence and other allies to advance these attacks on choice is the closest thing to a job this divisive agenda will produce” (“Congress Blog,” The Hill, 1/25).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report is really a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) “is no longer posing as a moderate voice on abortion rights” and “is now championing the antiabortion cause,” a Newark Star-Ledger editorial states. According to the editorial, Christie favored reproductive rights as a young lawmaker but changed his mind when his daughter was born. The editorial states, “This change of heart can happen to men and ladies when they become parents. What’s unsettling is that the governor would impose his spiritual conversion on the rest of us.” The editorial calls it “disturbing” that Christie “kept these sentiments hidden for the duration of the 2009 campaign,” even suggesting to the Star-Ledger during his 2009 campaign that he supported what he deemed as mild restrictions on abortion, including a 24-hour waiting period and parental notification, but not consent.

While the governor has not yet proposed specific restrictions, “we should be worried,” the editorial states, noting that in an antiabortion-rights rally at the New Jersey statehouse on Monday, Christie stated that abortion is “an concern whose time has come.” Last year, Christie cut state spending on household preparing and women’s wellness services to save $7.five million and blocked Democrats’ attempts to find a way to continue the services by using federal dollars. The governor’s comments on Monday “also underscore the vital importance of blocking his attempt to pack the state Supreme Court with his ideological soul mates.”

Christie’s remarks on abortion “will no doubt improve his national standing on the proper, and boost his odds of becoming a candidate for vice president in 2012,” the editorial states, adding, “His national ambitions, again, have proved costly for New Jersey” (New Jersey Star-Ledger, 1/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report can be a free service with the National Partnership for Ladies & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Women & Families. All rights reserved.

five (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The following summarizes selected women’s health-related blog entries.

“I Went to the March for Life, and All I Got Was This Lousy Fear for Choice,” Sarah Erdreich, Feminists For Choice: The crowd at the March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Monday, was filled with “people myopically focused on obliterating abortion,” Sarah Erdreich writes, noting that the expertise left her “feeling intensely uneasy about the future of choice in this country.” She writes that in terms with the speeches, “men’s voices dominated … talking about what was best for girls, of course, or declaring that abortion was a form of violence against women, or that Roe v. Wade was, variously, evil; bad law; and had caused an American holocaust.” She also discusses “two political assaults on Roe” — HR3, which would limit or eliminate coverage of abortion in private and public wellness plans, along with the Life at Conception Act. She notes, “The crowd absolutely loved each of these bills; anything related to either Hyde or fetuses received large cheers.” She concludes, “While both pieces of legislation might sound like extreme posturing that are not at all concerned with matters like women’s wellness, personal freedom, fertility treatments, or birth manage, they’re perfectly in keeping together with the collective mindset that offered up this quote from Henry Hyde himself to sum up just who the anti-choice movement cares about: ‘Let the innocence with the unborn have the last word in this debate’” (Erdreich, Feminists for Choice, 1/25).

“Will Washington Be Initial to Hold CPCs Accountable?” Amie Newman, RH Reality Check: Washington might be “the initial state within the country to regulate” crisis pregnancy centers through legislation (SB 5274, HB 1366) introduced last week that targets CPCs’ “historically deceitful practices,” RH Reality Check Managing Editor Amie Newman writes. The legislation would require that CPCs — also recognized as Restricted Service Pregnancy Centers — “provide accurate info about the services offered” and would aim to regulate the information females get from such centers. It would require them to offer pregnancy test results instantly, address “the disturbing lack of assured medical privacy or access to medical records,” and disclose that they do not supply services or referrals for abortion or any comprehensive birth manage. “It’s a tough year in Washington State for legislation unrelated towards the state’s current budget crisis,” Newman writes, but “[w]ith 32 co-sponsors so far, the bills seem to have a good chance of passing.” She concludes, “Holding those centers accountable for offering girls with accurate, truthful data about the services supplied — and the underlying belief system which fuels those services — is critical to ensuring the well being and well-being of women of all ages in Washington State” (Newman, RH Reality Check, 1/25).

“Arizona State Senator Cites Abortion Rights as Factor in Tucson Shooting,” Nick Wing, Huffington Post blogs: Wing discusses Arizona state Rep. Linda Gray’s (R) current claim in the course of a radio interview that the choice in Roe v. Wade played “more of a contributing factor” in this month’s deadly Tucson shooting than the state’s gun-control laws. Inside the interview, Gray appeared to “suggest that legalized abortions had caused the general degradation of ‘respect’ for life,” Wing writes. Gray also argued “that acceptance of a woman’s correct to pick had led the generation” with the alleged Tucson shooter “to hold the lives of other people in disregard or even contempt,” he writes. Gray said, “So now we have this generation of folks who have that idea and it continues on, that why respect life if we can kill an infant who can’t defend themselves,” adding, “It goes back towards the value inside the creation of life as well as the respect for that life, and if you’re not trained and have that type of character in realizing that all human life deserves respect, this can be what our country has come to” (Wing, Huffington Post, 1/25).

“Catholic Hospitals’ Practices Fall ‘Below the Radar,’” Jill Morrison, RH Reality Check: “There is compelling evidence that Catholic hospitals sometimes delay or deny treatment to women with certain pregnancy complications,” writes Morrison with the National Women’s Law Center, adding that it’s encouraging that the issue “has caught the attention of the Washington Post and New York Times‘ Nicholas Kristof.” She says that NWLC is asking HHS to “find that these practices violate federal laws that protect patients’ appropriate to receive the standard of care, emergency care, and adequate information on their treatment possibilities.” She calls for females to share their stories of reproductive health care that was denied at Catholic hospitals, adding, “We hope that these dangerous practices won??t be Below the Radar for much longer” (Morrison, RH Reality Check, 1/27).

“Birth Manage and Pap Smears: Why Do They Go Together?” Kimberly Smith, Feminists for Choice: The only medically necessary screening to obtain a prescription for birth manage is a blood pressure test, yet U.S. females are “routinely forced to endure a yearly pap and pelvic exam” to obtain such prescriptions, Smith writes. She adds that requiring pap tests and pelvic exams before females can receive birth control prescriptions is a “way to force girls to have exams that they otherwise might elect to forgo.” Pap tests screen for cervical cancer, but the risk of the disease is low and you can find other ways to decrease the risk, based on Smith. Smith notes, “For a woman who is not at risk for STDs, got the [HPV] vaccine and doesn’t smoke” — a risk factor for HPV — “it is overkill and downright absurd to require a yearly pap smear.” She notes that there’s a “disconnect between the females who have pap and pelvic exams regularly along with the females who are at high risk and who need the exams but rarely, if ever, get them,” which is related to “our failing and bankrupt” health system provides unnecessary testing for men and women who can afford it and that permits folks who need to obtain screenings but cannot afford them “to go by the way side” (Smith, Feminists for Choice, 1/26).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report can be a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Ladies & Families. All rights reserved.

Healthcare Prof:

U.S. District Judge Marvin Garbis has ruled that a Baltimore ordinance (FID 09-0406) requiring crisis pregnancy centers to post signs saying they do not present abortions or birth manage violates the Freedom of Speech Clause of the Constitution and cannot be enforced, the AP/Washington Times reports. The ordinance took impact last year, but had not been enforced as a result of the court proceedings (AP/Washington Times, 1/28). It requires “limited-service pregnancy centers” to post signs in English and Spanish stating what services they offer — including maternity and infant supplies, prenatal care and adoption referrals — and what they don’t offer, like abortion care. Centers that fail to comply within 10 days of being cited by city inspectors could be fined $150 per day (Women’s Well being Policy Report, 8/5/10).

The lawsuit was filed by the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Baltimore and the Greater Baltimore Center for Pregnancy Concerns, which receives rent-free space from the archdiocese (AP/Washington Times, 1/28). Garbis stated, “Whether a provider of pregnancy-related services is ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice,’ it’s for the provider — not the government — to decide when and how to discuss abortion and birth-control method. The government cannot, consistent using the 1st Amendment, require a ‘pro-life’ pregnancy-related service center to post a sign.”

Archbishop Edwin O’Brien said that Garbis’ ruling would allow “the important and compassionate work of these pro-life pregnancy centers to continue with out interference from Baltimore City,” adding that “the ruling also upholds the constitutional rights below the 1st Amendment that protect private citizens who function and volunteer in pregnancy centers from having to convey a government-mandated message.”

The Center for Reproductive Rights and also the City of Baltimore are expected to appeal the ruling (Hare, Baltimore Sun, 1/29).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Well being Policy Report can be a free service of the National Partnership for Ladies & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Ladies & Families. All rights reserved.

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

State Rep. Allen Peake (R) on Thursday introduced a bill (HB89) banning abortions soon after 20 weeks’ gestation based on the notion that a fetus can feel pain, the Macon Telegraph reports. The bill consists of an exception to allow abortion if a woman’s life or the life of another fetus is in danger (Lee, Macon Telegraph, 1/28). The proposal mirrors a Nebraska law (LB 1103) and an Iowa proposal (HF 5) restricting abortion based on claims that fetuses feel pain beginning at 20 weeks’ gestation (Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 1/20).

Under the Georgia bill, any licensed medical professional who performs an abortion following 20 weeks would be guilty of unprofessional conduct and could possibly be sanctioned by the state medical licensing board and face a lawsuit.

Georgia’s current law states that abortion is not permitted soon after the second trimester. The bill has been assigned to a committee hearing, which has not yet been scheduled. Two other legislators — Rep. Donna Sheldon (R) and Rep. James Mills (R) — co-signed the bill.

Planned Parenthood of Georgia has not commented on the bill (Macon Telegraph, 1/28).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women’s Wellness Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women’s Health Policy Report is actually a free service of the National Partnership for Females & Families.

? 2010 National Partnership for Females & Families. All rights reserved.