Categories
Cardiovascular
Diagnostics
Endocrinology
Health Insurance
Medical Devices
Mental Health
Nutrition
Oncology
Public Health
Sexual Health
Popular Articles

REMERON(R) Now Approved In Japan For The Treatment Of Depression In Adult Patients
Schering-Plough Corporation (NYSE: SGP) announced that Schering-Plough K.K., the company"s country operation in Japan, has received marketing approval for REMERON(R) /Reflex(R) (mirtazapine)15 mg Tablets for the treatment of major depressive disorder.(1) The product was developed jointly with Meiji Seika Kabushiki Kaisha, Ltd. Schering-Plough and Meiji Seika will market the product under the trade names, REMERON(R) and Reflex(R), respectively. REMERON is currently available in more than 90 countries worldwide.
generic viagra online
Washington Times Opinion Piece, Editorial Discuss DOJ Nominee Johnsen
The Washington Times recently published an opinion piece and an editorial discussing President Obama"s nomination of Indiana University law professor Dawn Johnsen to head the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department. Summaries appear below. ~ Mickey Edwards/William Sessions, Washington Times: The Senate should "act expeditiously to approve" Johnsen"s nomination because "her views on the limits of presidential power are precisely what the Constitution envisions and conservatives have long championed," Edwards, vice president of the Aspen Institute and author of "Reclaiming Conservatism," and Sessions, a partner at the law firm Holland & Knight, write in a Times opinion piece. According to the authors, Johnsen "made her views clear" on the limits of presidential power when she joined a bipartisan group of lawyers that declared that the Office of Legal Counsel should promote "presidential adherence to the rule of law." Edwards and Sessions write that Johnsen is being criticized for "being blunt, unserious and critical of presidential policies." However, these attacks are unwarranted, they write, noting that in the legal profession, "a little blunt talk to a client -- in this case, the president of the United States -- might be required." Edwards and Sessions continue, "What is needed in the Office of Legal Counsel is a person with the constitutional understanding to know that even presidents with whose politics she agrees must obey both the Constitution and federal statutes and who has the gumption to say so, even if the advice won"t be well received" (Edwards/Sessions, Washington Times, 5/21).~ Washington Times: The editorial states that Johnsen "is so radical" that 31 Republican Indiana state senators on Monday sent a letter to Sens. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) and Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) asking them to oppose her confirmation. The Republican senators called Johnsen"s views supporting abortion rights "extremely radical" and said she often uses "harsh, sensationalizing rhetoric" in her writings on Supreme Court cases, the editorial states. According to the editorial, Johnsen"s "political advocacy shows a profound disregard for the courts" proper role" because she considers the courts "as making up just another political, policymaking branch of government, not as bodies restrained by the Constitution or existing laws." The editorial continues that Johnsen is "guilty" of "asking judges to impose their own policy preferences" in favor of abortion rights "against the dictates of existing constitutional law." The editorial concludes, "Someone with such contemptuous views of the Constitution should not be the Obama administration"s chief constitutional interpreter" (Washington Times, 5/21).
News of the day
Blogs Comment On Women's Health Disparities, Sotomayor Nomination, Other Topics
The following summarizes selected women"s health-related blog entries. ~ "Report: Higher Rates of Unintended Pregnancy, Abortion Among Women of Color," Sharon Camp, RH Reality Check: A new report from the Kaiser Family Foundation on health disparities between white women and women of color "provides further stronger evidence debunking claims" from antiabortion-rights advocates who "have long argued that high abortion rates among minorities are the result of supposed aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities," Camp, president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, writes. In addition to identifying disparities in conditions like heart disease and cancer, the report documents "widespread disparities in access to health insurance and health screenings" and explores growing evidence of the association between social factors and health behaviors, access and outcomes, according to Camp. She continues that research from Guttmacher has consistently demonstrated that "rates among racial and ethnic minorities -- especially blacks and Hispanics -- are directly linked to their higher rates of unintended pregnancy, which in turn reflect pervasive health disparities more generally." Camp writes that the "fundamental question policymakers should be asking is not why women of color have high abortion rates, but rather what can be done to help them have fewer unintended pregnancies and achieve better health outcomes more generally," such as improved access to affordable contraception. Women"s dissatisfaction with health care providers, quality of service and the contraceptive methods themselves also are factors in contraceptive use, as are "[u]nstable life situations," which can make consistent use a low priority for some women, according to Camp. She writes, "By continuing to label abortion providers as "racists" and refusing to support expanded access to contraceptive services, antiabortion-rights activists are by no means part of the solution -- to high rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion among racial and ethnic minorities or to persistent and tragic disparities in health care generally" (Camp, RH Reality Check, 6/15).~ "What"s Next for Women"s Legal Rights in the Supreme Court?" Amy Matsui, Womenstake: Matsui, senior counsel for the National Women"s Law Center, examines several women"s rights issues "that we see peeking around the corner" of the next Supreme Court session. Matsui writes that "increasingly draconian abortion restrictions have begun to work their way through state legislatures." These restrictions include giving personhood rights to fetuses, mandates on the information women are given prior to abortion procedures and "outright abortion bans," she writes. Challenges to laws that expand protections for providers who deny health care services also "are likely to come before the courts," Matsui writes. Challenges to health care reform proposals also are likely, "specifically, the interaction of the federal statute that governs employee health care and pension plans ... and any new requirements for employers to provide health care coverage," according to Matsui. The Supreme Court has "obviously considered the underlying legal doctrines in these cases (the constitutional right to privacy, federal anti-discrimination statutes, Equal Protection guarantees and federal benefits statutes) in the past; some might say that there is a clear roadmap of where the Court should go in some of these cases," Matsui writes, concluding, "But when every vote counts on the Supreme Court, women should be watching what cases come next" (Matsui, Womenstake, 6/12).~ "Antiabortion Groups" Case Against Sotomayor," Dan Gilgoff, U.S. News & World Report"s "God and Country": "With no clear evidence for a pro-abortion-rights position in her judicial decisions, antiabortion groups" case against Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor can be summed up in eight words: the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund," Gilgoff writes. From 1980 to 1992, Sotomayor sat on the l
Oncology

Opposition To Abortion Rights 'Purity Test For Remaining In GOP Inner Circle,' Opinion Piece Says

People "will not be surprised" by the recent Republican "purge" and "un-eulogies" of several conservative abortion-rights supporters -- including retiring Supreme Court Justice David Souter, former Republican Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Penn.) and former Secretary of State Colin Powell -- given that "abortion is the purity test for remaining in the GOP inner circle," syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman writes in a Memphis Commercial Appeal opinion piece. The U.S. is "in for another battle centered, again, on Roe v. Wade" as President Obama nominates a replacement for Souter, she writes, adding that the "purge has led me to wonder what would have happened if the first abortion case to arrive at the Supreme Court" were Struck v. Secretary of Defense, rather than Roe. "What if it had been brought by the woman who did not want an abortion?" Goodman writes, noting that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg has recently "mused out loud about the case that got away -- the one she would have liked to argue before the court back when she was a women"s rights litigator."According to Goodman, Susan Struck was a captain in the Air Force who became pregnant in 1970 and was told by her commanding officer that she could either resign or have an abortion. "Struck picked a third choice: a lawsuit," and Ginsberg -- a lawyer with the American Civil Liberties Union -- "argued that the regulation prohibiting pregnant women from military service was sex discrimination," Goodman writes. Ginsberg also argued that Struck"s choice to carry her pregnancy to term was a personal one and that government intervention was a violation of her liberty. However, as the case was heading to the Supreme Court, the defending lawyer "figured that he was going to lose. So the savvy solicitor advised the armed services to change the rules and the case became moot," Goodman writes."It is mind-bending to think about how different the whole debate might have been if the first Supreme Court case arguing for the right to decide had been brought by a woman wanting to have a baby," Goodman continues. She asks if the U.S. would "have better understood this reality: a government that can force a woman to have an abortion is the same government that can force a woman to continue the pregnancy? Would it have changed a Republican Party that was traditionally so wary of government power-grabs?" (Goodman, Memphis Commercial Appeal, 5/14). Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women"s Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women"s Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company. © 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):

© Copyright 2009