Huckabee twists Southern history by calling health-care reform a "modern-day poll tax"
April 2, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media What is it with Southern Republican candidates and their impulse to whitewash history? First we had Haley Barbour trying to whitewash the history of the old White Citizens Councils. Now we’ve got Mike Huckabee, trying out some new talking points yesterday on Fox News with Stuart Varney, while discussing the latest Fox fake scandal, this time involving the White House supposedly shipping unions money through the health-care reform law. First, he tried claiming that union supporters of Democrats are actually a form of “forced labor”: HUCKABEE: Stuart, they can’t win if they don’t have the unions’ support. Unions are declining as a part of the overall American workforce, and yet the Democratic Party knows — and it’s not just the money, they get hundreds of millions of dollars from unions, but as important as the money is the manpower. Because the union workers will go out and they will work the polls and they will get people to the polls, and they will put up signs and they will staff rallies. And the Democrats know they’ve got to have that sort of forced labor, which is what it is. The historical revisionism came a little later in the segment, while discussing their shared enthusiasm for repealing the health-care reform act: HUCKABEE: I hope, if it doesn’t die its death one way, it dies it the other. You know, it really doesn’t matter. I think the courts will ultimately rule that it is unconstitutional — that it is forcing people to buy a product in the private-sector marketplace in order to really be citizens. It’s the equivalent of a modern-day poll tax. So I think they’ll throw it out. Just so everyone understands the analogy he’s making — as well as the absurd claim about the health-care law, here’s Wikipedia on the Poll Tax : In U.S. practice, a poll tax was used as a de facto or implicit pre-condition of the exercise of the ability to vote. This tax emerged in some states of the United States in the late 19th century as part of the Jim Crow laws. After the ability to vote was extended to all races by the enactment of the Fifteenth Amendment, many Southern states enacted poll tax laws which often included a grandfather clause that allowed any adult male whose father or grandfather had voted in a specific year prior to the abolition of slavery to vote without paying the tax. These laws, along with unfairly implemented literacy tests and extra-legal intimidation,[1] achieved the desired effect of disenfranchising African-American and Native American voters as well as poor whites who immigrated after the year specified. Initially, the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Breedlove v. Suttles, 302 U.S. 277 (1937), found the poll tax to be constitutional. The 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, reflecting a political compromise,[citation needed] abolished the use of the poll tax (or any other tax) as a pre-condition in voting in Federal elections, but made no mention of poll taxes in state elections. In the 1966 case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections the Supreme Court overruled its decision in Breedlove v. Suttles, and extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections, declaring that the imposition of a poll tax in state elections violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. In Arkansas, it was a cornerstone of Jim Crow , and led to the disenfranchisement of 80 percent of its voting population. Is there even the slightest whiff that failure to buy health insurance will lead to any citizen’s disenfranchisement under the new health-care law? That it would even hint at enhancing a system of racial segregation? Ah, no. No one believes that, and no one has previously claimed that. Though there has been talk about 16,000 new IRS agents descending upon an unsuspecting populace. I guess it’s a lot easier to just make stuff up when you also also believe the President was raised among Mau Maus in Kenya.
Continue reading …I will be celebrating (mourning?) my twentieth year since coming to work in Washington next year. I came here with the Clinton team, and even though I was President Clinton’s liaison to the progressive community, I still came to town with a bunch of moderate Democrats. Given my banging away on so many topics in my blog posts, I do get asked from time to time whether I have moved to “the left” over the years. The answer is absolutely not. I still believe virtually the same things about politics and the economy I believed a couple of decades ago, including: 1. That the America I grew up in during the 1960s and ’70s, which had a broad and prosperous middle class and a sturdy safety net for those down on their luck or too old to work, was a great country to live in for most Americans, but that the middle class had been squeezed right and left by big corporate interests and the conservative movement. 2. That the growing extremist conservative movement, which had taken over the Republican Party, blindly worshiped the free market along with the wealthiest and most powerful among us, and was determined to roll back social progress of all kinds. 3. That the Democratic Party was deeply flawed because too many Democrats were not willing to fight for progressive policies that would help the middle class and poor, but that they sure were better than the scary extremists who controlled the Republican Party. 4. That party politics alone would never win the progress we needed; that we need a strong progressive movement to fight the good fight. 5. That the New Deal and Great Society policy victories of the 1930s through the early ’70s were what moved this country forward more than any other set of policies. Social Security and Medicare gave senior citizens a measure of economic security they never had before. Labor unions were able to grow and expand, ensuring that middle-class incomes would rise, and that more working class people would get a secure foothold in that middle class. Banks were strongly regulated and kept to a reasonable size, ensuring that the financial crises that periodically wracked the country’s economy in the decades before and after those years didn’t happen. The minimum wage, the end of child labor, OSHA, and the 40-hour work week ensured more dignity and safety on the job. A wave of school building, the GI Bill, Pell Grants, the development of community colleges, and other educational initiatives meant that more Americans got good educations than ever in history. Civil rights, voting rights, and new anti-discrimination laws for women meant far more fairness and equality of opportunity for all Americans. Unemployment compensation, Medicaid, school lunch programs, food stamps, Head Start, and legal services meant that even low-income Americans had a modest amount of financial security in the hard times. The Clean Air, Clean Water, and Superfund acts made our environment far cleaner for all citizens. All of these new policies helped create the wealthiest economy, and most prosperous middle class in world history, and that our goal in politics should be to build on that success rather than tear it down. I believed all that the day I moved to Washington to be part of the Clinton administration, and I believe it still, so I don’t feel like I have moved to the left at all. I feel very certain that I am solidly within the mainstream of the Democratic Party and progressive thought in America. But I do think something important has changed. The corporate stranglehold on our media, government, and ideological parameters has shifted, and the Bob Rubin wing of the Democratic Party has grown steadily stronger. When we Clintonites came to town, Rubin and protégées like Larry Summers came with him, and they won more battles than they lost. But us crazy populists inside the administration, with the help of some key Democrats in Congress, the labor movement, and other progressives in the party, still won some battles, too. The concentration of power (both economic and political) in several industries, banking especially, has grown — exponentially and dangerously. Let me turn to several examples of articles that have come out in recent days to make my point. Check out this really scary article by Bill Greider on “How Wall Street Crooks Get Out of Jail Free.” This is one of several articles that has come out in recent months, most prominently by former S&L prosecutor Bill Black , about the complete failure of the justice system to prosecute a very fundamental crime called “control fraud”:, the crime where executives of the company use their control of the company to commit fraud against their customers, investors, shareholders, and/or fellow employees. That is exactly what happened with the S&Ls in the 1980s, and it is a big part of what happened in the financial collapse of the last few years. But as Greider explains, our system has become so warped by power and money that none of the many crooks who were at the heart of the economic crisis of the last few years has gone to prison — and the implications of that for society as a whole are deadly. Another tremendous piece that is a must-read is a new article by Richard Eskow . I am very biased on this score, because I have written a couple of pieces myself on the topic of how big the mortgage crisis is versus the budget issues in the headlines, but Eskow lays down some great charts that really do a great job of summarizing the numbers on this. The difference we could make in terms of economic impact by actually standing up to the Wall Street bankers and writing down underwater mortgages is so much bigger than anything going on in the federal budget fight (as important as that it is). Here’s another thing to check out: Neil Barofsky’s powerful and stunning indictment of where we went wrong on TARP. The big banks did get rescued, and things came out great for them, but all the promises made about protecting home values and preserving home ownership did not. Finally, let me strongly urge you to read Stephen Lerner’s terrific rejoinder to Glenn Beck’s ridiculous attacks on him. In a country where bankers commit blatant fraud on their own shareholders, investors, customers, and fellow employees, thereby crashing the entire economic system; where middle-class homeowners get (sometimes illegally) foreclosed on by bankers who don’t bother to keep their paperwork in order; where those same fraudulent bankers who crashed the world economy not only don’t get prosecuted but actually get to keep their jobs and get to pay themselves record bonuses… in that kind of country, it is only right and natural that organizers like Lerner want to try and take to the streets and disrupt things. So, no, I am not one iota more radical than I was when I came to D.C. with the Clinton administration two decades ago. I still believe in helping elect good Democrats, and working within the system to make change. But if the system itself becomes more and more corrupted by concentrated power, it is up to all of us to take to the streets, do whatever we can to take on these banks, and raise hell.
Continue reading …
• Households bear the impact of deficit cut • Average family debt to reach £77,000 by 2015 Families will be hit by a spiralling debt crisis over the next four years that will see average British households plunge further into the red as the government austerity programme bites, official figures reveal. The Office for Budget Responsibility has raised its prediction of total household debt in 2015 by a staggering £303bn since late last year, in the belief that families and individuals will respond to straitened times by extra borrowing. Average household debt based on the OBR figures is forecast to rise to £77,309 by 2015, rather than the £66,291 under previous projections. Economists say the figures show that George Osborne’s drive to slash the public deficit and his predictions on growth are based on assumptions that debt will switch from the government’s books to private households – undermining his claims to be a debt-slashing chancellor. Labour accused the government of piling agony on to hard-pressed families and storing up long-term problems of personal indebtedness. At last year’s budget the official forecast from Osborne was that household debt – which includes mortgages and credit card debt – would be £1,823bn. But in a recent adjustment not highlighted in last month’s budget, the OBR has raised the figure to £2,126bn. A Treasury spokesman said Osborne put the adjustment down to “higher-than-expected inflation driven by higher than expected rises in commodity prices”. The Treasury also attempted to head off criticism by saying the OBR had also produced figures showing that the level of household savings was “holding up”. But experts expressed alarm. The Nobel prize-winning economist Paul Krugman, writing on his blog, said: “People have been digging into the details of the government forecast and finding that it relies on the assumption that household debt will rise to new heights relative to income. “Why? Because the only way the economy can avoid taking a hit from government cuts is if private spending rises to fill the gap – and although you rarely hear the austerians admitting this, the only way that can happen is if people take on more debt.” Ed Balls, the shadow chancellor, said: “George Osborne says the only thing that matters is getting government borrowing down. But while he is cutting further and faster than any other major country in the world, borrowing by hard-pressed families is now forecast to rise every year. “And to make things harder still, George Osborne’s VAT rise is looking like an own goal as it pushes up inflation which threatens higher interest rates for mortgages and household borrowing.” In the Commons, Labour MP Chuka Umunna raised the issue of the hidden household debt figures with Osborne, accusing him of transferring debt to the overdrafts and credit cards of ordinary families. Last June, OBR forecasts showed that household debt would rise from an average of £58,000 in 2010 to £66,291 by 2015. Now its projections show it expects it to rise to £77,309. For the country’s 27.5 million households this means an average increase of
Continue reading …
Healthy meals mean better grades, insists television’s top chef Jamie Oliver, but price rises put progress at risk Parents across Britain will be asked to pay significantly more for their children’s school dinners from Monday, in a move that experts say will lead to thousands of poorer pupils missing out on healthy meals. Prices will rise by up to 17% in some schools, with charges set to exceed £2.60 in the most extreme cases. The higher charges come amid soaring food costs and in response to the government’s decision to remove protection for a subsidy that has kept prices low in recent years. The school dinner grant loses its ring-fencing on Monday and can be spent by schools or local authorities to cover gaps in other budgets. The Observer has learned that more than 30 local authorities intend to increase the cost to children in coming months. Writing in today’s Observer , chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver says he hopes the government will continue to invest in “quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff”. He writes: “I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch… is child abuse on an unimaginable scale.” Doncaster council will increase the price of a lunch by 17% tomorrow to £2.10. By the end of the month, Lewisham plans to raise its prices by 14% to £1.60 and Blackpool is planning a 7% rise in the next academic year to £2.10. Bolton council has announced that it will scrap its hugely popular £1-a-meal policy in September and increase the price to £1.50 by January next year. Schools that have taken over responsibility from local authorities for providing meals to pupils are also expected to increase their prices. In Poole, the council said that the average price charged by schools would rise by around 11p to £2.50 in this financial year. In Somerset the price in some schools recently increased to £2.60 and could rise further. Meanwhile, six meals services in the area have closed because their future was deemed financially unviable. It is feared that more schools plan to stop providing hot meals. Wendy Green, the council’s transforming school food project manager, said she had concerns for rural schools where delivery costs were an added expense. “These services are going to struggle with the loss of that funding. Four years ago we only had hot meals in 30% of primary schools, now we have them in 80%. My concern is that we are going to start dropping back below 80%. Our prices are variable, but most are charging between £2.25 and £2.60 for a two-course meal for a primary school child. That’s a lot of money for a family with two or three children. If it doesn’t go on the meal price, parents could be faced with a significant hike. A lot of parents won’t be willing to pay that and then those services will not be viable because the uptake will be low.” Research from the Schools Food Trust shows that the uptake of school meals is sensitive to price changes. A paper commissioned in 2009 suggests that a rise in the price of a school meal prompts a corresponding fall in take-up. Carmel McConnell, from the child nutrition charity Magic Breakfasts, said she feared an escalation in malnutrition in schools. She said: “I think we will see more cases of scurvy and other conditions.” Children eating healthy school dinners promoted by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver six years ago enjoyed dramatically improved test results, according to research undertaken by academics at Oxford and Essex universities. The chef’s nutritious meals were more effective than the government’s daily literacy hour at raising standards of English in primary schools. Where healthy meals were eaten there was a rise of 4.5% in English Sats results in the first schools where the scheme was tried. This compared with a 3.2% rise linked to the introduction of structured daily literacy lessons. Pupils took less time off sick. For his Jamie’s School Dinners series in 2005, Oliver visited a school in Greenwich, south-east London, and insisted that it scrap Turkey Twizzlers and chips in favour of nutrient-rich foods such as fish and broccoli. This spawned the Feed Me Better campaign with the wider goal of improving school dinners. The price rises will affect any child whose parents collectively earn more than £16,000 a year, the threshold for a free school meal. A spokesman for the Department for Education said: “We make no apologies for giving headteachers complete freedom over their budgets – they know what’s best for their pupils. The tough nutrition standards remain in place.” Jamie Oliver Sadly, politicians can have short memories. Back in 2005, when I took the school dinners petitioned to Downing Street, members from all parties were queuing up to say how school dinners needed to be radically improved and how important investment and a long-term food strategy was. Parents, teachers and the media across the country were shocked at the standard of food their kids were being fed 190 days a year from the ages of four to 16, during – the most precious years of their lives. We all fought hard to get new money injected into the system. I had a positive meeting with Michael Gove before Christmas, and for the country’s sake I hope he ensures the continued investment in quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff where needed. Food education in schools is also incredibly important. It was made compulsory for children in secondary schools in 2008, and is only due to come into schools this September. But already it is now under threat of being removed from the curriculum completely. It’s the long-term health, happiness and productivity of the future of our country that is at risk. I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch or their access to learning about food, where it comes from and what it does to their body is child abuse on an unimaginable scale. Credit to Labour for justly pioneering the school food changes. I hope that the coalition government will only improve on what they (the previous government) started. School meals Schools Nutrition Jamie Oliver Michael Gove Health & wellbeing Food & drink Children Health Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Healthy meals mean better grades, insists television’s top chef Jamie Oliver, but price rises put progress at risk Parents across Britain will be asked to pay significantly more for their children’s school dinners from Monday, in a move that experts say will lead to thousands of poorer pupils missing out on healthy meals. Prices will rise by up to 17% in some schools, with charges set to exceed £2.60 in the most extreme cases. The higher charges come amid soaring food costs and in response to the government’s decision to remove protection for a subsidy that has kept prices low in recent years. The school dinner grant loses its ring-fencing on Monday and can be spent by schools or local authorities to cover gaps in other budgets. The Observer has learned that more than 30 local authorities intend to increase the cost to children in coming months. Writing in today’s Observer , chef and food campaigner Jamie Oliver says he hopes the government will continue to invest in “quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff”. He writes: “I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch… is child abuse on an unimaginable scale.” Doncaster council will increase the price of a lunch by 17% tomorrow to £2.10. By the end of the month, Lewisham plans to raise its prices by 14% to £1.60 and Blackpool is planning a 7% rise in the next academic year to £2.10. Bolton council has announced that it will scrap its hugely popular £1-a-meal policy in September and increase the price to £1.50 by January next year. Schools that have taken over responsibility from local authorities for providing meals to pupils are also expected to increase their prices. In Poole, the council said that the average price charged by schools would rise by around 11p to £2.50 in this financial year. In Somerset the price in some schools recently increased to £2.60 and could rise further. Meanwhile, six meals services in the area have closed because their future was deemed financially unviable. It is feared that more schools plan to stop providing hot meals. Wendy Green, the council’s transforming school food project manager, said she had concerns for rural schools where delivery costs were an added expense. “These services are going to struggle with the loss of that funding. Four years ago we only had hot meals in 30% of primary schools, now we have them in 80%. My concern is that we are going to start dropping back below 80%. Our prices are variable, but most are charging between £2.25 and £2.60 for a two-course meal for a primary school child. That’s a lot of money for a family with two or three children. If it doesn’t go on the meal price, parents could be faced with a significant hike. A lot of parents won’t be willing to pay that and then those services will not be viable because the uptake will be low.” Research from the Schools Food Trust shows that the uptake of school meals is sensitive to price changes. A paper commissioned in 2009 suggests that a rise in the price of a school meal prompts a corresponding fall in take-up. Carmel McConnell, from the child nutrition charity Magic Breakfasts, said she feared an escalation in malnutrition in schools. She said: “I think we will see more cases of scurvy and other conditions.” Children eating healthy school dinners promoted by celebrity chef Jamie Oliver six years ago enjoyed dramatically improved test results, according to research undertaken by academics at Oxford and Essex universities. The chef’s nutritious meals were more effective than the government’s daily literacy hour at raising standards of English in primary schools. Where healthy meals were eaten there was a rise of 4.5% in English Sats results in the first schools where the scheme was tried. This compared with a 3.2% rise linked to the introduction of structured daily literacy lessons. Pupils took less time off sick. For his Jamie’s School Dinners series in 2005, Oliver visited a school in Greenwich, south-east London, and insisted that it scrap Turkey Twizzlers and chips in favour of nutrient-rich foods such as fish and broccoli. This spawned the Feed Me Better campaign with the wider goal of improving school dinners. The price rises will affect any child whose parents collectively earn more than £16,000 a year, the threshold for a free school meal. A spokesman for the Department for Education said: “We make no apologies for giving headteachers complete freedom over their budgets – they know what’s best for their pupils. The tough nutrition standards remain in place.” Jamie Oliver Sadly, politicians can have short memories. Back in 2005, when I took the school dinners petitioned to Downing Street, members from all parties were queuing up to say how school dinners needed to be radically improved and how important investment and a long-term food strategy was. Parents, teachers and the media across the country were shocked at the standard of food their kids were being fed 190 days a year from the ages of four to 16, during – the most precious years of their lives. We all fought hard to get new money injected into the system. I had a positive meeting with Michael Gove before Christmas, and for the country’s sake I hope he ensures the continued investment in quality school food, and the integral support and training of kitchen staff where needed. Food education in schools is also incredibly important. It was made compulsory for children in secondary schools in 2008, and is only due to come into schools this September. But already it is now under threat of being removed from the curriculum completely. It’s the long-term health, happiness and productivity of the future of our country that is at risk. I believe that any compromise on a child’s right to a healthy school lunch or their access to learning about food, where it comes from and what it does to their body is child abuse on an unimaginable scale. Credit to Labour for justly pioneering the school food changes. I hope that the coalition government will only improve on what they (the previous government) started. School meals Schools Nutrition Jamie Oliver Michael Gove Health & wellbeing Food & drink Children Health Daniel Boffey guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fifteen-year-old with rare condition makes legal history in bid to force Derbyshire primary care trust to pay for his medicine A 15-year-old boy who suffers from a rare medical condition that means he cannot eat protein is to make legal history by becoming the first child to sue his local health authority under the Human Rights Act. The boy’s lawyers claim that he will suffer both physical and mental retardation at a critical time in his adolescent development unless Derbyshire primary care trust agrees to fund a drug that helps him consume a normal diet. The boy, who is referred to as NL, is said by his solicitor to be half the weight of normal children because of his condition, phenylketonuria, or PKU. The rare condition affects one in 15,000 people, making it difficult for them to produce an enzyme that breaks down the protein found in meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts and cheese. It is sometimes fatal. Derbyshire PCT has refused to pay for the boy to receive Kuvan, a drug that can alleviate the condition and costs £30,000 a year, on the grounds that he is not an exceptional case and there are alternatives available such as a synthetic food diet. The case, one of the first to invoke the Human Rights Act against a PCT, is highly unusual because the claim against the PCT is being made under article six, the right to a fair trial, and article eight, respect for family life. The boy’s lawyers claim article six is relevant because of the way in which the PCT reached a decision not to fund the drug. They also say the boy’s mother has had to give up her job because of the stress on the family, while his two younger brothers have suffered because his poor diet has left him often short-tempered, indicating that a claim under article eight is also valid. His family has raised sufficient funds to pay for a one-year course of Kuvan, but they say their resources have now run out. The boy’s father, Max, said his son may soon have to return to a synthetic diet that he has refused to eat in the past, leaving him prone to malnutrition. Since the boy started taking the drug, which is widely available in other EU countries, he has made a dramatic improvement, according to his family and experts at Birmingham children’s hospital who have observed him. The boy has been able to eat small amounts of protein – about a third of a normal child’s intake, which is equivalent to a bowl of cereal a day without milk. He has gained weight as a result. His father said the family was not asking the PCT to supply the drug indefinitely, but for the next three years, during which time the increased protein intake could help NL with his adolescent growth spurt. “We have pretty much spent our life savings,” Max said. “We are down to selling our house to continue. If not, I’ve got to put my son through more pain by taking him off the drug.” He said that since NL had been on the drug it was “like having a different son. His whole character has changed. He’s less angry, easier to deal with, far more tolerant, more relaxed, more humorous, his confidence has improved and he’s more able to concentrate.” Oliver Wright, of MPH solicitors who are acting on behalf of NL, said: “The PCT said we couldn’t prove that it works and that it only works for one in four people with the condition. Well, my client has paid for it for a year and shown it works. He’s put on weight, he’s grown, he’s happier.” The PCT, which declined to comment, was preparing to fight the case in court after proceedings were issued against it in February. However, after a series of legal wrangles, it has now referred a decision to its specialist individual funding request panel. If the panel declines to approve funding, the boy’s lawyers will seek a judicial review into how the PCT reached its original decision. The case is being studied closely by medical lawyers. Experts predict an increasing number of patients will use the Human Rights Act to demand access to expensive drugs and surgery. This week the High Court is expected to deliver its verdict in the case of Tom Condliff, a diabetic who says he will die within a year if Staffordshire primary care trust refuses to pay £5,500 for him to have a gastric bypass. His legal team has argued that without the operation there is a significant chance he will lose some of his limbs, making the cost of caring for him far outweigh that of the operation. But lawyers for Staffordshire PCT have said that National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines make it clear that he does not qualify for surgery in his current condition. The case is the first to have been brought under the Human Rights Act against a PCT, with Condliff’s legal team arguing that, under article two, the Staffordshire trust must respect their client’s right to life. If it is successful, similar applications are expected to be made at many of the UK’s 159 PCTs. Human Rights Act Health NHS Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Fifteen-year-old with rare condition makes legal history in bid to force Derbyshire primary care trust to pay for his medicine A 15-year-old boy who suffers from a rare medical condition that means he cannot eat protein is to make legal history by becoming the first child to sue his local health authority under the Human Rights Act. The boy’s lawyers claim that he will suffer both physical and mental retardation at a critical time in his adolescent development unless Derbyshire primary care trust agrees to fund a drug that helps him consume a normal diet. The boy, who is referred to as NL, is said by his solicitor to be half the weight of normal children because of his condition, phenylketonuria, or PKU. The rare condition affects one in 15,000 people, making it difficult for them to produce an enzyme that breaks down the protein found in meat, chicken, fish, eggs, nuts and cheese. It is sometimes fatal. Derbyshire PCT has refused to pay for the boy to receive Kuvan, a drug that can alleviate the condition and costs £30,000 a year, on the grounds that he is not an exceptional case and there are alternatives available such as a synthetic food diet. The case, one of the first to invoke the Human Rights Act against a PCT, is highly unusual because the claim against the PCT is being made under article six, the right to a fair trial, and article eight, respect for family life. The boy’s lawyers claim article six is relevant because of the way in which the PCT reached a decision not to fund the drug. They also say the boy’s mother has had to give up her job because of the stress on the family, while his two younger brothers have suffered because his poor diet has left him often short-tempered, indicating that a claim under article eight is also valid. His family has raised sufficient funds to pay for a one-year course of Kuvan, but they say their resources have now run out. The boy’s father, Max, said his son may soon have to return to a synthetic diet that he has refused to eat in the past, leaving him prone to malnutrition. Since the boy started taking the drug, which is widely available in other EU countries, he has made a dramatic improvement, according to his family and experts at Birmingham children’s hospital who have observed him. The boy has been able to eat small amounts of protein – about a third of a normal child’s intake, which is equivalent to a bowl of cereal a day without milk. He has gained weight as a result. His father said the family was not asking the PCT to supply the drug indefinitely, but for the next three years, during which time the increased protein intake could help NL with his adolescent growth spurt. “We have pretty much spent our life savings,” Max said. “We are down to selling our house to continue. If not, I’ve got to put my son through more pain by taking him off the drug.” He said that since NL had been on the drug it was “like having a different son. His whole character has changed. He’s less angry, easier to deal with, far more tolerant, more relaxed, more humorous, his confidence has improved and he’s more able to concentrate.” Oliver Wright, of MPH solicitors who are acting on behalf of NL, said: “The PCT said we couldn’t prove that it works and that it only works for one in four people with the condition. Well, my client has paid for it for a year and shown it works. He’s put on weight, he’s grown, he’s happier.” The PCT, which declined to comment, was preparing to fight the case in court after proceedings were issued against it in February. However, after a series of legal wrangles, it has now referred a decision to its specialist individual funding request panel. If the panel declines to approve funding, the boy’s lawyers will seek a judicial review into how the PCT reached its original decision. The case is being studied closely by medical lawyers. Experts predict an increasing number of patients will use the Human Rights Act to demand access to expensive drugs and surgery. This week the High Court is expected to deliver its verdict in the case of Tom Condliff, a diabetic who says he will die within a year if Staffordshire primary care trust refuses to pay £5,500 for him to have a gastric bypass. His legal team has argued that without the operation there is a significant chance he will lose some of his limbs, making the cost of caring for him far outweigh that of the operation. But lawyers for Staffordshire PCT have said that National Institute of Clinical Excellence (Nice) guidelines make it clear that he does not qualify for surgery in his current condition. The case is the first to have been brought under the Human Rights Act against a PCT, with Condliff’s legal team arguing that, under article two, the Staffordshire trust must respect their client’s right to life. If it is successful, similar applications are expected to be made at many of the UK’s 159 PCTs. Human Rights Act Health NHS Jamie Doward guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
NPR's Julie Rovner lined up proponents of the federal Title X program on Friday's Morning Edition, devoting most of her four-minute report to three employees at a Washington, DC health care clinic who all pushed for continuing the funding of the subsidy for contraceptives. Rovner left only 30 seconds for a conservative advocate of defunding the program. During the bulk of her report , the correspondent featured Unity Health Care's Upper Cardozo Clinic in Washington, DC. She stated that it is locate in a “heavily Hispanic neighborhood” and accented this by playing a clip of one of the clinic's doctors, Andrea Anderson, speaking in Spanish with a patient. Dr. Anderson's female patient had a “sinus problem,” according to Rovner, but continued by noting that the “family physician” also asked the patient “if she's happy with the birth control method she's using. Thanks to the Title X program, Unity has available a wide array of contraceptive options …. Anderson says one of her favorite things about the family planning program is the way it lets her integrate contraceptive choices into her everyday practice .” After playing a clip from Dr. Anderson, who described her routine of promoting contraceptives, the NPR reporter gave a brief history of the Title X program, emphasizing its connection to two past Republican presidents: ROVNER: The Title X family planning program was created in 1970, signed by President Richard Nixon and championed by then Congressman George H.W. Bush . Its goal was to provide low-cost family planning services. Abortion has been banned as an allowed service since the program began. But even so, Title X has long been entangled in abortion politics. Among the many reasons for that is that Planned Parenthood affiliates get about a quarter of all Title X dollars. Planned Parenthood clinics are also the nation's largest abortion providers, although they use don't use federal funding for that. Actually, while this Title X money can't be used to directly pay for abortions, it should be pointed out that the millions of tax dollars that Planned Parenthood receives every year helps the organization use the rest of their yearly budget for services like abortion. Rovner then turned to two more employees of Unity Health Care, who both lobbied for Title X: ROVNER: The controversy surrounding the program is a shame, says Doctor Mark Hathaway, Unity's Title X Medical Director . That's because of the roughly six million pregnancies in the U.S. every year, half are unintended. DOCTOR MARK HATHAWAY: And of that half, half of those end up as abortions, and that's a ridiculously, ridiculously high level of abortions in a country like ours, where we have, supposedly, the best technologies and the best available methods to help women avoid pregnancy when they don't want to be pregnant. ROVNER: And if reducing abortion is a goal, then getting rid of the Title X program is not the way to accomplish it, says Unity nurse midwife, Karen Klauss . KAREN KLAUSS, NURSE MIDWIFE: If the Title X program goes away, there's no question that the unintended pregnancies would go up and, as a consequence of that, abortions across the country would go up. The correspondent finally turned to the conservative opponents of Title X near the end of her report, but then countered with another liberal-leaning argument to keep it: ROVNER: Some religious conservatives oppose the entire idea of the government handing out contraceptives, particularly to people who aren't married. But others oppose the program for other reasons. Chuck Donovan is a senior research fellow with the conservative Heritage Foundation . CHUCK DONOVAN, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: At the end of the day, there's just a question of how many things can you afford and is this one a national priority. ROVNER: Donovan says Heritage isn't against contraception. He just thinks the program should be funded through people's individual insurance. DONOVAN: And then it would be a matter of individuals deciding what their needs are and using their insurance dollars to purchase those services, rather than all of the cost and bureaucracy of a federal program. ROVNER: In the meantime, however, as more and more people are losing their health insurance, the demand for services under the Title X program has been rising . In 2009, the program served just over five million patients. I f it actually is cancelled, how those patients will get care remains a question yet to be addressed . This is the second time in two weeks that NPR has vouched for Title X. On March 21, Liza Halloran's article on NPR.org quoted exclusively from liberal supporters of the program or from conservatives who had second thoughts about targeting the program. The accompanying article which Rovner wrote for her network's website featured a sidebar explanation of the federal subsidy of contraceptives taken from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. — Matthew Balan is a news analyst at the Media Research Center. You can follow him on Twitter here .
Continue reading …
Letter to cabinet colleague accuses No camp of ‘scares and smears’ against supporters of electoral reform Cabinet ministers have become embroiled in an extraordinary row over electoral reform amid claims that the campaign against the alternative vote is “poisoning” British politics and hiding the sources of its funding. In a dramatic break from cabinet etiquette, Chris Huhne, the energy secretary, who backs AV, has written to Tory chairman Baroness Warsi demanding that she “comes clean” over funding and stops the “scares and smears” against supporters of change. He also accuses the campaign of being a front for the Tory party. “Are the No camp campaigning in dark glasses because they don’t want to show that the bulk of their funds, in cash and in kind, are donations from the Conservative party?” Huhne asks his fellow cabinet member. “How many Conservative employees have been seconded to the No campaign? Will you declare the full value of their services properly as donations?” The No campaign has not revealed its donors, which it is allowed to do until six months after the 5
Continue reading …
Loyalist and rebel forces accuse each other of atrocity in Duékoué, while fears deepen of protracted warfare in Abidjan The full horror of the violence sweeping Ivory Coast has emerged as the battle for Abidjan raged and thousands of civilians faced critical shortages. Forces loyal to President Laurent Gbagbo defied expectations by mounting stubborn resistance in the economic capital for a third day, raising fears of protracted urban warfare and soaring casualties. The heavy weapons fire and fighting left thousands of people barricaded inside their homes and in increasingly urgent need of food, water and medical treatment. Looting is rife amid a sense of lawlessness and anarchy. Deepening the fear in the capital, it was reported that at least 800 people were massacred in intercommunal violence in the western town of Duékoué, which fell to rebels last week. This was despite the presence of hundreds of UN peacekeepers there. In five days, the rebel forces aiming to install Alassane Ouattara, the widely recognised winner of last November’s election, took nearly 80% of Ivory Coast before entering Abidjan and encircling the presidential residence and palace. But hopes for a swift climax appear to have been dashed as Gbagbo makes an improbable last stand. His most reliable fighters, the roughly 2,500-strong elite republican guard, and remaining regular army troops have not yielded to seemingly overwhelming odds. Gbagbo’s Europe-based adviser Toussaint Alain defiantly told reporters in Paris that the president was still in his residence “like Sarkozy at the Elysée and Obama at the White House”. Foreign secretary William Hague called for restraint last night amid the violent struggle for power. “I am determined that all alleged human rights abuses in the city and elsewhere in Côte d’Ivoire must be investigated and those responsible held to account,” he said. “Laurent Gbagbo must heed the calls from the international community and step down at once to prevent further bloodshed.” On Friday, shooting near the presidential palace and residence died down, suggesting that the rebel group had been pushed back. A fighter with Ouattara’s forces, Boubacar Drame, said they were waiting for reinforcements. An adviser to Ouattara said fighters had surrounded the palace, but stopped shooting to give Gbagbo time to surrender overnight. “He said there has been too much blood,” he said. “Ouattara does not want for Gbagbo to die. But he also said that patience has a limit.” The fighting soon restarted on Saturday morning around the palace, state broadcaster and military bases. Gun battles and the sound of heavy weapons fire rang out across the city. The UN said one of its patrols and the office of its mission chief had both come under fire. Residents said they heard loud explosions near Agban base, the city’s biggest compound, in the Adjame neighbourhood near Cocody where Gbagbo has his official residence. There were also rumours of government soldiers fighting among themselves. Jules Konin, who lives nearby, told Reuters: “Mortar fire has been heard since late last night around the gendarmerie. It is very loud and we’re taking shelter in our homes.” A sports coach, who did not wish to be named, told how he and 10 of his colleagues have been seeking shelter from the fighting behind the bar of a sports club for three consecutive days. “I went to look for food yesterday because we had nothing left to eat,” he said. “The streets were deserted – I saw two other people at most, and zero cars. I was able to buy a bag of rice and a bit of cooking oil in a nearby shantytown. But we have all run out of phone credit and we are no longer able to call our relatives.” Henry Gray, a field coordinator for Médecins Sans Frontières, said in an email: “It’s quite a hairy situation here at the moment. We’re hearing constant gunfire along with the occasional heavy detonation. We had been visiting clinics until a few days ago, but the situation on the streets has deteriorated to such an extent that it’s just become too dangerous to go outside. There’s a lot of pillaging and looting going on, and if you’re out on the streets you’re basically a target. There is a real atmosphere of fear, particularly in poorer areas.” At least 1,200 people – mostly Lebanese and European citizens – have sought refuge at the French army base. The Lebanese, who own hundreds of shops and supermarkets across the city, have been particularly targeted by looters. Pro-Gbagbo forces retain control of state broadcaster RTI, which came back on air on Friday after heavy fighting took it down, showing pro-Gbagbo rallies and footage of his swearing-in ceremony after the contested November election. In a bizarre announcement, a news presenter appeared, looking nervous and wearing a dishevelled yellow T-shirt, and claimed the station had been attacked by the UN peacekeeping mission, “assisted by Guinean, Malian, Senegalese, Beninese and Burkinabe mercenaries”. He denied that Gbagbo’s residence had been attacked: “The president of the republic is at work; he continues to watch over Ivory Coast.” A military spokesman then read a statement calling on all military personnel to join forces at five locations in the besieged city. One lieutenant colonel urged the population to “go about their usual business in all quietude”. A flashing scroll said Gbagbo’s youth leader, Charles Blé Goudé, would give an order soon. The army handed out weapons to hundreds in the notorious Young Patriots group last week and they have killed a number of civilians, particularly west African immigrants whom state TV blames for the rebellion. Ouattara’s government spokesman Patrick Achi insisted that Gbagbo’s fall was imminent. “I’m not worried at all,” he told Reuters. “Where is he going to go? He doesn’t control the army or the gendarmerie. They will be exhausted. They are running out of ammunition.” Human Rights Watch called on Ouattara to control his rampant troops, amid reports of atrocities from both sides. Daniel Bekele, the watchdog’s Africa director, said: “Ouattara should send an unequivocal public message to all his commanders and forces fighting on his behalf that reprisals of any kind will be punished.” The rebels have swept south this week, but not without disastrous loss of life. On Tuesday, a day after Ouattara’s forces took Duékoué, intercommunal fighting broke out, killing at least 800 people, the Red Cross said. Kelnor Panglung, spokesman for the Red Cross in Ivory Coast, said there were “lots of people dead in the streets. We could see a lot of people killed. It’s truly horrific. There is no point for us to say if a certain ethnic group has been targeted because this inter-communal tension is a general problem. We are calling on the armed groups to protect the civilian population – this should be a priority.” It was unclear if Ouattara’s forces were involved in the attack in Duékoué, which has been the scene of communal violence before. Ouattara’s government denied their fighters were involved in any atrocities, and blamed the killings on Gbagbo forces. The UN puts the death toll since the conflict began at nearly 500, but events of past week have probably pushed it into the thousands – with no end in sight. Ivory Coast Laurent Gbagbo Alassane Ouattara David Smith guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …