At Parliament, Breast Cancer Network NZ Inc submit evidence in support of their call for a breast cancer risk reduction and prevention strategy aimed at reducing the incidence of the disease.
On November 9 2006, Barbara Mason and Gillian Woods of the Breast Cancer Network presented a petition to Sue Kedgley on the steps of Parliament calling for action on breast cancer. The petition was immediately referred to the Health Select Committee and tomorrow Ms Woods and Ms Mason, together with Dr Meriel Watts, will make a strong representation on behalf of the 10,969 signatories to the petition, and the New Zealanders affected by breast cancer, for the government to act to reduce the incidence of the disease.
The incidence of breast cancer in this country is among the highest in the world. We can no longer justify any delay in tackling the rising incidence of the disease. Breast cancer remains a killer disease for more than 600 women every year in spite of earlier diagnosis, new surgical techniques, anti-oestrogenic drugs, new chemotherapeutic agents and a falling mortality rate. Those who experience the disease suffer major physical, emotional and financial impact on their lives, as do their families.
The Breast Cancer Network NZ submission will ask government for a breast cancer strategy focused on reversing the rising incidence of breast cancer in New Zealand. They will ask that government acknowledge that synthetic chemicals in the environment have a role in the development of breast cancer and that New Zealanders be tested to establish the level of residues carried in their bodies. In addition, they will request that a precautionary approach be adopted with all chemicals where there is evidence of a link with breast cancer.
Breast Cancer Network NZ Inc is an independent group of New Zealand women, most of whom have experienced breast cancer. We promote the issues and needs of those affected by breast cancer, advocate for improved treatment and care, and work towards the prevention of the disease for the benefit of the whole community. More about our Stop Cancer Where it Starts project is available on line at bcn.nz.
четверг, 23 февраля 2012 г.
четверг, 16 февраля 2012 г.
Alaska Gov. Palin Voices Support For Parental Involvement Ballot Measure
Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) expressed support for a ballot measure that would require parental "notice or consent" before a minor could have an abortion in the state, the Anchorage Daily News reports. The measure, sponsored by former Lt. Gov. Loren Leman (R), would require a 48-hour waiting period after a parent is notified. Minors could bypass the parental notification or consent requirement by obtaining court permission or if there is a medical emergency. According to the Daily News, the ballot initiative's sponsors developed the measure after a state Senate bill (S.B. 6) that would have required parental consent stalled. Palin blamed the "inflexibility by some senators" for the bill not passing, adding that minors should have their parents' advice when making abortion-related decisions. According to the Daily News, the ballot initiative's sponsors can begin collecting signatures after Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell certifies the ballot language as legal. The sponsors need to collect 32,734 signatures before the legislative session starts in January to put the initiative on the ballot for the August 2010 primary election.
Planned Parenthood plans to oppose the ballot measure. Clover Simon, executive director of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, said some minors could face unhealthy family situations that might lead them to take dangerous steps to avoid discussing an abortion with their parents. "I'm afraid that young women in that situation are going to see this, and they're just not going to get any help at all and they are going to take things into their own hand[s]," Simon said.
Palin said she considered sponsoring the ballot measure herself, but decided against it after consulting with state lawyers. According to Alaska law, a governor cannot spend money or "provide anything of value" to influence the outcome of a ballot measure unless the Legislature appropriates money for that purpose. State election officials are investigating whether Palin's support of a ballot measure last summer violated the law. Palin said that instead of sponsoring the new ballot measure, she will "volunteer to be the first signature," adding, "I will not hesitate to speak up in support of Alaska's daughters."
Jim Minnery, president of the Christian antiabortion-rights group Alaska Family Council, said that the ultimate goal of the initiative's supporters is to enact a state law requiring parental permission before minors can undergo abortion procedures. The Alaska Supreme Court two years ago ruled? that a parental consent law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Dana Fabe? wrote that a law requiring notification but not consent would likely not pose constitutional problems (Cockerham, Anchorage Daily News, 5/3).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. 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.
Planned Parenthood plans to oppose the ballot measure. Clover Simon, executive director of Planned Parenthood of the Great Northwest, said some minors could face unhealthy family situations that might lead them to take dangerous steps to avoid discussing an abortion with their parents. "I'm afraid that young women in that situation are going to see this, and they're just not going to get any help at all and they are going to take things into their own hand[s]," Simon said.
Palin said she considered sponsoring the ballot measure herself, but decided against it after consulting with state lawyers. According to Alaska law, a governor cannot spend money or "provide anything of value" to influence the outcome of a ballot measure unless the Legislature appropriates money for that purpose. State election officials are investigating whether Palin's support of a ballot measure last summer violated the law. Palin said that instead of sponsoring the new ballot measure, she will "volunteer to be the first signature," adding, "I will not hesitate to speak up in support of Alaska's daughters."
Jim Minnery, president of the Christian antiabortion-rights group Alaska Family Council, said that the ultimate goal of the initiative's supporters is to enact a state law requiring parental permission before minors can undergo abortion procedures. The Alaska Supreme Court two years ago ruled? that a parental consent law was unconstitutional. Chief Justice Dana Fabe? wrote that a law requiring notification but not consent would likely not pose constitutional problems (Cockerham, Anchorage Daily News, 5/3).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. 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.
четверг, 9 февраля 2012 г.
Newsweek Examines 'Divide' Within Pro-Life Movement Over Support For Reducing Need For Abortion
The election of President Obama, who supports abortion rights, and a Democratic Congress has "divided" the abortion-rights opposition movement over whether its members should support polices aimed at reducing the need for abortion rather than continuing to focus on overturning Roe v. Wade, Newsweek reports. The conflict is occurring between antiabortion-rights groups "who are preparing for the fight of their lives and those who see an opportunity to redefine what it means to be pro-life," according to Newsweek. Although the so-called "abortion reduction" strategy "may not sound radical," there are "legions" of abortion-rights opponents who believe that "even the use of the word 'reduction' instead of elimination borders on heresy" and "strikes many as a wrong-headed signal that tolerating any level of abortion is acceptable," Newsweek reports.
The antiabortion movement made "progress" during the eight years of the Bush administration, including promoting state-level restrictions on abortion access. In 2007 there were approximately 400 proposed state bills to restrict abortion, an increase of more than 50% from 2006, according to Americans United for Life. However, many antiabortion-rights advocates "worry that their victories from the past eight years have been made vulnerable" with Obama's election and his recent repeal of the "global gag rule," also known as the "Mexico City" policy, which banned federal funding for international family planning groups that offer abortion services or information, even with their own funds, Newsweek reports. As a result, some antiabortion groups are returning their attention to increasing grassroots campaigns to gain support. Jill Stanek, a prominent anitabortion-rights blogger, said of the Obama administration and Democratic Congress, "We won't get anything past them. The only reason we'd be introducing legislation now is to gain public awareness." Abortion-rights opponents also "fear" that their focus on state-level restrictions "may have run its course" after voters rejected antiabortion ballot initiatives in South Dakota, California and Colorado in 2008. James Brown, chief of staff for abortion-rights opponent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), said that in "reality" such ballot initiatives "have gone as far as they can go," adding that the "question is, where does it go from here?"
However, a "small group" of antiabortion advocates "sees the change in Washington as an opportunity to reshape some of the movement's core principles." For example, RealAbortionSolutions, which launched during the 2008 election, ran advertisements calling for abortion-rights opponents to "ask ourselves what it really means to be pro-life" and "come together on solutions based on results, not rhetoric." Newsweek reports that a "handful of groups" are at the "intersection of religion and politics" with regard to abortion, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Faith in Public Life. Jim Wallis, director of the progressive evangelical group Sojourners, said it is unlikely that Roe will ever be overturned "no matter what your convictions are." He said, "Let's look at results. How do you really reduce abortion? You support women's health care, you promote involved fatherhood." According to Newsweek, recent research linking abortion and poverty has led some antiabortion groups to focus on social welfare initiatives -- such as adoption support or increased Medicaid benefits and education assistance for pregnant women -- with the aim of decreasing abortions.
A 2008 survey by Third Way, a not-for-profit think tank promoting bipartisan cooperation, found that 72% of Americans support the public policy goal of reducing the need for abortions through initiatives to prevent unintended pregnancies and support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. According to Newsweek, Obama "offered an optimistic view of the level of cooperation possible" between the two sides of the abortion debate in a statement issued on the anniversary of Roe. Obama in the statement called for "common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services." In addition, Wallis, who was involved in discussion with Obama advisers surrounding the Roe anniversary, said that Obama intentionally delayed his repeal of the Mexico City policy until after the anniversary in an attempt to "to do it quietly, without fanfare." He added that by issuing the statement about the anniversary before rescinding the policy, Obama "sent a clear signal that he's not looking to start a fight with people who are pro-life."
Obama's team "may still have a hard time bringing the two sides together," despite the support for such an approach and the efforts to increase bipartisanship in the early days of his administration, Newsweek reports. Previous attempts at the "common ground" strategy have "stalled" because legislators from both sides of the issue are "loath to put their votes behind the other side's tactics," according to Newsweek. For example, abortion-rights supporters want to increase access to contraception, while opponents want more funding for pregnancy-support programs. NARAL Pro-Choice America Policy Director Donna Crane said that the group opposes Casey's Support for Pregnant Woman Act (S.B. 2407) because of "the absence of important pieces, like contraception, and the presence of some parts tinged with anti-choice values." Kirsten Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said the "biggest obstacle" for legislation aimed at reducing the need for abortion is that "people look at it and they're going, 'Okay, what's the angle here? What are you pushing?'" She added, "It's support for pregnant women. There's no hidden agenda here" (Kliff, Newsweek, 1/27).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. 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.
The antiabortion movement made "progress" during the eight years of the Bush administration, including promoting state-level restrictions on abortion access. In 2007 there were approximately 400 proposed state bills to restrict abortion, an increase of more than 50% from 2006, according to Americans United for Life. However, many antiabortion-rights advocates "worry that their victories from the past eight years have been made vulnerable" with Obama's election and his recent repeal of the "global gag rule," also known as the "Mexico City" policy, which banned federal funding for international family planning groups that offer abortion services or information, even with their own funds, Newsweek reports. As a result, some antiabortion groups are returning their attention to increasing grassroots campaigns to gain support. Jill Stanek, a prominent anitabortion-rights blogger, said of the Obama administration and Democratic Congress, "We won't get anything past them. The only reason we'd be introducing legislation now is to gain public awareness." Abortion-rights opponents also "fear" that their focus on state-level restrictions "may have run its course" after voters rejected antiabortion ballot initiatives in South Dakota, California and Colorado in 2008. James Brown, chief of staff for abortion-rights opponent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), said that in "reality" such ballot initiatives "have gone as far as they can go," adding that the "question is, where does it go from here?"
However, a "small group" of antiabortion advocates "sees the change in Washington as an opportunity to reshape some of the movement's core principles." For example, RealAbortionSolutions, which launched during the 2008 election, ran advertisements calling for abortion-rights opponents to "ask ourselves what it really means to be pro-life" and "come together on solutions based on results, not rhetoric." Newsweek reports that a "handful of groups" are at the "intersection of religion and politics" with regard to abortion, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good and Faith in Public Life. Jim Wallis, director of the progressive evangelical group Sojourners, said it is unlikely that Roe will ever be overturned "no matter what your convictions are." He said, "Let's look at results. How do you really reduce abortion? You support women's health care, you promote involved fatherhood." According to Newsweek, recent research linking abortion and poverty has led some antiabortion groups to focus on social welfare initiatives -- such as adoption support or increased Medicaid benefits and education assistance for pregnant women -- with the aim of decreasing abortions.
A 2008 survey by Third Way, a not-for-profit think tank promoting bipartisan cooperation, found that 72% of Americans support the public policy goal of reducing the need for abortions through initiatives to prevent unintended pregnancies and support women who choose to carry their pregnancies to term. According to Newsweek, Obama "offered an optimistic view of the level of cooperation possible" between the two sides of the abortion debate in a statement issued on the anniversary of Roe. Obama in the statement called for "common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information and preventative services." In addition, Wallis, who was involved in discussion with Obama advisers surrounding the Roe anniversary, said that Obama intentionally delayed his repeal of the Mexico City policy until after the anniversary in an attempt to "to do it quietly, without fanfare." He added that by issuing the statement about the anniversary before rescinding the policy, Obama "sent a clear signal that he's not looking to start a fight with people who are pro-life."
Obama's team "may still have a hard time bringing the two sides together," despite the support for such an approach and the efforts to increase bipartisanship in the early days of his administration, Newsweek reports. Previous attempts at the "common ground" strategy have "stalled" because legislators from both sides of the issue are "loath to put their votes behind the other side's tactics," according to Newsweek. For example, abortion-rights supporters want to increase access to contraception, while opponents want more funding for pregnancy-support programs. NARAL Pro-Choice America Policy Director Donna Crane said that the group opposes Casey's Support for Pregnant Woman Act (S.B. 2407) because of "the absence of important pieces, like contraception, and the presence of some parts tinged with anti-choice values." Kirsten Day, executive director of Democrats for Life, said the "biggest obstacle" for legislation aimed at reducing the need for abortion is that "people look at it and they're going, 'Okay, what's the angle here? What are you pushing?'" She added, "It's support for pregnant women. There's no hidden agenda here" (Kliff, Newsweek, 1/27).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. 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.
четверг, 2 февраля 2012 г.
HRT risks could have been revealed earlier
Synthesising licensing data to assess drug safety BMJ Vol 328, pp 518-20
The risks of hormone replacement therapy would have been revealed much earlier if better use had been made of existing evidence.
As such, women have been needlessly exposed to an increased risk of heart disease, argue researchers in this week's BMJ.
The large US Women's Health Initiative trial was stopped prematurely in 2002 after showing an increased risk of cardiovascular events from combined hormone replacement therapy.
However, well before the Women's Health Initiative trial was published, the authors analysed 23 small trials of hormone replacement therapies and found that they were not as protective as the observational data had shown. Many of these trials were done by pharmaceutical companies to obtain drug licences and were not publicly available.
When they published their findings in 1997, they were ridiculed. But extra data from six further studies confirmed their concerns. High Court dispensation was required to access these trials.
If trials done by pharmaceutical companies for licensing purposes had to include adequate data on harms and ineffectiveness, we could learn much more quickly what we need to know about new drugs, say the authors.
Regulators should require drug manufacturers to record adverse events and make the results public, they conclude.
Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinsonbmj
44-207-383-6529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
The risks of hormone replacement therapy would have been revealed much earlier if better use had been made of existing evidence.
As such, women have been needlessly exposed to an increased risk of heart disease, argue researchers in this week's BMJ.
The large US Women's Health Initiative trial was stopped prematurely in 2002 after showing an increased risk of cardiovascular events from combined hormone replacement therapy.
However, well before the Women's Health Initiative trial was published, the authors analysed 23 small trials of hormone replacement therapies and found that they were not as protective as the observational data had shown. Many of these trials were done by pharmaceutical companies to obtain drug licences and were not publicly available.
When they published their findings in 1997, they were ridiculed. But extra data from six further studies confirmed their concerns. High Court dispensation was required to access these trials.
If trials done by pharmaceutical companies for licensing purposes had to include adequate data on harms and ineffectiveness, we could learn much more quickly what we need to know about new drugs, say the authors.
Regulators should require drug manufacturers to record adverse events and make the results public, they conclude.
Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinsonbmj
44-207-383-6529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Подписаться на:
Комментарии (Atom)