AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - Texas can cut off funding to Planned Parenthood's family planning programs for poor women, a state judge ruled Monday, requiring thousands to find new state-approved doctors for their annual exams, cancer screenings and birth control.
Judge Gary Harger said that Texas may exclude otherwise qualified doctors and clinics from receiving state funding if they advocate for abortion rights.
Texas has long banned the use of state funds for abortion, but had continued to reimburse Planned Parenthood clinics for providing basic health care to poor women through the state's Women's Health Program. The program provides preventive care to 110,000 poor women a year, and Planned Parenthood clinics were treating 48,000 of them.
Planned Parenthood's lawsuit to stop the rule will still go forward, but the judge decided Monday that the ban may go into effect for now. In seeking a temporary restraining order, Planned Parenthood wanted its patients to be able to see their current doctors until a final decision was made.
'We are pleased the court rejected Planned Parenthood's latest attempt to skirt state law,' attorney general spokeswoman Lauren Bean said. 'The Texas Attorney General's office will continue to defend the Texas Legislature's decision to prohibit abortion providers and their affiliates from receiving taxpayer dollars through the Women's Health Program.'
Ken Lambrecht, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas, said he brought the lawsuit on behalf of poor women who depend on its clinics.
'It is shocking that once again Texas officials are letting politics jeopardize health care access for women,' Lambrecht said. 'Our doors remain open today and always to Texas women in need. We only wish Texas politicians shared this commitment to Texas women, their health, and their well-being.'
Planned Parenthood has brought three lawsuits over Texas' so-called 'affiliate rule,' claiming it violates the constitutional rights of doctors and patients while also contradicting existing state law.
Republican lawmakers who passed the affiliate rule last year have argued that Texas is an anti-abortion state, and therefore should cut off funds to groups that support abortion rights. Gov. Rick Perry, who vehemently opposes abortion, has pledged to do everything legally possible to shut down Planned Parenthood in Texas and welcomed the court's ruling.
'Today's ruling finally clears the way for thousands of low-income Texas women to access much-needed care, while at the same time respecting the values and laws of our state,' Perry said. 'I applaud all those who stand ready to help these women live healthy lives without sending taxpayer money to abortion providers and their affiliates.'
The Texas Health and Human Services Commission has spent the last nine months preparing to implement the affiliate rule. But federal officials warned it violated the Social Security Act and cut off federal funds for the Women's Health Program, prompting the commission to start a new program using only state money.
State officials have also scrambled to sign up new doctors and clinics to replace Planned Parenthood. Women who previously went to Planned Parenthood clinics will now have to use the agency's web site to find a new state-approved doctor. HHSC officials acknowledged Monday they are unsure whether the new doctors can pick up Planned Parenthood's caseload in all parts of the state.
Any capacity issues will become clear in the next few weeks as women try to make appointments with new clinics and doctors, with problems anticipated in South Texas and other impoverished areas. Texas already suffers from a shortage of primary care physicians willing to take on new patients who rely on state-funded health care.
Linda Edwards Gockel, a spokesman for the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, said Monday that the new state program will launch as planned on Tuesday.
'We have more than 3,500 doctors, clinics and other providers in the program and will be able to continue to provide women with family planning services while fully complying with state law,' she said. 'We welcome Planned Parenthood's help in referring patients to providers in the new program.'
Democratic lawmakers continued to question whether women will have to wait longer for appointments and services.
'I vehemently disagree with the state's efforts to blacklist a qualified provider and, thereby, interfere with a woman's right to choose her own provider,' said state Rep. Donna Howard, D-Austin. 'I will be submitting a letter to the Texas Health and Human Services Commission, requesting a list of approved providers to gauge the outreach of the new program, and ensure that all qualified women throughout the state have access to its services.'
Another hearing is scheduled with a different judge for Jan. 11, where Planned Parenthood will again ask for an injunction to receive state funding.
This news article is brought to you by MOVIE CRITIC NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Monday, December 31, 2012
FDA approves Salix's diarrhea drug for HIV/AIDS patients
(Reuters) - U.S. health regulators approved Salix Pharmaceuticals Ltd's drug to treat diarrhea in HIV/AIDS patients on antiretroviral therapy, a combination of medicines used to treat HIV infection.
Diarrhea is a common reason why HIV/AIDS patients discontinue or switch their antiretroviral therapies.
The drug, called Fulyzaq, is intended to be used in HIV/AIDS patients whose diarrhea is not caused by an infection from a virus, bacteria, or parasite.
Until now, there have been no therapies for HIV-associated diarrhea approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
(Reporting By Debra Sherman; Editing by David Gregorio)
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Diarrhea is a common reason why HIV/AIDS patients discontinue or switch their antiretroviral therapies.
The drug, called Fulyzaq, is intended to be used in HIV/AIDS patients whose diarrhea is not caused by an infection from a virus, bacteria, or parasite.
Until now, there have been no therapies for HIV-associated diarrhea approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
(Reporting By Debra Sherman; Editing by David Gregorio)
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Employer wins relief from U.S. contraceptives mandate
(Reuters) - A divided federal appeals court has temporarily barred the U.S. government from requiring an Illinois company to obtain insurance coverage for contraceptives, as required under the 2010 healthcare overhaul, after the owners objected on religious grounds.
More than 40 lawsuits are challenging a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires most for-profit companies to offer workers insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices and other birth control methods.
Friday's 2-1 order by a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in favor of Cyril and Jane Korte was the first by a federal appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement against people who said it violated their faith, said Edward White, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic couple.
It came two days after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to block the provision's enforcement against companies controlled by the family of Oklahoma City billionaire David Green.
The U.S. Department of Justice, which had defended the contraceptives provision, did not immediately respond on Saturday to a request for comment.
The Kortes, who own the construction firm Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, had sought to drop a health insurance plan for 20 non-unionized workers that included coverage for contraception, and substitute a different plan consistent with their faith.
But the Obama administration's healthcare law did not allow the change, and the Kortes said that violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.
In issuing an injunction, the 7th Circuit majority said the Kortes had established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim, and that the government had not yet justified the apparent 'substantial burden' on their religious exercise.
The court also said the couple had established irreparable harm, because absent an injunction they would have to choose between maintaining insurance coverage they considered inappropriate or facing substantial financial penalties.
'Business owners who are objecting to the mandate are not objecting to people using contraceptives, but that they have to arrange for and pay for it,' White, a lawyer with the American Center for Law and Justice, said in a phone interview. 'The federal government shouldn't tell business owners they have to contract to buy what they see as immoral services and goods.'
Judges Joel Flaum and Diane Sykes comprised the 7th Circuit majority.
Judge Ilana Rovner dissented. She said the Kortes were 'multiple steps' removed from the contraceptives services because it was their company paying for the coverage, and because it would be a worker, her doctor and the insurer involved in the decisions about the services and their funding.
The Kortes' case is expected to continue in the 7th Circuit.
Neither the 7th Circuit nor Sotomayor ruled on the merits of their respective cases. The legal standard for obtaining an injunction from the Supreme Court is much higher.
The case is Korte et al v. Sebelius, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-3841.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)
This news article is brought to you by PARENTING KIDS - where latest news are our top priority.
More than 40 lawsuits are challenging a requirement in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that requires most for-profit companies to offer workers insurance coverage for contraceptive drugs and devices and other birth control methods.
Friday's 2-1 order by a panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago in favor of Cyril and Jane Korte was the first by a federal appeals court to temporarily halt enforcement against people who said it violated their faith, said Edward White, a lawyer for the Roman Catholic couple.
It came two days after U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor declined to block the provision's enforcement against companies controlled by the family of Oklahoma City billionaire David Green.
The U.S. Department of Justice, which had defended the contraceptives provision, did not immediately respond on Saturday to a request for comment.
The Kortes, who own the construction firm Korte & Luitjohan Contractors, had sought to drop a health insurance plan for 20 non-unionized workers that included coverage for contraception, and substitute a different plan consistent with their faith.
But the Obama administration's healthcare law did not allow the change, and the Kortes said that violated the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA.
In issuing an injunction, the 7th Circuit majority said the Kortes had established a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim, and that the government had not yet justified the apparent 'substantial burden' on their religious exercise.
The court also said the couple had established irreparable harm, because absent an injunction they would have to choose between maintaining insurance coverage they considered inappropriate or facing substantial financial penalties.
'Business owners who are objecting to the mandate are not objecting to people using contraceptives, but that they have to arrange for and pay for it,' White, a lawyer with the American Center for Law and Justice, said in a phone interview. 'The federal government shouldn't tell business owners they have to contract to buy what they see as immoral services and goods.'
Judges Joel Flaum and Diane Sykes comprised the 7th Circuit majority.
Judge Ilana Rovner dissented. She said the Kortes were 'multiple steps' removed from the contraceptives services because it was their company paying for the coverage, and because it would be a worker, her doctor and the insurer involved in the decisions about the services and their funding.
The Kortes' case is expected to continue in the 7th Circuit.
Neither the 7th Circuit nor Sotomayor ruled on the merits of their respective cases. The legal standard for obtaining an injunction from the Supreme Court is much higher.
The case is Korte et al v. Sebelius, 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-3841.
(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Peter Cooney)
This news article is brought to you by PARENTING KIDS - where latest news are our top priority.
Thursday, December 27, 2012
Poor reading skills tied to risk of teen pregnancy
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Seventh grade girls who have trouble reading are more likely to get pregnant in high school than average or above-average readers, according to a new study from Philadelphia.
Researchers found that pattern stuck even after they took into account the girls' race and poverty in their neighborhoods - both of which are tied to teen pregnancy rates.
'We certainly know that social disadvantages definitely play a part in teen pregnancy risk, and certainly poor educational achievement is one of those factors,' said Dr. Krishna Upadhya, a reproductive health and teen pregnancy researcher from Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore.
Poor academic skills may play into how teens see their future economic opportunities and influence the risks they take - even if those aren't conscious decisions, explained Upadhya, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Dr. Ian Bennett from the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues looked up standardized test reading scores for 12,339 seventh grade girls from 92 different Philadelphia public schools and tracked them over the next six years.
During that period, 1,616 of the teenagers had a baby, including 201 that gave birth two or three times.
Hispanic and African American girls were more likely than white girls to get pregnant. But education appeared to play a role, as well.
Among girls who scored below average on their reading tests, 21 percent went on to have a baby as a teenager. That compared to 12 percent who had average scores and five percent of girls who scored above average on the standardized tests.
Once race and poverty were taken into consideration, girls with below-average reading skills were two and a half times more likely to have a baby than average-scoring girls, according to findings published in the journal Contraception.
Birth rates among girls ages 15 through 19 were at a record low in the U.S. in 2011 at 31 births for every 1,000 girls, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that rate is still much higher in minority and poorer girls than in white, well-off ones, researchers noted.
And in general, it's significantly higher than teen birth rates in other wealthy nations.
Teen pregnancies are a concern because young moms and their babies have more health problems and pregnancy-related complications, and girls who get pregnant are at higher risk of dropping out of school.
Upadhya said the answer to preventing teen pregnancy in less-educated girls isn't simply to add more sex ed to the curriculum.
'This is really about adolescent health and development more broadly, so it's really important for us to make sure that kids are in schools and in quality educational programs and that they have opportunities to grow and develop academically and vocationally,' she told Reuters Health.
'That is just as important in preventing teen pregnancy as making sure they know where to get condoms.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/TcHB0s Contraception, online December 13, 2012.
This news article is brought to you by MOVIE GOSSIP NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Researchers found that pattern stuck even after they took into account the girls' race and poverty in their neighborhoods - both of which are tied to teen pregnancy rates.
'We certainly know that social disadvantages definitely play a part in teen pregnancy risk, and certainly poor educational achievement is one of those factors,' said Dr. Krishna Upadhya, a reproductive health and teen pregnancy researcher from Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore.
Poor academic skills may play into how teens see their future economic opportunities and influence the risks they take - even if those aren't conscious decisions, explained Upadhya, who wasn't involved in the new research.
Dr. Ian Bennett from the University of Pennsylvania and his colleagues looked up standardized test reading scores for 12,339 seventh grade girls from 92 different Philadelphia public schools and tracked them over the next six years.
During that period, 1,616 of the teenagers had a baby, including 201 that gave birth two or three times.
Hispanic and African American girls were more likely than white girls to get pregnant. But education appeared to play a role, as well.
Among girls who scored below average on their reading tests, 21 percent went on to have a baby as a teenager. That compared to 12 percent who had average scores and five percent of girls who scored above average on the standardized tests.
Once race and poverty were taken into consideration, girls with below-average reading skills were two and a half times more likely to have a baby than average-scoring girls, according to findings published in the journal Contraception.
Birth rates among girls ages 15 through 19 were at a record low in the U.S. in 2011 at 31 births for every 1,000 girls, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But that rate is still much higher in minority and poorer girls than in white, well-off ones, researchers noted.
And in general, it's significantly higher than teen birth rates in other wealthy nations.
Teen pregnancies are a concern because young moms and their babies have more health problems and pregnancy-related complications, and girls who get pregnant are at higher risk of dropping out of school.
Upadhya said the answer to preventing teen pregnancy in less-educated girls isn't simply to add more sex ed to the curriculum.
'This is really about adolescent health and development more broadly, so it's really important for us to make sure that kids are in schools and in quality educational programs and that they have opportunities to grow and develop academically and vocationally,' she told Reuters Health.
'That is just as important in preventing teen pregnancy as making sure they know where to get condoms.'
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/TcHB0s Contraception, online December 13, 2012.
This news article is brought to you by MOVIE GOSSIP NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Condom Dispensers in Philly Schools
The page cannot be foundThe page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.Please try the following:
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. |
Saturday, December 22, 2012
Federal judge blocks Missouri law to deny birth control coverage
(Reuters) - A federal judge on Friday blocked a new Missouri law that requires health insurers to offer plans that exclude contraception coverage if employers or individuals object to birth control on moral or religious grounds.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig granted a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of the law, writing that it appears to conflict with the new federal health care law.
Republican lawmakers in Missouri drafted the law in response to President Barack Obama's policy of requiring insurers to cover birth control for free as part of the new federal health care law, even if they work for a church or other employer that has a moral objection.
State lawmakers in September overrode a veto by Democratic Governor Jay Nixon to enact the law.
The Missouri Insurance Coalition, a nonprofit whose members include health insurers that do business in the state, asked the judge to block the state law, arguing that it conflicts with federal law and is therefore invalid.
Fleissig wrote that the coalition is likely to succeed on that claim 'given what appears to be an irreconcilable conflict' between the federal and state laws.
At a hearing, the judge wrote, the Missouri Department of Insurance 'could offer no response to how there would not be a direct conflict' between the federal and state laws if an insurer offered a health insurance plan 'that acquiesced to an employer's decision not to offer contraceptive coverage.'
She is expected to schedule a hearing on a preliminary injunction.
(Reporting By Corrie MacLaggan; editing by Todd Eastham)
This news article is brought to you by ADVANCED DATING ADVICE - where latest news are our top priority.
U.S. District Judge Audrey Fleissig granted a temporary restraining order preventing the enforcement of the law, writing that it appears to conflict with the new federal health care law.
Republican lawmakers in Missouri drafted the law in response to President Barack Obama's policy of requiring insurers to cover birth control for free as part of the new federal health care law, even if they work for a church or other employer that has a moral objection.
State lawmakers in September overrode a veto by Democratic Governor Jay Nixon to enact the law.
The Missouri Insurance Coalition, a nonprofit whose members include health insurers that do business in the state, asked the judge to block the state law, arguing that it conflicts with federal law and is therefore invalid.
Fleissig wrote that the coalition is likely to succeed on that claim 'given what appears to be an irreconcilable conflict' between the federal and state laws.
At a hearing, the judge wrote, the Missouri Department of Insurance 'could offer no response to how there would not be a direct conflict' between the federal and state laws if an insurer offered a health insurance plan 'that acquiesced to an employer's decision not to offer contraceptive coverage.'
She is expected to schedule a hearing on a preliminary injunction.
(Reporting By Corrie MacLaggan; editing by Todd Eastham)
This news article is brought to you by ADVANCED DATING ADVICE - where latest news are our top priority.
Friday, December 21, 2012
Judge stops Ala. policy of segregating HIV inmates
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - A judge struck down Alabama's decades-old policy of segregating prison inmates with HIV, ruling Friday that it violates federal disabilities law.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled in favor of inmates who sued to end the longstanding practice and said he would give the state and inmate attorneys time to propose a way to bring state prisons into compliance with his order.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven HIV-positive inmates, called the decision 'historic.'
Prisons Commissioner Kim Thomas issued a statement saying corrections officials were still studying the ruling and had not decided 'our next course of action.
But he said the department 'is very disappointed with the conclusions and characterizations reached by the Court.'
'The men and women of the ADOC are not prejudiced against HIV-positive inmates, and have worked hard over the years to improve their health care, living conditions, and their activities,' Thomas said. 'The ADOC remains committed to providing appropriate housing for all of its inmates, including the HIV-positive population, ensuring that these inmates receive a constitutional level of medical care and that the correctional system in Alabama does not further contribute to the current HIV epidemic in our State.'
Alabama and South Carolina are the only states that segregate HIV-positive prisoners. The class-action lawsuit accused the state of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
'It spells an end to a segregation policy that has inflicted needless misery on Alabama prisoners with HIV and their families,' said ACLU attorney Margaret Winter, who was lead counsel for the plaintiffs during a monthlong trial.
Neither the lawsuit or the judge's ruling mentions South Carolina, but Winter said she hoped it helped end that state's practice.
'A judge considering a similar case in South Carolina would almost certainly give this ruling significant weight, but would not be required to follow it. We hope this opinion will influence South Carolina to abandon its policy,' Winter said.
In his opinion, the judge recounted the history of the AIDS scare in the 1980s and noted the extreme rarity of HIV being transmitted by any means other than the sharing of bodily fluids, particularly during unprotected sex between males or between a man and a woman.
'It is not transmitted through casual contact or through the food supply,' he wrote. 'A person would have to drink a 55-gallon drum of saliva in order for it to potentially result in a transmission. There is no documented case of HIV being sexually transmitted between women.'
The prison system had asked Thompson to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, saying the issue had been decided in an earlier lawsuit. But Thompson wrote that circumstances have changed since that ruling and HIV 'is no longer inevitably fatal.'
Alabama's policy resulted from a 'panic' over AIDS in prisons, Thompson wrote. While other states have ended similar practices, Alabama hasn't because of 'outdated and unsupported assumptions about HIV and the prison system's ability to deal with HIV-positive prisoners.'
Bias from agency leaders is at the heart of the plan to segregate infected inmates, the judge said. He still must decide a part of the suit involving work-release inmates.
___
Associated Press Writer Jay Reeves in Birmingham contributed to this report.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled in favor of inmates who sued to end the longstanding practice and said he would give the state and inmate attorneys time to propose a way to bring state prisons into compliance with his order.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven HIV-positive inmates, called the decision 'historic.'
Prisons Commissioner Kim Thomas issued a statement saying corrections officials were still studying the ruling and had not decided 'our next course of action.
But he said the department 'is very disappointed with the conclusions and characterizations reached by the Court.'
'The men and women of the ADOC are not prejudiced against HIV-positive inmates, and have worked hard over the years to improve their health care, living conditions, and their activities,' Thomas said. 'The ADOC remains committed to providing appropriate housing for all of its inmates, including the HIV-positive population, ensuring that these inmates receive a constitutional level of medical care and that the correctional system in Alabama does not further contribute to the current HIV epidemic in our State.'
Alabama and South Carolina are the only states that segregate HIV-positive prisoners. The class-action lawsuit accused the state of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
'It spells an end to a segregation policy that has inflicted needless misery on Alabama prisoners with HIV and their families,' said ACLU attorney Margaret Winter, who was lead counsel for the plaintiffs during a monthlong trial.
Neither the lawsuit or the judge's ruling mentions South Carolina, but Winter said she hoped it helped end that state's practice.
'A judge considering a similar case in South Carolina would almost certainly give this ruling significant weight, but would not be required to follow it. We hope this opinion will influence South Carolina to abandon its policy,' Winter said.
In his opinion, the judge recounted the history of the AIDS scare in the 1980s and noted the extreme rarity of HIV being transmitted by any means other than the sharing of bodily fluids, particularly during unprotected sex between males or between a man and a woman.
'It is not transmitted through casual contact or through the food supply,' he wrote. 'A person would have to drink a 55-gallon drum of saliva in order for it to potentially result in a transmission. There is no documented case of HIV being sexually transmitted between women.'
The prison system had asked Thompson to dismiss the plaintiff's claims, saying the issue had been decided in an earlier lawsuit. But Thompson wrote that circumstances have changed since that ruling and HIV 'is no longer inevitably fatal.'
Alabama's policy resulted from a 'panic' over AIDS in prisons, Thompson wrote. While other states have ended similar practices, Alabama hasn't because of 'outdated and unsupported assumptions about HIV and the prison system's ability to deal with HIV-positive prisoners.'
Bias from agency leaders is at the heart of the plan to segregate infected inmates, the judge said. He still must decide a part of the suit involving work-release inmates.
___
Associated Press Writer Jay Reeves in Birmingham contributed to this report.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIPS ADVICE.
Judge orders end to HIV prison segregation in Alabama
BIRMINGHAM, Alabama (Reuters) - A U.S. federal judge ruled on Friday to end the segregation of prisoners with HIV in Alabama, agreeing that it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
'It is evident that, while the ... segregation policy has been an unnecessary tool for preventing the transmission of HIV, it has been an effective one for humiliating and isolating prisoners living with the disease,' U. S. District Judge Myron Thompson wrote in his ruling.
South Carolina now remains the only state segregating HIV inmates from the general population. Mississippi ceased a similar practice in March 2010.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over what the group contended was a discriminatory practice that prevented most HIV-positive inmates from participating in rehabilitation and retraining programs, including mental health and substance abuse programs, important for their success after prison.
'We won on all counts. It is a total victory and a glorious day for everyone with HIV,' said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU National Prison Project and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Proponents of ending the policy sited an out-dated view of HIV/AIDS, which has become increasingly controllable. In the case of a virus transmitted by behavior, and not environment, preventing its spread is easier through proper medical treatment, rather than radical segregation of HIV positive inmates, according to Nancy Mahon, who chairs the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA).
'We now have ability to suppress the virus and reduce the possibility of transmission to four percent. Alabama and South Carolina have been in the dark ages about this public health sorrow,' said Mahon, who also directs the MAC AIDS Fund, which is financing the ACLU challenges in both states.
'The last thing we want to do is send them back into the community without treatment,' she added.
Two of Alabama's 29 prisons have dormitories specifically housing prisoners with HIV. A handful of prisoners had been allowed to live and work in non-segregated settings in work-release programs, Winter said.
Currently, the inmates with HIV live, eat and exercise apart from the general population, according to court documents filed by the ACLU. Male inmates in the HIV dormitories were given white armbands that signal their medical status.
'First, we are isolated ... like we are contagious animals,' Dana Harley, another prisoner who was a plaintiff in the case, said in a letter included in the court file. 'It is like punishment three times over.'
Approximately 270 inmates out of the 26,400 in the state prison system have tested positive for the virus and none have developed AIDS, according to Alabama Department of Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett, who did not respond to inquiries about the ruling.
The judge plans to rule separately on the medical criteria for work release for HIV prisoners, according to his ruling.
(Editing by David Adams and Andrew Hay)
This news article is brought to you by MOVIE GOSSIP NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
'It is evident that, while the ... segregation policy has been an unnecessary tool for preventing the transmission of HIV, it has been an effective one for humiliating and isolating prisoners living with the disease,' U. S. District Judge Myron Thompson wrote in his ruling.
South Carolina now remains the only state segregating HIV inmates from the general population. Mississippi ceased a similar practice in March 2010.
The ruling came in response to a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) over what the group contended was a discriminatory practice that prevented most HIV-positive inmates from participating in rehabilitation and retraining programs, including mental health and substance abuse programs, important for their success after prison.
'We won on all counts. It is a total victory and a glorious day for everyone with HIV,' said Margaret Winter, associate director of the ACLU National Prison Project and lead counsel for the plaintiffs.
Proponents of ending the policy sited an out-dated view of HIV/AIDS, which has become increasingly controllable. In the case of a virus transmitted by behavior, and not environment, preventing its spread is easier through proper medical treatment, rather than radical segregation of HIV positive inmates, according to Nancy Mahon, who chairs the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS (PACHA).
'We now have ability to suppress the virus and reduce the possibility of transmission to four percent. Alabama and South Carolina have been in the dark ages about this public health sorrow,' said Mahon, who also directs the MAC AIDS Fund, which is financing the ACLU challenges in both states.
'The last thing we want to do is send them back into the community without treatment,' she added.
Two of Alabama's 29 prisons have dormitories specifically housing prisoners with HIV. A handful of prisoners had been allowed to live and work in non-segregated settings in work-release programs, Winter said.
Currently, the inmates with HIV live, eat and exercise apart from the general population, according to court documents filed by the ACLU. Male inmates in the HIV dormitories were given white armbands that signal their medical status.
'First, we are isolated ... like we are contagious animals,' Dana Harley, another prisoner who was a plaintiff in the case, said in a letter included in the court file. 'It is like punishment three times over.'
Approximately 270 inmates out of the 26,400 in the state prison system have tested positive for the virus and none have developed AIDS, according to Alabama Department of Corrections spokesman Brian Corbett, who did not respond to inquiries about the ruling.
The judge plans to rule separately on the medical criteria for work release for HIV prisoners, according to his ruling.
(Editing by David Adams and Andrew Hay)
This news article is brought to you by MOVIE GOSSIP NEWS - where latest news are our top priority.
Judge blocks Ala policy of segregating HIV inmates
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (AP) - A judge struck down Alabama's decades-old policy of segregating prison inmates with HIV, ruling Friday that it violates federal law.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled in favor of inmates who filed suit to end the longstanding practice. Thompson says the state's policy violates federal disabilities law.
Thompson said the state and inmate attorneys will have time to propose a way to bring state prisons into compliance with his order.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven HIV-positive inmates, called the decision 'historic.' State officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Alabama and South Carolina are the only states that segregate HIV-positive prisoners. The class-action lawsuit accused the state of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
ACLU attorney Margaret Winter, who was lead counsel for the plaintiffs during a month-long trial, called the decision historic.
'It spells an end to a segregation policy that has inflicted needless misery on Alabama prisoners with HIV and their families,' Winter said.
In his 153-page opinion, Thompson recounted the history of the AIDS scare in the 1980s and noted the extreme rarity of HIV being transmitted by any means other than the sharing of bodily fluids, particularly during unprotected sex between males or between a man and a woman.
'It is not transmitted through casual contact or through the food supply,' he wrote. 'A person would have to drink a 55-gallon drum of saliva in order for it to potentially result in a transmission. There is no documented case of HIV being sexually transmitted between women.'
Alabama's policy resulted from a 'panic' over AIDS in prisons, Thompson wrote. While other states have ended similar practices, he said, Alabama hasn't because of 'outdated and unsupported assumptions about HIV and the prison system's ability to deal with HIV-positive prisoners.'
Bias from agency leaders is at the heart of the plan to segregate infected inmates, Thomas said.
Olivia Turner, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, said Thompson's ruling will end a policy 'that treated human beings like cattle to be tagged and herded. 'She called the ruling 'a tremendous victory for human rights.'
Thompson says he still must decide a part of the suit involving work-release inmates.
____
Associated Press correspondent Jay Reeves contributed to this report.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson ruled in favor of inmates who filed suit to end the longstanding practice. Thompson says the state's policy violates federal disabilities law.
Thompson said the state and inmate attorneys will have time to propose a way to bring state prisons into compliance with his order.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven HIV-positive inmates, called the decision 'historic.' State officials did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Alabama and South Carolina are the only states that segregate HIV-positive prisoners. The class-action lawsuit accused the state of violating the Americans with Disabilities Act.
ACLU attorney Margaret Winter, who was lead counsel for the plaintiffs during a month-long trial, called the decision historic.
'It spells an end to a segregation policy that has inflicted needless misery on Alabama prisoners with HIV and their families,' Winter said.
In his 153-page opinion, Thompson recounted the history of the AIDS scare in the 1980s and noted the extreme rarity of HIV being transmitted by any means other than the sharing of bodily fluids, particularly during unprotected sex between males or between a man and a woman.
'It is not transmitted through casual contact or through the food supply,' he wrote. 'A person would have to drink a 55-gallon drum of saliva in order for it to potentially result in a transmission. There is no documented case of HIV being sexually transmitted between women.'
Alabama's policy resulted from a 'panic' over AIDS in prisons, Thompson wrote. While other states have ended similar practices, he said, Alabama hasn't because of 'outdated and unsupported assumptions about HIV and the prison system's ability to deal with HIV-positive prisoners.'
Bias from agency leaders is at the heart of the plan to segregate infected inmates, Thomas said.
Olivia Turner, executive director of the ACLU of Alabama, said Thompson's ruling will end a policy 'that treated human beings like cattle to be tagged and herded. 'She called the ruling 'a tremendous victory for human rights.'
Thompson says he still must decide a part of the suit involving work-release inmates.
____
Associated Press correspondent Jay Reeves contributed to this report.
This article is brought to you by DATING ADVICE.
Hobby Lobby Request to Block Health Law Denied
The page cannot be foundThe page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.Please try the following:
HTTP Error 404 - File or directory not found. |
On The Fly: Pre-market Movers
HIGHER AFTER EARNINGS: Red Hat (RHT), up 5.4%... Nike (NKE), up 3%... ALSO HIGHER: Chembio Diagnostics (CEMI), up 20.7% after receiving FDA approval for its rapid HIV test... Halozyme (HALO), up 17.4% after entering a development collaboration with Pfizer (PFE)... Ameristar Casinos (ASCA), up 17% after agreeing to be acquired by Pinnacle Entertainment (PNK) for $26.50 per share... LOWER AFTER EARNINGS: Research in Motion (RIMM), down 16.3%... Walgreen (WAG), down 1.7%... ALSO LOWER: Transcept (TSPT), down 14.7% after Phase 2 trial of OCD drug misses primary endpoint.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
This article is brought to you by RELATIONSHIP ADVICE.
Thursday, December 20, 2012
Alliance Health Networks Brings Prominent HCV Clinical Trials Leader, Dr. Peter Ruane, to Hepatitis Connect Social Network
SALT LAKE CITY--(BUSINESS WIRE)--
Alliance Health Networks, the leading social networking company serving consumers and the healthcare industry, today announced the addition of Dr. Peter Ruane, prominent HIV and HCV clinical trials doctor and founder of Lightsource Medical, as a new community advocate on the Hepatitis Connect social network.
Hepatitis Connect is part of Alliance Health's growing portfolio of social networks currently serving more than 1.5 million registered users across some 50 condition-specific sites. Hepatitis Connect aims to empower people infected with HCV to more actively manage their health through personal connections, powerful tools, and quality resources. Community and patient advocates offer network members deep insights and experience dealing with a particular disease or condition.
"From the beginning, our top priority at Alliance Health has been to create an online community that provides actionable information with a personal touch, and one of the ways we accomplish that is through our patient advocates," said Dan Hickey, senior vice president of product at Alliance Health Networks. "What is so fascinating in the case of Dr. Ruane is that he was a physician in the clinical trial that led to a successful outcome for John Lavitt, our patient advocate at Hepatitis Connect. It adds a new dimension by demonstrating that a clinical trial can have a meaningful impact on a person's life today, not just down the road."
A specialist in infectious diseases and HIV medicine, Dr. Ruane has been conducting clinical trials for HIV since 1992, many of which have shifted to new HCV drugs and HCV-HIV trials to find co-existing regimens to simultaneously treat both conditions.
Deaths from Hepatitis C have increased steadily in the United States in recent years, in part because many people don't know they're infected. In fact, according to 1999 to 2007 data reviewed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more Americans have died from HCV than from HIV. Unlike HIV, Hepatitis C is curable. With rapidly advancing results coming from research and clinical trials with new drugs that target the virus directly, there is great hope.
"Patients are already gaining considerable benefits from the new regimens of protease inhibitors that were approved in 2011 by the FDA," said Dr. Ruane. "But these drugs are just the beginning. On Hepatitis Connect, I hope to keep the community up-to-date on the new options, especially clinical trials as they become available and offer my thoughts on trials in general and why participating in a clinical trial may be a good choice for a person to make."
As Patient Advocate for Hepatitis Connect, John Lavitt is proud to have Dr. Ruane on board as part of the community's team. "When I went through the clinical trial with Dr. Ruane," explained Lavitt, "his support and expertise helped me survive the difficult challenges and come out the other side of a tough experience that changed my life forever and for the better."
About Alliance Health Networks
Alliance Health Networks is building a free and independent social engagement platform that gives people the power to navigate their personal health journey. The company owns and operates more than 50 social networks and 20 mobile versions serving over 1.5 million registered members. Alliance Health leverages social networks to help consumers more actively manage their care through personal connections, powerful tools, and deeper insights. The company's investors include New World Ventures, Physic Ventures, Highway 12 Ventures, EPIC Ventures and Voyager Capital. For more information, visit: www.alliancehealthnetworks.com.