Health

Subterms

    More stories

    • 100 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans confident supreme court will overturn abortion rights

      by

      Republicans confident supreme court will overturn abortion rightsMississippi governor Tate Reeves says state ‘snap-back’ legislation will ban almost all abortion if Roe v Wade is thrown out entirely

      Opinion: the supreme court is coming for women’s rights
      As the supreme court weighs the future of abortion access in America, Republicans on Sunday expressed confidence that the landmark 1973 Roe v Wade decision would soon be overturned, paving the way for a raft of anti-abortion legislation around the country next year.‘Historical accident’: how abortion came to focus white, evangelical angerRead moreOn Wednesday, the supreme court heard arguments over a Mississippi law that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Observers suggested that the conservative supermajority on the court appeared poised to uphold the law and potentially go further by overturning Roe, which protects a woman’s right to choose. A decision is not expected until June next year.Mississippi’s governor, Tate Reeves, told CNN’s State of the Union he had “some reason for optimism” after this week’s arguments.He also confirmed that if the landmark ruling was overturned entirely, Mississippi would enforce a ban on almost all abortions in the state under a so-called “trigger law”.“That is a yes,” Reeves said when asked if he would enforce the “snap-back” legislation.“Because if you believe as I believe very strongly that that innocent, unborn child in the mother’s womb is in fact a child, the most important word when we talk about unborn children is not unborn, but it’s children.”The position is not representative of the majority of Americans. According to recent polling, seven in 10 are opposed to overturning Roe v Wade while 59% believe abortion should be legal in all or most circumstances.Nonetheless, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a global research and policy organisation “committed to advancing sexual and reproductive health and rights”, 21 US states are certain to attempt some form of ban on abortion should Roe be overturned, using laws already on the books.Reeves caveated his answer by cautioning that Mississippi’s response to the forthcoming supreme court ruling would be “dependent upon how the court rules and exactly what those opinions allow us to do”. He also noted that any decision would not lead to a national ban but could permit states to make their own determinations.Mike Braun, a Republican senator for Indiana, echoed a number of Reeves’ arguments. He told NBC’s Meet the Press he wanted “abortions to be eliminated from the landscape” but would not be drawn into specifics regarding potential laws in his state.Indiana has enacted 55 abortion restrictions and bans in the past decade, according to the Guttmacher Institute, but does not have a “trigger law” or equivalent on the books. It is listed by the institute as one of five states without these laws that are still likely to move towards almost total bans should Roe be overturned.“When it comes to things like abortion, I think it’s clear it’s time to turn it back to the states,” Braun told NBC.Since former president Donald Trump installed three conservative justices to the supreme court in just four years, both sides of the fight over abortion rights have been preparing for a legal showdown.According to the Associated Press, campaign finance data reveals that pro-abortion-access groups donated $8m in 2018 and more than $10m in 2020.Those numbers outpace the public contributions of anti-abortion groups, which donated $2.6m in 2018 and $6.3m in 2020, according to data. But the complexity of the network of nonprofits and “dark money” funds makes it difficult to produce a full accounting of the money flows.TopicsRepublicansMississippiUS supreme courtAbortionUS constitution and civil libertiesLaw (US)US healthcarenewsReuse this content More

    • 188 Shares169 Views

      in UK Politics

      Expansion of Covid booster jabs to start ‘no later than 13 December’, says NHS England

      by

      The expansion of the Covid booster jab rollout to include adults under the age of 40 will begin no later than 13 December, NHS England has said.Boris Johnson’s government has pushed for all adults to be made eligible for boosters, and has promised all adults in England will be offered a booster jab by the end of January.The top scientists Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) have said the time between a second dose and booster should be reduced from six months to three months.But the booking service for the booster jabs is yet to be updated – with under-40s and over-40s who have not yet waited six months since their second dose still unable to make an appointment.In a letter from the health service released on Friday, it was revealed the booking system would be updated to reflect the reduction of the time between doses “as soon as possible and no later than 13 December”.NHS England also said the jabs would be delivered “in descending age groups – with priority given to the vaccination of older adults and those in a Covid-19 at-risk group first”.It is understood the rollout to the older age groups set to become eligible could begin earlier than 13 December, as soon as the UK Health Security Agency updates its guidance.Healthcare leaders have raised concerns over whether they will be able to meet Mr Johnson’s end-of-January deadline, which will mean going from 2.5 million jabs a week to 3.5 million, and still maintain routine NHS care.GP surgeries have been given permission to defer routine health checks for those aged 75 and over to free up capacity to deliver the vaccines, while the army and “clinical students” could also be called on to help deliver the jabs.And while it was recognised that the health service was already under pressure, the letter stressed there was a “new national mission” after ministers set the challenge for the NHS to offer boosters to all adults in just 62 days.The health authorities have confirmed that there were “no supply challenges” with either Moderna or Pfizer booster stocks.The new rollout details come as the first case of the omicron variant in Wales was confirmed. The case is in the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board area and is linked to international travel, the Welsh Government said.While figures showed Covid infections have increased in all four UK nations and remain close to record levels, though the latest rise is not linked to the arrival of the omicron variant.Around one in 60 people in private households in England had Covid-19 in the week to 27 November, up from one in 65 the previous week, according to estimates from the Office for National Statistics (ONS).However, No 10 ruled out making vaccines compulsory, as has been seen in Austria and is being considered in Germany.A spokesman for the prime minister told reporters: “It’s not something that we would look to introduce. You’re aware of the changes we made in terms of social care settings and for NHS workers … But there’s no plans above and beyond that.”Meanwhile, partygoers were urged to “keep calm and carry on” with their Christmas festivities despite scientists raising the alarm about the risks associated with gathering for social events.Conservative Party chairman Oliver Dowden said his party had no intention of cancelling its own Christmas drinks, and others should continue with their celebrations.No 10 said any staff parties held at Downing Street in the run-up to Christmas would be “private events” that would not be publicly announced. More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearing

      by

      Abortion rights advocates vow to fight on after supreme court hearingLeaders say they will look to statehouses and lower courts if justices allow undermining of Roe v Wade In the wake of Wednesday’s supreme court hearing in which a majority of justices appeared willing to significantly curb abortion rights, reproductive rights advocates said they would continue to fight in statehouses and lower courts for the right to choose.The supreme court heard oral arguments in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization, widely regarded as the most important abortion rights case in nearly five decades.The case before the court pits Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s last abortion clinic, also known as the “Pink House”, against the state health director, Dr Thomas Dobbs. A decision is expected in June 2022.Conservative US supreme court justices signal support for restricting abortion in pivotal caseRead moreMississippi intends to ban abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy, a move blocked so far by lower courts.While a significant blow to abortion rights is far from a foregone conclusion, questions from the supreme court’s conservative justices on Wednesday appeared to show a willingness to allow restrictions on abortion at 15 weeks and perhaps earlier in a pregnancy.The case also requests the court overturn Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 supreme court decision that established a constitutional right to abortion and is the only safeguard for such rights in dozens of conservative US states.Under present law, pregnant people have a right to terminate a pregnancy up to the point a fetus can survive outside the womb, widely regarded as 24 weeks gestation. A full-term pregnancy is considered 39 weeks gestation.In a consensus shared across the political spectrum, at least five justices appeared divided over whether to significantly curb or overturn Roe v Wade.Six of the nine justices lean to the right, with three of them nominated by Donald Trump during his one-term presidency. “Congress could fix the issue right now,” said Nancy Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), the organization that represented abortion providers in the supreme court on Wednesday.Although abortion was legalized in 1973 and has been relied upon by women nationally since then, Congress has never affirmed the right to abortion in legislation. That left the Roe v Wade precedent as the principle protection of the option for termination, while anti-abortion campaigners have brought many legal challenges and also pushed laws undermining access to the procedure.“All these bans and undue burdens in abortion care would be addressed by the Women’s Health Protection Act,” Northup said, referring to a bill recently passed by the US House of Representatives. “That would make sure women can access abortion without unnecessary bans.”Thus far, the bill has been viewed as highly unlikely to pass into law because it would need to overcome the Senate filibuster rule, requiring a 60-vote majority in the evenly divided chamber, where the Republicans would oppose it.Joe Biden said on Wednesday: “I support Roe v Wade. I think it’s a rational position to take.”Julie Rikelman, CRR’s litigation director, who argued before the justices, said campaigners would continue to fight if the supreme court went against reproductive choice. “We will continue to make every argument we can in the federal courts, we will continue to litigate in the state courts … we will not stop fighting, because it is just too important,” Rikelman said.Shannon Brewer, the director of the Pink House, said the coming months would be tough, with her providers “sitting and waiting and twiddling our thumbs” in anticipation of a decision.“It was a difficult day for everybody [but] I listened to the arguments and I think they did a great job at representing women today,” Brewer said.Following what was widely viewed as a hearing favorable to anti-abortion forces, conservatives chimed in.“What we want to see is the court do the right thing and overturn Roe,” said Chip Roy, a Republican US representative from Texas. He decried fears over a threat to choice as a “wailing and gnashing of teeth from the left”.Sam Brownback, the former US ambassador at large for international religious freedom under Trump, said it was time to overturn Roe “and let states address the issue”.Overturning Roe v Wade would effectively return the issue to be decided at state level, where swaths of the south and midwest would be “certain or likely” to ban most abortion. Already, several states have banned abortion at six weeks, though all those laws have been blocked by courts, with the prominent exception of Texas.Some reproductive rights advocates remained optimistic.Schaunta James-Boyd, co-executive director of Trust Women, an organization dedicated to providing abortions in underserved states, said her group “look[s] forward to a positive outcome later in 2022”.The pressure to legislate an affirmative right to abortion in states not openly hostile is likely to increase as a supreme court decision nears. While 26 states are “certain or likely” to outlaw abortion if Roe v Wade were overturned, states such as New York and Illinois have worked to protect abortion rights. Polling shows about six in 10 Americans believe abortion should be legal in “all or most” circumstances.Meanwhile, the House speaker and California Democrat Nancy Pelosi said: “The House is committed to defending women’s health freedoms and to enshrining into law our House-passed Women’s Health Protection Act, led by Congresswoman Judy Chu, to protect reproductive health care for all women across America.”She added that the supreme court “has the opportunity and responsibility to honor the constitution, the law and this basic truth: every woman has the constitutional right to basic reproductive healthcare”.TopicsAbortionHealthGenderUS politicsUS supreme courtLaw (US)newsReuse this content More

    • 175 Shares109 Views

      in UK Politics

      Government’s Nervtag advisers ‘can’t rule out’ omicron causing biggest wave yet of Covid infections

      by

      The omicron variant could see a surge in new Covid-19 infections across Britain even bigger than previous waves, a key group of government advisers has warned.Scientists in the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (Nervtag), which advises Boris Johnson’s government, met last week to discuss the impact of the new variant in the UK.“We cannot exclude that this wave would be of a magnitude similar, or even larger, than previous waves,” the advisers stated in minutes from the 25 November meeting.In a stark warning for the NHS, they said “a large wave of infections will be accompanied by a wave of severe cases, and the subgroup cannot rule out that this may be sufficient to overwhelm NHS capacity.”The experts also called for “early and robust actions” to limit the transmission of the variant first detected in South Africa in the UK.It follows leaked minutes from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) which warned that omicron could see a “very large wave” of infections in the UK and may need tougher restrictions to protect the NHS.The Sage warning added: “This would in turn lead to a potentially high number of hospitalisations even with protection against severe disease being less affected.”Although the top scientists remain unsure how big a wave of omicron infection might be, Sage advisers warned that a “very stringent response measures” may be needed from Downing Street.No 10 said ministers make “balanced” judgements on scientific advice received after the leaked Sage papers suggested testing people for Covid before they travel to the UK would be “valuable”.Asked if the government had ignored the guidance, the prime minister’s official spokesman said: “At all times we take account of any clinical advice we receive, and then we need to make a balanced judgement on what is right.”Labour said the lack of pre-departure testing for those flying to the UK from abroad was an “obvious gap in the country’s defences” against the Omicron variant – demanding “strong action at the border now”.No 10 was also challenged on whether it was now government policy that party-goers take a lateral flow test before events, after health secretary Sajid Javid earlier suggested that people could take a test before attending parties.The PM’s official spokesman said: “I think he was very clear about what he was saying. He was setting out that we do have a significant testing capacity, and if people wanted further reassurance they could use that.”Results of detailed laboratory studies on omicron are expected in the coming weeks, but both Sage and Nervtag groups have warned it is likely the new variant can escape immunity from existing vaccines “to some extent”.The Nervtag advisers said mutations observed in the variant “include some that are known to be associated with enhanced transmissibility” and are also “highly likely to result in reduced neutralising ability of antibodies”. More

    • 213 Shares99 Views

      in UK Politics

      Omicron: Passengers from South Africa were not tested and ‘got home in normal way’, Sajid Javid admits

      by

      Air passengers from South Africa were not tested on arrival on Friday, despite fears they could be carrying the Omicron variant, Sajid Javid has conceded.They travelled on from airports in normal ways – including on public transport – and were only then asked to take Covid tests and to go into isolation if they tested positive, the health secretary said.It means the UK does not know how many arrivals from South Africa were infected – after a staggering 10 per cent of people on one flight into the Netherlands did test positive.Quizzed on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show, Mr Javid admitted there was no testing but insisted: “It’s fair to say that, as the UK, we could not have acted more swiftly.”But, asked how the passengers “got home from the airport”, he acknowledged: “They would have they would have got home in the normal way.”Mr Marr asked him: “To be clear, you didn’t test them as they came into Heathrow and then they were allowed to disperse around the country without being tested?“And, if the Dutch experience is anything to go by, 10 per cent of them had the new variant of coronavirus?”The health secretary said the “appropriate thing to do” was to contact the passengers afterwards, to ask them to take tests. Flights were banned later on Friday. Mr Javid also revealed that the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation will advise within a few days on expanding booster jabs to under-40s and cutting the six-month gap after a second jab.And he defended not adopting a work from home rule – despite the Sage advisory group concluding it is the most effective Covid-curbing measure – saying: “They give advice and ministers need to decide.”Mr Javid said advice would be updated if it proves to be the case that the symptoms of Omicron are different, causing extreme fatigue but no loss of taste or smell.Earlier, he said England is “nowhere near” introducing tougher Covid restrictions such as social distancing, or working from home.Mask-wearing will be compulsory in shops and on public transport from Tuesday. Day 2 PCR tests for all arrivals will be re-introduced from 4am that day.New coronavirus regulations will be laid in parliament on Monday, but a vote will not be held until up to 28 days later – long after the measures take effect.A number of backbench Tories are likely to stage a rebellion but, with Labour supporting the restrictions, there is no danger that the vote will be lost.But the doctor who discovered the Omicron variant said the UK is “panicking unnecessarily” and that the symptoms are “extremely mild”.Dr Angelique Coetzee, chair of the South African Medical Association, said: “What we are seeing clinically in south Africa, and remember I’m at the epicentre – that’s where I’m practising – it’s extremely mild. For us, that’s mild cases.” More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in UK Politics

      Omicron: Mask-wearing back for shops and transport and PCR tests for all arrivals, PM announces

      by

      People will be ordered to wear masks in shops and on public transport in England again in response to the arrival of the Omicron variant.Boris Johnson also announced that contacts of Omicron cases must isolate for 10 days – and the return of day 2 PCR tests for all international arrivals, who must isolate until they receive a negative result.Calling the measures “temporary and precautionary”, until the danger from the variant’s mutations are known, he told a press conference: “We will review them in 3 weeks.”Asked why he was not imposing the government’s full ‘plan B’ – also including vaccine passports and working from home – Mr Johnson insisted the UK is still in a “much, much stronger position” than earlier in the pandemic.Omicron could be tackled by efforts to “slow the seeding with the tough measures we are taking at the border” – while more booster jabs are delivered, to beef up protection.But he did not rule out further festive restrictions, saying only: “I’m absolutely confident that this Christmas will be considerably better than last Christmas. That will do for the time being.”Speaking after the first two Omicron cases were found – in Essex and Nottingham – Mr Johnson also revealed moves to expand booster jabs to under-40s and cut the six-month gap between a second jab and a booster.The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) has been asked to consider the changes – in a clear sign that ministers want them to happen – although the prime minister called it “an independent body”.“Clearly we hope we will get some answers for everybody as soon as possible,” he told the press conference in Downing Street.Mask-wearing is already compulsory in shop and on public transport in the rest of the UK, which is expected to follow England in imposing the PCR test crackdown for travellers.Mr Johnson also rejected criticism that the spread of the new variant in southern Africa showed the folly of rich nations failing to deliver vaccines to poorer nations.He claimed the problem in such countries has “not been supply, but hesitancy and lack of take-up”, arguing the UK has been “leading” the world in sharing jabs.Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, warned of “a reasonable chance of some type of vaccine escape” from the Omicron variant, but said jabs should still offer protection against serious disease.One member of the Sage advisory group, psychologist Susan Michie, was quick to criticise the moves, saying: “This is plan B lite and we should have had plan B plus.”And Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor, tweeted that the measures should not “have been relaxed” in the first place, adding: “It will now be harder, and take longer, to get levels of compliance up to where we need them to be.”But Mr Johnson said the measures – all to be brought in “next week“ – would “buy time for our scientists to understand exactly what we are dealing with”, in a very uncertain situation.And he sought to reassure the public, saying: “Though case numbers have remained relatively high, we’re seen falling hospitalisations and falling numbers of deaths.”The latest Covid figures revealed a further 39,567 lab-confirmed cases in the UK and 131 deaths within 28 days of a positive test – bringing the UK total to 144,724.Earlier, the health secretary Sajid Javid said the two detected Omicron cases were “linked” and had been traced to travel to southern Africa, as he announced targeted sequence testing of other cases in the areas concerned.Four more countries – Angola, Mozambique, Malawi, and Zambia – are being added to the travel ‘red list’ from Sunday, requiring arrivals to quarantine in a hotel for 10 days.Early evidence suggest Omicron may be more transmissible than the Delta variant, the current dominant strain, and that current vaccines may be less effective against it.However, some scientists have downplayed the dangers. The leading microbiologist Professor Calum Semple, who also sits on Sage, said some horror headlines were “hugely overstating the situation”. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in UK Politics

      Covid: Sajid Javid to outline new measures to fight Omicron variant

      by

      Sajid Javid is expected to announce more details on the measures being brought in after the emergence of the Omicron coronavirus variant.As two cases of the heavily mutated variant – feared to potentially be more transmissible and evasive of vaccines – were discovered in the UK on Saturday, and four more countries were added to the travel red list, Boris Johnson held a press conference at Downing Street. The prime minister announced a range of new “temporary and precautionary” restrictions in England, including the return of mandatory mask wearing in shops and on public transport, and self-isolation for contacts of cases and for all international arrivals until they receive a negative PCR test result.But the following morning, it still remained unclear exactly when these measures would come into force, amid sparse detail on how the travel isolation requirement would be implemented.The health secretary is expected to outline the policies in more detail during broadcast interviews on Sunday morning in appearances on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show and Sky News’s Trevor Phillips on Sunday programme.MPs will be given a subsequent vote on the new measures, which Mr Johnson said would be reviewed in three weeks’ time – the week before Christmas.Mr Javid, who in his first significant comments as health secretary vowed there would be “no going back” into lockdowns shortly before he axed nearly all Covid measures in England, had struck a somewhat starker tone in the Commons on Friday as he warned that the variant discovered by scientists in southern Africa was of “huge international concern”, telling MPs: “We must move quickly.”And he told the BBC on Saturday: “This is a real reminder to us all that this pandemic is far from over. “If there’s one thing that everyone can be doing right now is, if they’re eligible, please take your vaccine when it’s your first shot, your second shot, or your booster jab. If you’re eligible, please take a vaccine.”He added: “We know this is new out there. We don’t know enough about it yet. But for what we do know that we know that the protections that we have, especially the vaccines are hugely important.” More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight looms

      by

      US legislation banning ‘forever chemicals’ far from certain as Senate fight loomsDespite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity, a similar bill that passed the House was filibustered in the Senate Bipartisan legislation introduced this week in Congress would ban PFAS “forever chemicals” in US food packaging and significantly reduce exposure to the highly toxic compounds, supporters say, but its passage is far from certain as a fight with industry allies in the Senate looms.‘Forever chemicals’: the hidden threat from the toxic PFAS on your shelfRead morePFAS are a class of compounds that are used across dozens of industries to make products resistant to water, heat, stains and grease. The chemicals are especially common in food packaging because they repel grease and liquid, which prevents paper products from disintegrating.They get their nickname because of their immense longevity in the environment.“We cannot continue to be poisoned by these chemicals,” said Michigan Democratic congresswoman Debbie Dingell, who introduced the bill in the House. “Chemical manufacturers are going to try to get senators to stop PFAS from being banned, but there’s enough data that shows that it’s a threat to people … so we need to do something.”Researchers have found PFAS are frequently used in sandwich wrappers, paper straws, baking papers, carryout containers and molded fiber products like “clam shells”. The chemicals have been detected in products from a range of businesses, including fast food restaurants like McDonald’s, Subway and Chipotle; grocery chains like Whole Foods; and independent restaurants and grocers that use packaging products marketed as “green”.PFAS are also commonly applied to nonstick aluminum wrap and in bulk plastic containers used to store flavorings. Studies show that the chemicals can leach from packaging into food and are linked to cancer, liver disease, kidney problems, decreased immunity, birth defects and other serious health problems.“People don’t realize that the chemicals are coming in contact with food that they’re eating and that’s a way that PFAS is getting into their bodies,” Dingell said.Despite mounting evidence of the chemicals’ toxicity over the last 10 years, a similar bill that passed the House last legislative session was filibustered in the Senate, though it’s unclear who killed it because Senate rules allow members to anonymously filibuster.PFAS manufacturers have spent heavily on lobbying and campaign contributions in recent years, and public health advocates say industry’s efforts have paid off. Last session, chemical company allies in the GOP defeated about 100 other pieces of legislation designed to reign in the chemicals’ use, and Donald Trump had promised to veto any that made it through.“It’s the dark and invisible hand of big money in politics,” said Erik Olson, a lobbyist for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which supports the new proposed ban.Among industry allies who have opposed PFAS legislation is Senator Jim Inhofe, who sits on the environmental committee and has received at least $60,000 from PFAS producers, including $14,000 last session that was donated as legislation was referred to committee.Senate armed forces committee member Thom Tillis last session cast the deciding vote against legislation that would have helped hold PFAS manufacturers accountable for pollution around military bases. Chemical giants DuPont and Honeywell donated to his campaign in the days after the vote.Advocates say they expect similar opposition this time around, despite growing public pressure to act.“I don’t think the chemical or food packaging industries are retreating even though there’s mounting evidence that there’s a lot of the chemical in food packaging,” Olson said. “Clearly there’s a big problem with an evenly divided Senate and the opportunity to filibuster.”Even if Congress fails to pass the ban, similar legislation has been enacted in seven states, including in California, New York and Vermont, though most only prohibit the chemicals’ use in paper products, not plastic. Several other state legislatures are considering similar bills, which advocates say is putting pressure on industry to stop using the chemicals.Companies like Chipotle, Freshii, McDonald’s, Panera Bread, Sweetgreen, Trader Joe’s, Wendy’s and Whole Foods have committed to stop using packaging with the chemicals. But Olson said PFAS in food packaging “is an issue that’s not going away”, even if legislation fails again.“Until we get toxic forever chemicals out of our food supply, there will continue to be mounting pressure to move legislation,” he said.TopicsUS CongressUS politicsHealthUS SenateHouse of RepresentativesnewsReuse this content More