Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Politicians, police and fire chiefs urge end to ‘inhumane’ rules on funding for 9/11 cancer victims ahead of 10th anniversary Politicians, firefighters and police chiefs gathered at Ground Zero ahead of the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks to call for an end to the “inhumane” rules under which rescue workers who worked amid the toxic rubble and who have developed cancer are ineligible for help with their medical bills. Over the past decade, most of the millions of dollars spent on helping treat sick Ground Zero workers has been focused on respiratory problems and mental health issues such as post-traumatic stress disorder. Cancer treatment has been specifically excluded from federal health funding, with officials arguing there has been insufficient evidence to prove any direct link between the toxins present at the site and the disease. But last week the results of the first large-scale study, published in the Lancet , found that firefighters who were involved on the day of the attacks and in the weeks that followed had a 19% higher risk of contracting cancer. The study looked at 9,800 male firefighters, comparing those present during and after the attacks with those who were not involved. Carolyn Maloney, who represents a New York district in Congress, said the study provided enough solid evidence for cancer to be included on the list of eligible conditions for federal funding. She was an author of the Zadroga Act introduced in January that provides federal money for 9/11-related treatment. The act excludes cancer, devoting its $4.3bn funds to the treatment and compensation of people with breathing disorders and mental health problems. But it does include a clause that allows new sicknesses to be added to its remit as and when scientific evidence becomes available. “Those who are suffering need treatment now,” Maloney said. Maloney, along with other members of Congress, are petitioning John Howard, the administrator of the Zadroga Act, to have the law amended to include cancer. He has 90 days to respond to the request. Fellow petitioner Jerrold Nadler, who represents the Ground Zero area of Manhattan in Congress, called the exclusion of cancer sufferers “inhumane”. “People all around us are getting sick and some are tragically dying. For those who are sick with cancer it’s infuriating to see the foot-dragging in making the link between Ground Zero and the disease.” Seventy thousand people took part in the Ground Zero operation, including firefighters, police and construction workers. They worked on the “pile”, the 1.8m tonnes of debris that formed once the Twin Towers collapsed. Environmental dangers at the site included 90,000 litres of jet fuel from the two stricken planes, as well as about 1,000 tonnes of asbestos, pulverised lead, mercury and other highly toxic chemicals. John Feal, a construction worker who was injured during the 9/11 clean-up, said he had attended 54 funerals of those present at Ground Zero over the past five years, 52 of whom had died with 9/11-related cancers. He said he planned to launch a popular campaign that would force the Obama administration to change the rules. “You can blame a lot of this on the terrorists who attacked us that day, but you can also blame a lot on the federal government.” Patrick Lynch, who heads a New York police officers’ union, said: “On September 11, we rescued you. Now it’s your turn to rescue us – New York city police officers who are sick and dying.” September 11 2001 Health United States Ed Pilkington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Al Gore makes a blunt public attack on the Obama administration for its failure to enforce stricter pollution standards If Barack Obama didn’t have enough on his plate – with the sagging economy, dismal employment figures and falling approval ratings – on Wednesday he also endured an unusual and highly public rebuke from Al Gore over environmental policy. The former US vice president turned environmental campaigner published a blog on his official website , entitled “Confronting disappointment,” that castigated Obama personally for pulling the Environmental Protection Agency off the trail of enforcing tougher emissions standards . Gore’s most stinging rebuke in the brief post came when he said: “President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution,” saying the net result will be lung disease and asthma: On Friday afternoon, as brave and committed activists continued their non-violent civil disobedience outside the White House in protest of the tar sands pipeline that would lead to a massive increase in global warming pollution, President Obama ordered the EPA to abandon its pursuit of new curbs on emissions that worsens disease-causing smog in US cities. Earlier this year, the EPA’s administrator, Lisa Jackson, wrote that the levels of pollution now permitted – put in place by the Bush-Cheney administration – are “not legally defensible.” Those very same rules have now been embraced by the Obama White House. Instead of relying on science, President Obama appears to have bowed to pressure from polluters who did not want to bear the cost of implementing new restrictions on their harmful pollution – even though economists have shown that the US economy would benefit from the job creating investments associated with implementing the new technology. The result of the White House’s action will be increased medical bills for seniors with lung disease, more children developing asthma, and the continued degradation of our air quality. Gore is not alone. The White House’s decision last Friday created considerable anger among enviromentalists and Democratic activists . Justin Ruben, executive director of MoveOn.org , had this to say about the decision: Many MoveOn members are wondering today how they can ever work for President Obama’s reelection, or make the case for him to their neighbors, when he does something like this, after extending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, and giving in to tea party demands on the debt deal. This is a decision we’d expect from George W Bush. Al Gore Barack Obama Obama administration US politics US domestic policy United States guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
MPs will be asked to vote again following the results of a consultation into abortion counselling MPs will have a fresh vote on abortion before the next general election when the government presents the findings of a consultation into the system of counselling for women with unwanted pregnancies. An attempt to strip abortion providers of their role in counselling women was heavily defeated in the House of Commons on Wednesday, by 368 votes to 118, after a split between the original supporters of the amendment. But Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP who tabled the amendment, declared she had “won the war” after the health minister Anne Milton announced that the “spirit” of her plans would be embodied in a consultation. MPs will be asked to vote on any changes to the system of counselling when the results of the consultation are presented to parliament. The Dorries amendment would have stripped non-statutory abortion providers such as Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (Bpas) from offering counselling to women. This was designed to provide greater opportunities for independent counsellors, some of whom are influenced by pro-life groups, to provide counselling. NHS abortion providers would still be free to offer counselling. MPs voted by a majority of 250 to reject the amendment after Dorries lost the support of her co-sponsor, the former Labour minister Frank Field. He called on Dorries not to force a vote after Milton said the government intended to bring forward new proposals on counselling. Dorries won the support of three cabinet ministers – Iain Duncan Smith, the work and pensions secretary, Liam Fox, the defence secretary, and Owen Paterson, the Northern Ireland secretary. George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband voted against the amendment. Downing Street said Cameron would have voted against but had to attend a meeting in No 10 with Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council. The amendment was defeated so heavily because Milton impressed some pro-life MPs by outlining details of the consultation on counselling. The health minister said: “The government is … supportive of the spirit of these amendments and we intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly, but after consultation. Primary legislation is not only unnecessary but would deprive parliament of the opportunity to consider the detail of how this service would develop and evolve.” Dorries hailed the announcement from Milton as a sign of victory. She told the BBC: “We lost the battle but we have won the war.” A senior source at the Department of Health said that any changes would have to be approved by MPs in a free vote. The source said the changes would not change the abortion act. But Mark Pritchard, secretary of the Tory 1922 committee who supported the Dorries amendment, said that a wider vote on abortion should be held. “This was a good result considering the amount of misinformation and disinformation put out by opponents of the amendment and by the whips’ narks. Many colleagues have said to me that a wider debate on abortion and term limits needs to take place in this parliament.” Milton’s announcement about the consultation came towards the end of a scratchy debate in which Dorries said Cameron had initially encouraged her. Dorries claimed that the prime minister had advised her on the wording of her amendment by saying that she should describe abortion counsellors as independent. Dorries said: “I went to see the prime minister regarding this amendment and he was very encouraging. In fact it was at the prime minister’s insistence that I inserted the word ‘independent’. I attended a meeting at the Department of Health and at that meeting it was decided what the outcome, the process that would be implemented, to make this a reality.” Dorries claimed that Cameron changed his mind under pressure from Nick Clegg, after the deputy prime minister was lobbied by the former Lib Dem MP Evan Harris. Dorries said: “Basically the Liberal Democrats, in fact a former MP who lost his seat in this place, is blackmailing our prime minister. Our prime minister has been put in an impossible position regarding this amendment. Our health bill has been held to ransom by a former Liberal Democrat MP.” A senior Lib Dem source dismissed her allegation: “That is utter rubbish. [Nick] doesn’t need Evan to tell him the problems with her amendment.” The defeat was welcomed by bpas. Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: “Bpas is pleased to see Nadine Dorries’s amendment so overwhelmingly rejected. We look forward to being able to focus our efforts on the issues which pose a genuine problem for women considering ending a pregnancy.” Dorries insisted that she did not want to restrict access to abortion. “I do not want to return to the days of back-street abortionists,” she said. “I am pro-choice. Abortion is here to stay.” The MP said it was wrong for abortion providers to counsel women with unplanned pregnancies. “It must be wrong that the abortion provider, who is paid to the tune of £60m to carry out terminations, should also provide the counselling if a woman feels strong or brave enough to ask for it. If an organisation is paid that much for abortions, where is the incentive to reduce them?” Diane Abbott, the shadow public health minister, said: “This amendment is a shoddy, ill-conceived attempt to promote non-facts to make a non-case – namely that tens of thousands of women every year are either not getting counselling that they request or are getting counselling that is so poor that only new legislation can remedy the situation. In matters of this kind, if legislation is the answer then you have almost certainly asked the wrong question.” NHS reforms offer ‘opportunities’ The reforms of the NHS present “huge opportunities” for the private sector, a health minister said yesterday. In a speech to the Independent Healthcare Forum, Lord Howe said it should not matter “one jot” who provides care to NHS patients as long as it was free at the point of delivery. Private companies, he said, would do well under the plans as long as they can offer patients high quality services that compete favourably with current NHS care. He said it would be illegal for any commissioner or the government to favour any one sector – NHS or private – over the other. Lord Howe said a level playing field was being created and competition was based on quality of outcomes, not price. It will be “the best providers, private or NHS, that will prosper, and it will be patients that benefit most” under the plans, he said. Christina McAnea, head of health at Unison, said: “It is clear that the government does want to break up the NHS and get more private sector involvement. Patients do care deeply whom they are seen by. They do not like the thought of private providers making profits from care.” PA Abortion Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Actress Mila Kunis: ‘I Love Barack Obama,’ Adds Young Republicans Are ‘Ill-Informed’
September 7, 2011 No Comment
Actress Mila Kunis granted an interview (and cover photo) to Stylist magazine and proclaimed “I love Barack Obama” and that young Republicans are “ill-informed” in Middle America and can’t tell you why they oppose Obama. She lectured others to get educated and explain how you voted, and “don’t tell me it’s because of religion either because that whole thing is knocked completely out the window.” In the same interview, when they asked if she would write a movie script, Kunis explained “I can barely write an e-mail. I can’t form a sentence to save my life.” Everyone is waiting to know what Mila Kunis believes on the debt limit: STYLIST: How do you feel about the US debt crisis? KUNIS: I love Barack Obama. I voted for him and I will forever be proud of my vote, so I can’t say anything bad against him – other than I think America is in a very temperamental state, and the decision that was made and the compromises made mean, in my opinion, that people are going to pay for a very long time. There is no revenue that’s going to come from these compromises. None. We are no longer going to be the leading power, at all; if China takes their money away for the States we are done. Done. I know that he [Obama] tried. I know because you keep reading these reports of him trying to compromise with the Tea Party and the Republican Party and trying to come up with a 50-50 agreement. I don’t think it was one. I feel the Democratic Party compromised everything and the Republican Party compromised pretty much nothing. STYLIST: It’s pretty terrifying how much power the Tea Party seems to have in the US – we’re watching Sarah Palin with open mouths. KUNIS: Honestly, I love politics. I do. And maybe they know something that I don’t know, and that’s the only thing I can hope for. But unless you show me some revenue that’s going to be made, we’re about to become a third-world country. OK I’m being dramatic, but we sure as hell are losing a lot of power. And when you lose financial power and the dollar drops, the power is gone. So to put two and two together, Kunis is proud of her vote for Obama, and under Obama, the country is in dramatic decline. And yet Kunis thinks the rest of the country isn't connecting dots: STYLIST: Does it frustrate you how many people are politically unaware, particularly in our age group? KUNIS: Yes, because you are given such an amazing opportunity with so much information. Why is no one taking advantage of it? You don't have to watch Fox News or CNN or MSNBC; you don't have to be part of a political party, you could just read. Why is nobody reading? I feel like, in our generation, people don't read. STYLIST: It’s true… KUNIS: They don't read books, they don't read the paper, they don't read the news. So obviously you are incredibly ill-informed to the point where they will go do these tests in Middle America, And they'll ask, 'OK, what party are you?' And they'll say, 'Republican'. 'Why?' And they can't even tell you. They have no idea what the Republican Party stands for. Why did I vote for Obama? I can tell you why I voted for him, what I agreed and disagreed with him on, for hours. It's crazy to me that people don't educate themselves about the world considering so many of them have children who are going to suffer because of it. Whoever you vote for, don't do it just because. And don't tell me it's because of religion either because that whole thing is knocked completely out the window. So you better just educate yourself. Kunis also says she's very proud of providing the voice of Meg on “Family Guy” and loves it when people yell “Shut up, Meg!” on the street.
Continue reading …