Home » Archives by category » News (Page 2839)
Rupert Murdoch’s phone-hacking humble pie

Tycoon expresses regret for News Corporation’s involvement in scandal but insists he was kept in dark Rupert Murdoch defiantly insisted on Tuesday he was not responsible for what he called “sickening and horrible invasions” of privacy committed by his company, claiming he had been betrayed by disgraceful unidentified colleagues, and had known nothing of the cover-up of phone hacking. During a three-hour grilling at the culture select committee, disrupted by a protester throwing a plate of shaving foam, the once all-powerful News Corp chairman and chief executive told MPs: “I am not responsible.” In a halting performance, at times pausing, mumbling and mishearing, Murdoch said those culpable were “the people I hired and trusted, and perhaps then people who they hired and trusted”. But he denied the accusation he had been “willfully blind” about the scandal. Flanked by his son James, the chairman of News International, Murdoch said he and his company had been betrayed in a disgraceful way, but argued he was still the best person to clean up the company, adding in a rehearsed soundbite that his day in front of the committee represented “the most humble day of my life “. In a Westminster hearing screened worldwide, he repeatedly tried to avoid identifying the specific culprits in his company, often blaming earlier legal counsel for inadequate advice or leaving his son to explain his behaviour. But in separate testimony to the home affairs select committee, Lord Macdonald, the former head of the DPP, now on contract with News International, revealed it had taken him three to five minutes to examine documents kept by the company’s solicitors showing widespread criminality at the company. Macdonald said in his view the criminality revealed was “completely unequivocal”, adding when he reported his findings to the News International board recently there was surprise and shock. He said: “I cannot imagine anyone looking at the file would not say there was criminality,” including payments to police. The file was kept at the solicitors Harbottle & Lewis, and the police investigation is now centring on which executives tried to conceal its contents. In May 2007 Harbottle & Lewis sent a two-paragraph letter to News International executives claiming their examination of the documents showed there was no evidence any senior executives knew of illegal activities by the reporter Clive Goodman, or of any other illegal activities. The physical assault on Murdoch came near the end of the evidence session, prompting gasps as his wife Wendi Deng leaped up to hit the assailant, Jonathan May-Bowles, a participant in UK Uncut events. May-Bowles was detained by police as James Murdoch angrily asked officers why they had not protected his father. The Commons Speaker John Bercow called for an inquiry. The culture and home affairs select committee between them took more than eight hours of evidence about the phone-hacking scandal. Under the cover of the drama of the hearings, the Conservatives revealed that Neil Wallis, a former News of the World deputy editor, had given “informal unpaid advice” to Andy Coulson when he was director of communications at the Conservative party. In a statement the party said: “It has been drawn to our attention that he may have provided Andy Coulson with some informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election. We are currently finding out the exact nature of any advice.” Wallis was arrested last week on suspicion of phone hacking, and the furore surrounding his hiring by the Metropolitan police between October 2008 and September 2009 has led to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, and the Met’s assistant commissioner John Yates, who both gave evidence on Tuesday. Separately emails were released by Downing Street showing David Cameron’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, had on 20 September 2010 turned down the opportunity of a briefing by the Metropolitan police on the phone hacking. Labour claimed it showed an extraordinary dereliction of his duty to find out the scale of the wrong-doing, and the potential involvement of Coulson, the former No 10 director of communications. Cameron will be pressed on the issue when he makes a statement to MPs on how he is handling the crisis. He has been summoned to a 1922 backbench committee meeting to justify his response, including his decision to hire Coulson. The bulk of the cross-examination of the Murdochs was largely designed to locate how high the apparent cover-up of systematic law breaking went. James Murdoch was forced to admit, after much wriggling, that his company was still paying the legal costs of Glenn Mulcaire, one of the private detectives on the payroll of News of the World found guilty of hacking phones. James Murdoch said he was shocked and surprised to learn the payments were continuing, and denied it had been done to buy silence. Pressed by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly, Rupert Murdoch said he would stop the payments if he was contractually free to do so. James Murdoch denied the large out-of-court settlements to the PFA chief executive, Gordon Taylor, (£700,000) and publicist Max Clifford (£1m including legal costs), authorised by him in 2008, had not been pitched so high to buy their silence. He insisted the settlement level was based on legal advice, or in the case of Clifford due to the ending of a wider contract. James Murdoch also revealed he had authorised the settlements but had not told his father until 2009 after the case became public, saying the payments were too small to be reported to a higher board. He refused a request from MP Tom Watson to release Taylor from his confidentiality agreement. Both James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International who gave evidence later to the committee, said they had acted as soon as evidence emerged in civil cases at the end of 2010 that phone hacking had not been confined to Mulcaire and Goodman. James Murdoch apologised for the scandal and told MPs: “These actions do not live up to the standards our company aspires to.” The trio came under pressure over a letter in May 2007 prepared by Harbottle & Lewis on the instruction of Jon Chapman, the former director of legal affairs, and Daniel Cloak, the head of human resources, suggesting phone hacking had not been widespread. The files on which the Harbottle & Lewis letter is based were re-examined in April by senior News International executives including Will Lewis and Lord Macdonald. In tense opening exchanges Murdoch revealed he had mounted no investigation when Brooks told parliament seven years ago that the News of the World had paid police officers for information. He said: “I didn’t know of it.” He also admitted he had never heard of the fact that his senior reporter at the News of the World, Neville Thurlbeck, had been found by a judge to be guilty of blackmail. Watson interrupted to prevent Rupert Murdoch’s son answering the questions saying “Your father is responsible for corporate governance, and serious wrongdoing has been brought about in the company. It is revealing in itself what he does not know and what executives chose not to tell him.” Rupert Murdoch denied he was ignorant of his company, banging the table and saying News of the World “is less than 1 %” of News Corp. . He was asked about his connections to the Conservative party and revealed it had been on the advice of the prime minister’s staff that he had gone through the back door to have a cup of tea with David Cameron after the election to receive Cameron’s personal thanks for supporting his party in the election. “I was asked if I would please come through the back door,” Murdoch told the committee. Rupert Murdoch denied that the closure of the News of the World was motivated by financial considerations, saying he shut it because of the criminal allegations. In one flash of anger he complained his competitors had “caught us with dirty hands and created hysteria”. Aware that he must prevent the scandal spreading across the Atlantic, he insisted he had seen no evidence that victims of the 9/11 terror attack and their relatives were targeted by any of his papers. Rupert Murdoch Phone hacking News International News Corporation News of the World National newspapers Newspapers & magazines Media business Newspapers Police David Cameron House of Commons Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Rupert Murdoch’s phone-hacking humble pie

Tycoon expresses regret for News Corporation’s involvement in scandal but insists he was kept in dark Rupert Murdoch defiantly insisted on Tuesday he was not responsible for what he called “sickening and horrible invasions” of privacy committed by his company, claiming he had been betrayed by disgraceful unidentified colleagues, and had known nothing of the cover-up of phone hacking. During a three-hour grilling at the culture select committee, disrupted by a protester throwing a plate of shaving foam, the once all-powerful News Corp chairman and chief executive told MPs: “I am not responsible.” In a halting performance, at times pausing, mumbling and mishearing, Murdoch said those culpable were “the people I hired and trusted, and perhaps then people who they hired and trusted”. But he denied the accusation he had been “willfully blind” about the scandal. Flanked by his son James, the chairman of News International, Murdoch said he and his company had been betrayed in a disgraceful way, but argued he was still the best person to clean up the company, adding in a rehearsed soundbite that his day in front of the committee represented “the most humble day of my life “. In a Westminster hearing screened worldwide, he repeatedly tried to avoid identifying the specific culprits in his company, often blaming earlier legal counsel for inadequate advice or leaving his son to explain his behaviour. But in separate testimony to the home affairs select committee, Lord Macdonald, the former head of the DPP, now on contract with News International, revealed it had taken him three to five minutes to examine documents kept by the company’s solicitors showing widespread criminality at the company. Macdonald said in his view the criminality revealed was “completely unequivocal”, adding when he reported his findings to the News International board recently there was surprise and shock. He said: “I cannot imagine anyone looking at the file would not say there was criminality,” including payments to police. The file was kept at the solicitors Harbottle & Lewis, and the police investigation is now centring on which executives tried to conceal its contents. In May 2007 Harbottle & Lewis sent a two-paragraph letter to News International executives claiming their examination of the documents showed there was no evidence any senior executives knew of illegal activities by the reporter Clive Goodman, or of any other illegal activities. The physical assault on Murdoch came near the end of the evidence session, prompting gasps as his wife Wendi Deng leaped up to hit the assailant, Jonathan May-Bowles, a participant in UK Uncut events. May-Bowles was detained by police as James Murdoch angrily asked officers why they had not protected his father. The Commons Speaker John Bercow called for an inquiry. The culture and home affairs select committee between them took more than eight hours of evidence about the phone-hacking scandal. Under the cover of the drama of the hearings, the Conservatives revealed that Neil Wallis, a former News of the World deputy editor, had given “informal unpaid advice” to Andy Coulson when he was director of communications at the Conservative party. In a statement the party said: “It has been drawn to our attention that he may have provided Andy Coulson with some informal advice on a voluntary basis before the election. We are currently finding out the exact nature of any advice.” Wallis was arrested last week on suspicion of phone hacking, and the furore surrounding his hiring by the Metropolitan police between October 2008 and September 2009 has led to the resignation of Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan police commissioner, and the Met’s assistant commissioner John Yates, who both gave evidence on Tuesday. Separately emails were released by Downing Street showing David Cameron’s chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, had on 20 September 2010 turned down the opportunity of a briefing by the Metropolitan police on the phone hacking. Labour claimed it showed an extraordinary dereliction of his duty to find out the scale of the wrong-doing, and the potential involvement of Coulson, the former No 10 director of communications. Cameron will be pressed on the issue when he makes a statement to MPs on how he is handling the crisis. He has been summoned to a 1922 backbench committee meeting to justify his response, including his decision to hire Coulson. The bulk of the cross-examination of the Murdochs was largely designed to locate how high the apparent cover-up of systematic law breaking went. James Murdoch was forced to admit, after much wriggling, that his company was still paying the legal costs of Glenn Mulcaire, one of the private detectives on the payroll of News of the World found guilty of hacking phones. James Murdoch said he was shocked and surprised to learn the payments were continuing, and denied it had been done to buy silence. Pressed by the Labour MP Paul Farrelly, Rupert Murdoch said he would stop the payments if he was contractually free to do so. James Murdoch denied the large out-of-court settlements to the PFA chief executive, Gordon Taylor, (£700,000) and publicist Max Clifford (£1m including legal costs), authorised by him in 2008, had not been pitched so high to buy their silence. He insisted the settlement level was based on legal advice, or in the case of Clifford due to the ending of a wider contract. James Murdoch also revealed he had authorised the settlements but had not told his father until 2009 after the case became public, saying the payments were too small to be reported to a higher board. He refused a request from MP Tom Watson to release Taylor from his confidentiality agreement. Both James Murdoch and Rebekah Brooks, the former chief executive of News International who gave evidence later to the committee, said they had acted as soon as evidence emerged in civil cases at the end of 2010 that phone hacking had not been confined to Mulcaire and Goodman. James Murdoch apologised for the scandal and told MPs: “These actions do not live up to the standards our company aspires to.” The trio came under pressure over a letter in May 2007 prepared by Harbottle & Lewis on the instruction of Jon Chapman, the former director of legal affairs, and Daniel Cloak, the head of human resources, suggesting phone hacking had not been widespread. The files on which the Harbottle & Lewis letter is based were re-examined in April by senior News International executives including Will Lewis and Lord Macdonald. In tense opening exchanges Murdoch revealed he had mounted no investigation when Brooks told parliament seven years ago that the News of the World had paid police officers for information. He said: “I didn’t know of it.” He also admitted he had never heard of the fact that his senior reporter at the News of the World, Neville Thurlbeck, had been found by a judge to be guilty of blackmail. Watson interrupted to prevent Rupert Murdoch’s son answering the questions saying “Your father is responsible for corporate governance, and serious wrongdoing has been brought about in the company. It is revealing in itself what he does not know and what executives chose not to tell him.” Rupert Murdoch denied he was ignorant of his company, banging the table and saying News of the World “is less than 1 %” of News Corp. . He was asked about his connections to the Conservative party and revealed it had been on the advice of the prime minister’s staff that he had gone through the back door to have a cup of tea with David Cameron after the election to receive Cameron’s personal thanks for supporting his party in the election. “I was asked if I would please come through the back door,” Murdoch told the committee. Rupert Murdoch denied that the closure of the News of the World was motivated by financial considerations, saying he shut it because of the criminal allegations. In one flash of anger he complained his competitors had “caught us with dirty hands and created hysteria”. Aware that he must prevent the scandal spreading across the Atlantic, he insisted he had seen no evidence that victims of the 9/11 terror attack and their relatives were targeted by any of his papers. Rupert Murdoch Phone hacking News International News Corporation News of the World National newspapers Newspapers & magazines Media business Newspapers Police David Cameron House of Commons Patrick Wintour guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Sprint’s Dan Hesse: significant 4G plans to be announced this fall

We’re here at Sprint’s monolithic campus in Overland Park, and part of our day was spent speaking directly with CEO Dan Hesse. Amongst other things, the bigwig confessed that it had been awhile since his company (or Clearwire) had launched a 4G market. While Verizon Wireless has been pushing out LTE to new cities on what feels like a fortnightly basis, there’s been nary a WiMAX deployment in the US during 2011. But that, friends, is gearing up to change. According to Hesse: “We’re going to come out with a great story this fall around 4G, and it’ll all become clear.” He seemed curiously excited about whatever’s around the bend, and Sprint’s VP of Product Development, Fared Adib, seemed similarly giddy about the next few months. Neither of ‘em would crack on what markets would be addressed or what tactics would be used to match rivals in terms of 4G reach, but whatever the case, we’re guessing Sprint users will be a lot happier with their service once they get through the summertime blues. Oh, and it’s worth mentioning that Sprint’s “not exclusive to WiMAX, nor the Clearwire relationship.” Not a soul on the campus would talk details surrounding that rumored LightSquared investment , but judging by the smiles, it’s at least on the table. Sprint’s Dan Hesse: significant 4G plans to be announced this fall originally appeared on Engadget on Tue, 19 Jul 2011 16:52:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink

Continue reading …

On Tuesday's Morning Edition, NPR's Julie Rovner spun the debate over a proposed mandate for private insurance companies to cover birth control without a copay as being between ” women's health groups ,” which were not given an ideological label, and organizations such as the Family Research Council, which she clearly identified as “conservative.” A representative from her example of a “women's health group,” Planned Parenthood, labeled “unintended” pregnancies an ” epidemic .” Anchor Steve Inskeep began the report with an admission about ObamaCare: ” President Obama's health care overhaul law touches almost every aspect of health care, including birth contro l.” Rovner first highlighted a woman from Tucson, Arizona who, despite having a “full-time job with health insurance [and] a husband,” along with two kids, apparently couldn't afford the $25 a month copay for her birth control prescription. This led to her having a third child, and the woman declared that “while we're happy that she's here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions.” The NPR correspondent then used her “women's health groups” label as she noted that these typically left-leaning groups were “hoping that families…won't be faced with decisions like that in the future. If the Institute of Medicine agrees that contraception is a preventive service that's necessary for women's health and well-being , it's likely to be added to a list of benefits that all health insurers will be required to offer without deductibles or co-payments.” After spotlighting how ” half of all pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended ,” Rovner played her first two sound bites from Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, who made her “epidemic” assessment concerning this figure: DR. DEBORAH NUCATOLA, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: And if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care . ROVNER: But at the same time, says Nucatola, who's also an OB/GYN, birth control is about more than just preventing pregnancy. NUCATOLA: We can also use it as essential preventive medicine for the four million women who have babies every year in the United States, because more and more research shows that spacing your pregnancy- babies born at least 18 months apart are going to be healthier than those born closer together, and that closely timed births are risky for their mothers, too. Later, the reporter grouped birth control with ” cancer screenings or childhood immunizations ,” as she introduced her clips from Jeannie Monahan of the FRC, who stated that one of the reasons why her organization opposes the proposed mandate is because “seven to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent that implantation, and thereby, cause the demise of that baby. So, we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients.” Rovner then made a misleading statement about Plan B and other “emergency” contraceptives, followed by a third clip from Dr. Nucatola: ROVNER: Plan B is one of two emergency contraceptives that have been approved by the FDA. They are different from the abortion pill mifepristone. Neither emergency contraceptive can disrupt a pregnancy that's already established . But Planned Parenthood's Deborah Nucatola says the whole argument about preventing implantation has been overblown by abortion opponents . NUCATOLA: If people want to postulate on a possible theoretic risk of prevention of implantation, they're entitled to do that, but t here is no scientific evidence that that is a mechanism of action . Actually, one of the ways that Plan B works, as Planned Parenthood's own website discloses , is that it “thins the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus .” So, as life begins at conception, the drug acts to deny the new life from developing further, thereby acting as an abortifacient, just as Monahan stated. So Dr. Nucatola is contradicted by not only her own organization, but by the FDA as well on its website : ” Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).” Earlier in 2011, the NPR correspondent displayed a similar slant during an April 1 report when she lined up proponents of the federal government's Title X subsidy of contraceptives, and left only 30 seconds for a conservative opponent of the program. The full transcript of Julie Rovner's report from Tuesday's Morning Edition: STEVE INSKEEP: President Obama's health care overhaul law touches almost every aspect of health care, including birth control. An independent panel of experts is set to make a series of recommendations tomorrow about preventive health care services for women. The report from the Institute of Medicine will help determine if birth control will have to be covered by every private health insurance policy. NPR's Julie Rovner reports. JULIE ROVNER: Andrea Leyva of Tucson, Arizona had a full-time job with health insurance, a husband, and two children a couple of years ago. But even so, the $25 a month copay for her birth control was hard for the family to afford. ANDREA LEYVA: It began to fall into the category of a luxury. Both my husband and I work, but we already had children and a household to maintain. ROVNER: And so, at age 36, Leyva got pregnant with what she calls her blessed surprise, daughter Alexandria. LEYVA: So, while we're happy that she's here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions. ROVNER: Women's health groups are hoping that families like Leyva's won't be faced with decisions like that in the future. If the Institute of Medicine agrees that contraception is a preventive service that's necessary for women's health and well-being, it's likely to be added to a list of benefits that all health insurers will be required to offer without deductibles or co-payments. Deborah Nucatola is senior director for medical services for Planned Parenthood. She says Leyva is hardly unique. Half of all pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended. DR. DEBORAH NUCATOLA, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: And if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care. ROVNER: But at the same time, says Nucatola, who's also an OB/GYN, birth control is about more than just preventing pregnancy. NUCATOLA: We can also use it as essential preventive medicine for the four million women who have babies every year in the United States, because more and more research shows that spacing your pregnancy- babies born at least 18 months apart are going to be healthier than those born closer together, and that closely timed births are risky for their mothers, too. ROVNER: But not everyone agrees that contraception should be available to the same extent as cancer screenings or childhood immunizations. JEANNIE MONAHAN, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: There are two reasons that we oppose the inclusion of contraceptives as a preventive service. ROVNER: Jeannie Monahan heads the Center for Human Dignity at the conservative Family Research Council. She says the first reason is that requiring contraceptive coverage violates the conscience rights of people, most notably Catholics, who don't believe in artificial methods of contraception. MONAHAN: Say, for example, that I had a problem with it. I would be paying into a plan that would be covering them. So, it would be objectionable because I would be paying into that plan. In a way, I would be forced to pay for it myself. ROVNER: The other problem, says Monahan, is the one that often crops up in discussions of birth control: abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives, so-called morning-after pills, can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg into a woman's uterus. MONAHAN: Those seven to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent that implantation, and thereby, cause the demise of that baby. So, we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients. ROVNER: Plan B is one of two emergency contraceptives that have been approved by the FDA. They are different from the abortion pill mifepristone. Neither emergency contraceptive can disrupt a pregnancy that's already established. But Planned Parenthood's Deborah Nucatola says the whole argument about preventing implantation has been overblown by abortion opponents. NUCATOLA: If people want to postulate on a possible theoretic risk of prevention of implantation, they're entitled to do that, but there is no scientific evidence that that is a mechanism of action. ROVNER: Still, it was the divisive politics of birth control that prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to punt the matter to the Institute of Medicine in the first place. Tomorrow, the IOM officially tosses the decision about whether insurers should cover contraception back into the government's lap. Julie Rovner, NPR News, Washington.

Continue reading …

On Tuesday's Morning Edition, NPR's Julie Rovner spun the debate over a proposed mandate for private insurance companies to cover birth control without a copay as being between ” women's health groups ,” which were not given an ideological label, and organizations such as the Family Research Council, which she clearly identified as “conservative.” A representative from her example of a “women's health group,” Planned Parenthood, labeled “unintended” pregnancies an ” epidemic .” Anchor Steve Inskeep began the report with an admission about ObamaCare: ” President Obama's health care overhaul law touches almost every aspect of health care, including birth contro l.” Rovner first highlighted a woman from Tucson, Arizona who, despite having a “full-time job with health insurance [and] a husband,” along with two kids, apparently couldn't afford the $25 a month copay for her birth control prescription. This led to her having a third child, and the woman declared that “while we're happy that she's here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions.” The NPR correspondent then used her “women's health groups” label as she noted that these typically left-leaning groups were “hoping that families…won't be faced with decisions like that in the future. If the Institute of Medicine agrees that contraception is a preventive service that's necessary for women's health and well-being , it's likely to be added to a list of benefits that all health insurers will be required to offer without deductibles or co-payments.” After spotlighting how ” half of all pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended ,” Rovner played her first two sound bites from Dr. Deborah Nucatola of Planned Parenthood, who made her “epidemic” assessment concerning this figure: DR. DEBORAH NUCATOLA, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: And if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care . ROVNER: But at the same time, says Nucatola, who's also an OB/GYN, birth control is about more than just preventing pregnancy. NUCATOLA: We can also use it as essential preventive medicine for the four million women who have babies every year in the United States, because more and more research shows that spacing your pregnancy- babies born at least 18 months apart are going to be healthier than those born closer together, and that closely timed births are risky for their mothers, too. Later, the reporter grouped birth control with ” cancer screenings or childhood immunizations ,” as she introduced her clips from Jeannie Monahan of the FRC, who stated that one of the reasons why her organization opposes the proposed mandate is because “seven to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent that implantation, and thereby, cause the demise of that baby. So, we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients.” Rovner then made a misleading statement about Plan B and other “emergency” contraceptives, followed by a third clip from Dr. Nucatola: ROVNER: Plan B is one of two emergency contraceptives that have been approved by the FDA. They are different from the abortion pill mifepristone. Neither emergency contraceptive can disrupt a pregnancy that's already established . But Planned Parenthood's Deborah Nucatola says the whole argument about preventing implantation has been overblown by abortion opponents . NUCATOLA: If people want to postulate on a possible theoretic risk of prevention of implantation, they're entitled to do that, but t here is no scientific evidence that that is a mechanism of action . Actually, one of the ways that Plan B works, as Planned Parenthood's own website discloses , is that it “thins the lining of the uterus. In theory, this could prevent pregnancy by keeping a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterus .” So, as life begins at conception, the drug acts to deny the new life from developing further, thereby acting as an abortifacient, just as Monahan stated. So Dr. Nucatola is contradicted by not only her own organization, but by the FDA as well on its website : ” Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).” Earlier in 2011, the NPR correspondent displayed a similar slant during an April 1 report when she lined up proponents of the federal government's Title X subsidy of contraceptives, and left only 30 seconds for a conservative opponent of the program. The full transcript of Julie Rovner's report from Tuesday's Morning Edition: STEVE INSKEEP: President Obama's health care overhaul law touches almost every aspect of health care, including birth control. An independent panel of experts is set to make a series of recommendations tomorrow about preventive health care services for women. The report from the Institute of Medicine will help determine if birth control will have to be covered by every private health insurance policy. NPR's Julie Rovner reports. JULIE ROVNER: Andrea Leyva of Tucson, Arizona had a full-time job with health insurance, a husband, and two children a couple of years ago. But even so, the $25 a month copay for her birth control was hard for the family to afford. ANDREA LEYVA: It began to fall into the category of a luxury. Both my husband and I work, but we already had children and a household to maintain. ROVNER: And so, at age 36, Leyva got pregnant with what she calls her blessed surprise, daughter Alexandria. LEYVA: So, while we're happy that she's here, it was not planned, and had we had some better finances, we probably could have made some better decisions. ROVNER: Women's health groups are hoping that families like Leyva's won't be faced with decisions like that in the future. If the Institute of Medicine agrees that contraception is a preventive service that's necessary for women's health and well-being, it's likely to be added to a list of benefits that all health insurers will be required to offer without deductibles or co-payments. Deborah Nucatola is senior director for medical services for Planned Parenthood. She says Leyva is hardly unique. Half of all pregnancies in the U.S. each year are unintended. DR. DEBORAH NUCATOLA, PLANNED PARENTHOOD: And if we could prevent an epidemic of this proportion, that should be justification enough that contraception is preventive care. ROVNER: But at the same time, says Nucatola, who's also an OB/GYN, birth control is about more than just preventing pregnancy. NUCATOLA: We can also use it as essential preventive medicine for the four million women who have babies every year in the United States, because more and more research shows that spacing your pregnancy- babies born at least 18 months apart are going to be healthier than those born closer together, and that closely timed births are risky for their mothers, too. ROVNER: But not everyone agrees that contraception should be available to the same extent as cancer screenings or childhood immunizations. JEANNIE MONAHAN, FAMILY RESEARCH COUNCIL: There are two reasons that we oppose the inclusion of contraceptives as a preventive service. ROVNER: Jeannie Monahan heads the Center for Human Dignity at the conservative Family Research Council. She says the first reason is that requiring contraceptive coverage violates the conscience rights of people, most notably Catholics, who don't believe in artificial methods of contraception. MONAHAN: Say, for example, that I had a problem with it. I would be paying into a plan that would be covering them. So, it would be objectionable because I would be paying into that plan. In a way, I would be forced to pay for it myself. ROVNER: The other problem, says Monahan, is the one that often crops up in discussions of birth control: abortion. Specifically, abortion opponents argue that some emergency contraceptives, so-called morning-after pills, can cause very early abortions by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg into a woman's uterus. MONAHAN: Those seven to 10 days before a baby can implant, Plan B can prevent that implantation, and thereby, cause the demise of that baby. So, we'd be opposed to those drugs being included because they act as abortifacients. ROVNER: Plan B is one of two emergency contraceptives that have been approved by the FDA. They are different from the abortion pill mifepristone. Neither emergency contraceptive can disrupt a pregnancy that's already established. But Planned Parenthood's Deborah Nucatola says the whole argument about preventing implantation has been overblown by abortion opponents. NUCATOLA: If people want to postulate on a possible theoretic risk of prevention of implantation, they're entitled to do that, but there is no scientific evidence that that is a mechanism of action. ROVNER: Still, it was the divisive politics of birth control that prompted the Department of Health and Human Services to punt the matter to the Institute of Medicine in the first place. Tomorrow, the IOM officially tosses the decision about whether insurers should cover contraception back into the government's lap. Julie Rovner, NPR News, Washington.

Continue reading …
‘Healthy’ Diet Mistakes: Fat Free, Cutting Carbs, and More

WebMD discusses the common diet mistakes we make, from cutting too many carbs to succumbing to fad diets. Learn how to fix these nutrition blunders.

Continue reading …
‘The Bachelorette’ Recap: Meet the Parents

Ah, the hometown dates, arguably the most artificial of all the dates we see on this show. (And that’s saying something.) Monday’s episode of The Bachelorette followed Ashley as she visited the hometowns and families of the four remaining guys, Constantine, Ames, Ben and JP. If you honestly didn’t know what to expect from this

Continue reading …

Heat Exhaustion

No Comment
Heat Exhaustion

Dr. Matt Bowen discusses heat exhaustion vs heat stroke Dr. Matt Bowen discusses heat exhaustion vs heat stroke Connecticon 2011 VLog Part 2: Day One Stuff SESportsCare says: Dehydration of greater than 3% of body weight increases an athlete's risk of heat illness (heat cramps, heat exhaustion , heat stroke).

Continue reading …

Most brides pose for pictures between their wedding ceremony and reception … but not like this. A Michigan woman’s day of wedded bliss was interrupted by a brief stint in the county jail, after police got a tip that the bride would be traveling back to the state for her wedding;…

Continue reading …

John Cena Fired

No Comment
John Cena Fired

Vince McMahon speech and John Cena interrupted him Triple H surprise return part2 Triple H returns & Vince McMahon is Fired – WWE RAW 7 18 11 (HD) [STREAMSCENE.CC] The return of Triple H & Vince McMahon is Fired – WWE RAW 7/18/11 ed3217 says: Dont get john cena fired hes the best wrestler of all time and he made a hell of a match two days ago

Continue reading …