Hlbrss Health Tips

Green PCs

admin — Sun, 25 Mar 2012 08:00:21 +0000

Personal Computer have changed the people life. And every person have a PC in their home in a normal family. And my opinion every one need a PC. But due the the huge amount of use of the energy due to the Computer in huge sector, the energy consumed is growing day by day. And there must be some solution to this problem. If the huge computer can be made to work in low power available then we can managed the energy saving and bring a revolution in the world.

After some research we found that Low Power PC has been introduced by some people around the world and has been a great success. It has a saying that its energy costs reduced 60% of the current energy consumption. So a Low Power PC can be a great revolution for the people and countries.

Its not just about the power consumption, but they are also the cheapest found on market. If people are really concious about the energy and the money then, I suggest people surely should get a one. I have order a piece for myself, as every good things should be started from ownself.

Save energy, Save world – Go green.

Opinion Pieces Respond To U.S. Supreme Court Ruling Federal Abortion Ban Constitutional

admin — Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000

1 (3 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Several newspapers lately published opinion pieces responding to the Supreme Court’s 5-4 ruling last month to reinstate a federal law banning so-called “partial-birth” abortion, overturning the rulings of 3 appeals courts. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia joined Justice Anthony Kennedy inside the majority opinion and Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens and David Souter joined Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg in the dissent.

President Bush signed the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act (S three) into law in November 2003. Many groups filed lawsuits alleging that the law is unconstitutional due to the fact of the absence of an exception for procedures preformed to protect the wellness of the pregnant woman. In place of a well being exception, the law includes a long “findings” section with medical evidence presented during congressional hearings that, in accordance with supporters with the law, indicates the procedures banned by the law are never medically necessary.

The law says a physician who performs the banned procedures could face criminal prosecution, fines and up to two years in jail. The law allows an exception for cases in which the life with the woman is in danger, but it does not permit doctors to use the procedure simply because they believe using another method would increase risks towards the woman’s wellness (Kaiser Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 4/19). Summaries appear below.

David Brooks, New York Times: Abortion-rights advocates “are terrified of having an honest discussion about human life, so they have built this lofty etiquette of evasion that treats abortion as the moral equivalent of a tonsillectomy,” Times columnist Brooks writes in an opinion piece. In accordance with Brooks, “If we could get this issue away from the abortion professionals and their orthodoxies, we could reach a sensible solution: abortion would be legal, with parental consent for minors, during the first four or five months and illegal except in rare circumstances afterward.” The Supreme Court ruling “is prompted by revulsion over the practice of killing late-term fetuses,” Brooks writes, adding, “Yet for reasons having to do with political tactics, the law that was upheld would not even prevent a single late-term abortion” (Brooks, New York Times, 4/22).

Peter Steinfels, New York Times: Any person “hoping to realize the moral and political passions surrounding” the partial-birth abortion ban and also the Supreme Court’s ruling on its constitutionality “must realize that … not just one but two ethical slippery slopes are at perform within the minds” of U.S. citizens, Times columnist Steinfels writes in an opinion piece. Based on Steinfels, 1 of the “slippery slopes” is that the decision might jeopardize “previous affirmations of abortion rights” along with the other is that there is really a “fear by some that the nation might be slouching toward infanticide” (Steinfels, New York Times, 4/28).

Kirsten Powers, Wall Street Journal: If the Democratic presidential candidates “aren’t swayed by moral arguments” about partial-birth abortion, they should consider how criticizing the Supreme Court’s ruling “will play in the general election,” Fox News political analyst Powers writes in a Journal opinion piece. All of the candidates during a debate in South Carolina last week took a position that is “out of touch with most Americans, including many who are pro-choice,” Powers writes, adding that “rather than parroting the propaganda that elective late-term abortions are ‘health care decisions’ akin to an appendectomy, the Democratic Party should be taking the lead in eliminating a still legal form of elective late-term abortion” (Powers, Wall Street Journal, 5/1).

Ruth Marcus, Washington Post: The Supreme Court’s ruling is “alarming for a number of reasons,” the “most chilling” being the “court’s willingness to subordinate the well being of individual ladies, as well as the individual judgment of physicians, towards the moral whims with the majority,” Post columnist Marcus writes in an opinion piece. However, there is “some hope” that the effect of the ruling “will turn out to be limited,” Marcus writes, adding that Kennedy’s “emotional response” to the procedures banned by the law might not “carry over into his assessment of other abortion laws” (Marcus, Washington Post, 4/25).

William Saletan, Washington Post: Requiring pregnant girls seeking abortions to be given the option of viewing an ultrasound image with the fetus may be the “next target” for abortion-rights opponents, but it also “could force the court to renounce either the partial-birth ban or the right to abortion,” Saletan, a science and technology reporter for Slate magazine, writes in a Post opinion piece. He adds that “the clash in between ultrasound along with the partial-birth abortion ban is ultimately a choice among information and prohibition,” concluding, “To trust the ultrasound, you have to trust the woman” (Saletan, Washington Post, 4/29).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You are able to view the whole 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 Well being Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a totally free service with the Henry J. Kaiser Loved ones Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Loved ones Foundation. All rights reserved.

Missouri Supreme Court Upholds Law Barring Minors From Obtaining Abortions Without Parental Consent

admin — Mon, 19 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0000

five (2 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

5 (1 votes)

The Missouri Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld an abortion-related law (SB 1) that bars minors from undergoing the procedure without the consent of a parent or guardian, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports (Franck, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/2). The law, approved in September 2005, also includes a provision that allows civil litigation to be brought against anyone who helps a minor obtain an abortion outside of Missouri without parental or judicial consent.

Several lawsuits challenging provisions of the law had been filed immediately after the bill passed. A suit filed by Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri sought to block the civil litigation provision, but Jackson County, Mo., Circuit Judge Charles Atwell in November 2005 ruled the provision constitutional. However, Atwell stated the law only is constitutional with judicial limitations that protect free of charge speech, and he issued an injunction stopping enforcement of the provision until a higher court ruled on the case (Kaiser Everyday Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 11/17/06). Planned Parenthood affiliates have argued that the law, which says lawsuits can be filed against individuals who “intentionally cause, aid or assist” minors in obtaining an abortion without consent, could be used to bar abortion-related counseling and information sharing, the AP/Columbia Missourian reports (Lieb, AP/Columbia Missourian, 5/1).

Ruling
The state Supreme Court ruling said the law “cannot be construed to include protected activities for example providing information and counseling” (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/2). The court also rejected a claim that the law violated the commerce clause to the U.S. Constitution by requiring wellness clinics in other states to comply with Missouri’s parental consent requirements. Abortion clinics in other states that follow their own state laws can not be held liable for damages under Missouri’s new law, the court ruled. The court also rejected Planned Parenthood’s claims that the law imposed an undue burden on minors seeking to obtain abortions and violated their “right to travel” (Lieb, AP/Columbia Missourian, 5/1).

Comments
Eve Gartner, a lawyer for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said the ruling provides clear protections to those who are seeking to counsel pregnant teens. She added, “As it concerns free speech, this was a 100% victory.” State Sen. John Loudon (R), author with the law, stated the victory instead belongs to parents, who have been unable to prevent their daughters from crossing state lines to obtain abortions. “It’s a great day for parents since it gives them an option that has been taken away by states like Illinois,” Loudon said (St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 5/2). Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt (R) in a statement stated the court’s decision is a “victory in our efforts to establish a culture that values all human life.” He added, “Parents must be informed of their children’s decision to end an innocent life, and today’s ruling upholds that belief.” The office of Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon (D) said the law immediately took effect Tuesday as a result of the court’s ruling (AP/Columbia Missourian, 5/1).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You’ll be able to view the entire Kaiser Day-to-day Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for e-mail delivery at http://www.kaisernetwork.org/dailyreports/healthpolicy. The Kaiser Every day Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service with the Henry J. Kaiser Loved ones Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Family members Foundation. All rights reserved.

Group, Judicial Candidates File Federal Lawsuit Difficult Pennsylvania Judicial Ethics Code

admin — Fri, 16 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000

4.33 (3 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

The Pennsylvania Household Institute and six judicial candidates from Lancaster County, Pa., have filed a federal lawsuit that claims the lack of clarity in the state’s Code of Judicial Conduct prevents candidates from publicly disclosing their views on political issues, the AP/PennLive.com reports. Based on the AP/PennLive.com, the lawsuit targets a provision of the judicial code that bars candidates from pledging anything more than “the faithful and impartial performance with the duties of office” and from making statements that “commit or appear to commit the candidate with respect to cases, controversies or issues that are likely to come before the court.”

The institute mailed a questionnaire to 120 candidates for state and county judgeships within the May 15 primary, seeking their views on abortion and other issues. Nineteen candidates responded, and many with the candidates who responded declined to answer some questions, citing their concerns about ethics rules violations. The suit also notes a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled judicial candidates can not be prohibited from stating their views on disputed legal or political topics (Jackson, AP/PennLive.com, 5/1). The Supreme Court in June 2002 ruled in a 5-4 decision that Minnesota state judicial candidates have a right to totally free speech during campaigns and may openly discuss their views on issues including abortion (Kaiser Day-to-day Women’s Health Policy Report, 9/7/06).

Reaction
“We feel that the public should be allowed to hear our beliefs,” the Lancaster County candidates in a statement said, adding that they believe “a judge must decide every case based on the law as it exists as well as the facts as they are presented, and not based upon personal beliefs.” Joseph Massa, chief counsel for the judicial conduct board, said the rules clearly allow candidates to publicly disclose their political views, including declaring that they oppose abortion. Massa stated that judicial candidates can not say that, “in any cases that comes before (them), regardless of the evidence … that they are going to (rule) in a preordained manner.” He added that he disagrees with the lawsuit. A federal judge in 2005 dismissed a similar lawsuit filed by the institute, saying it lacked standing (AP/PennLive.com, 5/1).

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

Reuters Examines Challenges To Catholic Teachings On Abortion, Contraception In Brazil

admin — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0000

2.75 (4 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

Abortion-rights supporters in Brazil ahead of Pope Benedict XVI’s visit to the country on May 9 are calling on President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva to confront the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings on abortion and contraception use, Reuters reports. In accordance with Reuters, abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or to save the pregnant woman’s life, but clandestine abortions are common.

Some physicians inside the country say the church has hindered efforts to improve women’s wellness and has slowed the country’s fight against HIV/AIDS. About 74% of Brazil’s 185 million residents are Catholic, but many people ignore the church’s teachings on contraception and abortion. Many Brazilians have multiple sex partners, and commercial sex function is legal inside the country, based on Reuters. In addition, the government provides condoms and birth control pills to residents and has approved human embryonic stem cell research.

Polls conducted among Brazilians have shown that many folks would reject abortion if a referendum on the issue were held, but advocates believe the procedure eventually will be legalized because the church is losing influence in the country, Reuters reports. Dulce Xavier of Catholics for Free Choice stated there is a “huge gap” in Brazil “between what Catholics think about reproductive wellness and the rules the church hierarchy defends.”

According to Reuters, abortion-rights opponents are concerned about recent actions to expand abortion rights in Portugal and Mexico City. Luiz Bassuma, head of the antiabortion caucus in the Brazilian Congress, in a newspaper column said it has been “worrisome for people who believe life starts at conception” (Wade, Reuters, 5/1).

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

Republican Presidential Candidates Discuss Abortion, Stem Cells As Portion Of Initial Debate

admin — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000

three (6 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3 (2 votes)

Ten Republican presidential candidates on Thursday in their first televised debate — held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in Simi Valley, Calif. — fielded questions about their views on abortion rights, stem cell research and other issues, the Washington Post reports. The 90-minute debate included Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Sam Brownback (Kan.); former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani; former Virginia Gov. James Gilmore; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee; former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney; former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson; and Reps. Duncan Hunter (Calif.), Ron Paul (Texas) and Tom Tancredo (Colo.) (Balz/Shear, Washington Post, 5/4). The debate, which was sponsored by MSNBC and Politico.com, involved a “mixture” of questions from Chris Matthews of MSNBC and John Harris of Politico.com, too as questions submitted on the internet from viewers, the New York Times reports.

Abortion-Rights Comments
In accordance with the Times, the candidates considered front-runners — Romney, Giuliani and McCain — differed on social issues, like abortion rights and stem cell research (Nagourney/Santora, New York Times, 5/4). McCain, “alone among the top 3 contenders,” has a “career-long” record of opposing abortion, the AP/Detroit Cost-free Press reports (AP/Detroit Cost-free Press, 5/3).

Giuliani, who has stated he supports abortion rights, gave “conflicting signals” on the issue, in accordance with the Times. Giuliani said he would not be upset if the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that barred state abortion bans, but later he endorsed abortion rights. “It would be O.K. to repeal” Roe, Giuliani said, adding, “Or it would be O.K. also if a strict constructionist judge viewed it as a precedent, and I think a judge has to make that decision.” Giuliani also said that he supported public financing of abortion for poor women in New York state but added that “people can come to a different decision.”

Romney discussed his shift from supporting abortion rights during his run for governor of Massachusetts to becoming an abortion-rights opponent, the Times reports. “I’ve always been personally pro-life, but for me there was a great question about whether or not government should intrude in that decision,” Romney said. He added that it was the debate more than cloning in his state that influenced him to alter his stance on abortion-rights. “I was wrong and changed my mind,” Romney stated, adding, “I’m proud of that, and I won’t apologize to anybody for becoming pro-life” (New York Times, 5/4).

All with the candidates had been asked if the repeal of Roe would be a good day for the country. Brownback stated it could be a “glorious day of human liberty and freedom” if Roe case were overturned, and Tancredo said it would be the “greatest day in this country’s history” (Reuters, 5/4). Gilmore stated that the Roe case had been “wrongly decided” (Barabak/Reston, Los Angeles Times, 5/4).

Embryonic Stem Cell Research Comments
Giuliani and McCain were the only candidates to support federal funding for human embryonic stem cell research (Washington Post, 5/4). Giuliani offered support for funding such research if it is “not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we’re not having human cloning, and we limit it to that” (New York Times, 5/4). Brownback voiced his opposition to the research, saying, “It’s not necessary to kill a human life for us to heal people” (Los Angeles Times, 5/4).

A transcript of the debate and MSNBC video excerpts of the candidates’ comments on Roe and abortion rights are available online.

NPR’s “All Things Considered” on Thursday included a discussion with NPR correspondent Ina Jaffe, who attended the debate. The segment includes comments about the candidates’ remarks on abortion rights and embryonic stem cell research (Siegel, “All Things Considered,” NPR, 5/3). Audio with the segment is available on the internet.

NPR’s “Morning Edition” also reported on the debate. The segment includes candidates’ comments on abortion rights, amongst other issues (Jaffe, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 5/3). Audio with the segment is accessible on the internet.

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. It is possible to view the whole 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 Health Policy Report is published for kaisernetwork.org, a free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Family members Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Loved ones Foundation. All rights reserved.

Bush Sends Letter To Pelosi, Reid Threatening To Veto Legislation That Would Weaken Federal Abortion Laws

admin — Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

President Bush on Thursday sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) saying he will veto legislation that would weaken federal policies or laws on abortion, including measures that would “allow taxpayer dollars to be used for the destruction of human life,” the New York Times reports (New York Times, 5/4). Inside the two-page letter, Bush wrote, “I believe it may be the most basic duty of government to guard the innocent. With that in mind, I will veto any legislation that weakens current federal policies and laws on abortion or that encourages the destruction of human life at any stage.”

According to CongressDaily, Bush’s letter comes as the House prepares to begin the fiscal year 2008 appropriations process, which likely will see efforts by Democratic lawmakers to attach abortion-rights provisions to spending bills (Cohn, CongressDaily, 5/4). The National Right to Life in a statement stated that some appropriations bills include provisions that limit federal financing of abortion and that abortion-rights groups have been advocating Democrats to alter those measures (New York Times, 5/4). Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) has introduced legislation that would overturn the so-called “Mexico City” policy (CongressDaily, 5/4). The policy — originally implemented by President Reagan at a population conference in Mexico City in 1984, removed by President Clinton and reinstated by Bush during the first days of his presidency — bars U.S. funding from going to international groups that support abortion, even with their own money, through direct services, counseling or lobbying activities. Bush in September 2003 issued an executive order that prevents the State Department from giving loved ones preparing grants to international groups that provide abortion-related counseling (Kaiser Every day Women’s Wellness Policy Report, 7/19/04).

Reaction
White House spokesperson Tony Fratto stated, “The president felt that it was important to remind Congress of his position on these issues,” adding, “It’s not about vetoing, it’s about standing firm on his core beliefs.” Pelosi spokesperson Brendan Daly stated the speaker interpreted the president’s letter as a threat “to veto any pro-choice legislation.” He added, “Instead of trying to work with Congress he’s trying to threaten Congress, and that will not work” (New York Times, 5/4). Daly added that Democrats would seek to overturn statutes including the Mexico City policy. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a statement said, “The president has pledged to veto any legislation that contains pro-abortion or other anti-life measures that weaken current policy or regulations, and House Republicans stand ready to support him.” Based on CongressDaily, Democrats are unlikely to have the required number of votes to override a presidential veto of any abortion-rights-related legislation (CongressDaily, 5/4).

The letter is obtainable on the web on the NRTL Web site.

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

United Arab Emirates Ministry Of Well being To Choose Whether or not To Legalize Abortion If Fetus Has Particular Genetic Conditions

admin — Tue, 06 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

5 (2 votes)

The United Arab Emirates Ministry of Well being is working with legal and religious authorities within the country to draft a law that would allow abortions if a fetus is found to have certain genetic conditions, Ali Shakar, undersecretary for the well being ministry, said lately, Gulf News reports.

Abortion currently is banned inside the country except to save the life of the pregnant woman, which is in accordance with Islamic law, according to Gulf News. Shakar stated that the “choice to have an abortion will likely be under the umbrella of religion,” adding, “Whatever we decide has to be inside the religious and social environment.” According to Gulf News, some “schools of thought” say that the abortion of a fetus with certain genetic conditions is allowed under Islamic law as long as the fetus at less than 120 days’ gestation.

Shakar said abortion might be permitted if a fetus is found to have sickle cell anemia, Trisomy 21, Down’s Syndrome or thalassaemia, which is characterized by a breakdown of oxygen-rich red blood cells. Shakar said the ministry has not reached a final decision on which diseases could be included on the list, adding that a new law would not be easy to pass. About one in 12 residents of the United Arab Emirates carry the gene for thalassaemia, the Gulf News reports (Muslim, Gulf News, 5/3).

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

Los Angeles Times Examines Late-Term Abortion Procedures

admin — Sun, 04 Mar 2012 00:00:00 +0000

4.5 (8 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

4.17 (6 votes)

The Los Angeles Times on Sunday examined the late-term abortion procedures called “intact dilation and extraction” and “dilation and evacuation.” Intact dilation and extraction involves removing the fetus feet-first except for the head. Physicians then use suction to collapse the head, usually after injecting the fetus with a drug to kill it before beginning the procedure, according to the Times. The procedure is banned by a federal law (S three) that was upheld by a 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month. The law bans so-called “partial-birth abortion,” which is really a term created by the National Right to Life Committee in 1995 and is not used by physicians, based on the Times.

Dilation and evacuation — which uses suction and forceps to remove fetal tissue from the uterus and, within the process, breaks up the fetus — is not banned by the law, but physicians sometimes begin the procedure and end up performing an intact dilation and extraction, the Times reports. “If you intend to do a standard [dilation and evacuation] and then find that you have to do a procedure that the law bans, then, as I comprehend it, you are not breaking the law,” Eleanor Drey, an ob-gyn and medical director of the Women’s Options Clinic at the University of California-San Francisco, said.

She added that physicians are not sure what would violate the law. Based on the Times, physicians are “especially concerned” about cases of second trimester miscarriages in which intact dilation and extraction must be performed to protect the well being or life with the woman. Most late-term abortions are performed because of “developmental defects” within the fetus, such as fluid within the brain or organs growing outside the body, the Times reports (Beckman, Los Angeles Times, 5/7).

Los Angeles Times Examines Surgical, Medical Abortion
The Times also on Sunday examined the differences in between surgical and medical abortion. In accordance with the Times, although many females in the first trimester “have a clear choice” about the type of abortion they have, choosing the “right procedure isn’t always simple.” Surgical abortions involve a suction device that is used to remove the contents of the uterus. The drug mifepristone, sold under the brand name Mifeprex by Danco Laboratories, is taken in combination with the drug misoprostol to induce a medical abortion up to 49 days’ gestation. Surgical abortions are nearly 100% effective, even though medical abortions “have a low but measurable failure rate,” according to the Times. Surgical abortion also can “be done relatively quickly,” while medical abortions “typically take longer to complete,” the Times reports. In accordance with the Times, the decision between medical and surgical abortion “can be pragmatic or emotional, based on considerations including cost, availability or a preference to have the abortion at home or in the doctors’ office” (Ulene, Los Angeles Times, 5/7).

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

McCain Says Abortion-Rights Supporter Would Have Difficulty Winning Republican Presidential Nomination

admin — Thu, 01 Mar 2012 12:00:00 +0000

five (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

4 (three votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts
Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who is running for the Republican presidential nomination, in an interview on Monday stated that it would be difficult for an abortion-rights supporter to win the party’s nomination, the AP/Forbes reports. McCain, who opposes abortion rights, stated that one with the party’s “fundamental principles” is to have “respect and commitment to the dignity of human life, both the born and unborn.” He added that an abortion-rights supporter would have difficulty winning the nomination simply because the Republican Party is “basically composed to a significant degree by people who are pro-life, just as the Democratic Party has pro-choice candidates.” In accordance with the AP/Forbes, the “issue is far from symbolic” for McCain simply because former New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani (R), who also is running for the Republican nomination, supports abortion rights (Glover, AP/Forbes, 5/8).

Giuliani Comments
Giuliani on Monday in an interview with nationally syndicated radio host Michael Reagan defended his support for abortion rights, saying that Republicans should “respect me for telling [them] the truth.” Giuliani has said he is “personally” opposed to abortion but that ultimately it is actually a matter of “personal choice.” Giuliani has stated that the “best answer” to the abortion debate is to “let folks make that judgment (for themselves)” and to then try to “limit abortions” by “encourag[ing] adoption” and “ban[ning] partial-birth abortions,” among other actions (Saltonstall, New York Every day News, 5/8).

In related news, Maria Comella, a spokesperson for Giuliani’s campaign, responded to reports that Giuliani, along with his former wife, made donations totaling $900 to national, state and city chapters of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1993, 1994, 1998 and 1999, the New York Times reports. Comella stated that Giuliani has been “consistent in his position” and that he is “personally opposed to abortion, but at the same time, he understands it can be a personal and emotional decision that should ultimately be left up to the woman” (Wheaton, New York Times, 5/8).

Romney Comments
In other news, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney (R), who also is seeking the Republican nomination, on Monday in an interview on Fox News’ “Hannity and Colmes” said he is becoming unfairly criticized for shifting his stance on abortion rights from supporting to opposing them, the AP/Foster’s Daily Democrat reports. Romney said that if he had “been pro-life and then changed to pro-choice, no one would ask the question” (AP/Foster’s Daily Democrat, 5/7).

“Reprinted with permission from http://www.kaisernetwork.org. You can view the entire Kaiser Everyday Health 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 totally free service of the Henry J. Kaiser Household Foundation . ? 2005 Advisory Board Company and Kaiser Loved ones Foundation. All rights reserved.