Kaeec Health Online

Adjust In Administration Method, Use Of Antibiotics In Medical Abortion Reduces Infection Rate, Study Finds

admin — Sat, 19 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

Changing the way misoprostol is administered and introducing oral antibiotics into the pill regimen for medical abortion greatly decreased the risk of a rare infection, according to a study published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine, the New York Times reports (Grady, New York Times, 7/9). Medical abortion, which can be used during the first nine weeks of gestation, involves administration of the drug mifepristone followed within two days by misoprostol (Johnson, AP/Long Island Newsday, 7/9). Medical abortions account for nearly 25% of all early abortion procedures in the U.S., according to the San Francisco Chronicle (Allday, San Francisco Chronicle, 7/9).

When FDA approved the medical abortion regimen in 2000, it required that the drugs be taken orally. However, later research indicated that misoprostol was more effective when taken in smaller doses vaginally, and many providers switched to that method. Providers also found that buccal administration — having women place the pill between their cheek and gums and letting it dissolve — also was more effective than taking the pill orally (New York Times, 7/9). Between 2000 and 2006, seven women died from serious infections after taking the pill vaginally, while in Europe — where medical abortions are much more popular and misoprostol is swallowed — there were almost no cases of serious infection (San Francisco Chronicle, 7/9).

Researchers suspected that vaginal administration was tied to the infection, the Times reports (New York Times, 7/9). In March 2006, Planned Parenthood changed the way it administered misoprostol at its clinics to the buccal route. In July 2007, the organization required that all women undergoing medical abortions also be given antibiotics.

The new study examined nearly 250,000 medical abortions performed at Planned Parenthood clinics between January 2005 and June 2008. It found that before the drug delivery change, there were 69 cases of serious infection, which the study defined as infections requiring treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Following the drug delivery change and the later addition of antibiotics to the regimen, only five serious infections occurred (San Francisco Chronicle, 7/9). According to the study, the infection rate dropped from 0.93 per 1,000 abortions to 0.06 per 1,000 abortions.

Implications for Medical Practice Unclear

It is unclear what effect the findings will have on medical practice, according to the Times. Lead author Mary Fjerstad, a nurse practitioner, said, “Our data show there was a reduction in serious infections when we switched to a nonvaginal route of misoprostol administration. But I don’t want to come down on the side of saying that everybody everywhere should give antibiotics with every medical abortion. Providers should decide that.” Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said the group’s medical experts would review the findings. About one-third of NAF members give misoprostol vaginally, she estimated. The group’s current guidelines allow oral, buccal and vaginal administration but do not include routine use of antibiotics, the Times reports.

Abby Long, a spokesperson for Danco Laboratories — which sells Mifeprex, the brand name of misoprostol — said the company is not planning to change the drug’s labeling and has not discussed the study’s findings with FDA. An FDA spokesperson said the agency is “carefully reviewing” the findings (New York Times, 7/9).

Paul Blumenthal, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, said it is not clear why vaginal administration seems to have a higher risk of infection. He added, “Just changing the route of misoprostol, which costs nothing, had a great effect. And it’s certainly no less convenient for women” (San Francisco Chronicle, 7/9). Blumenthal said that he would recommend the buccal route but that requiring antibiotics, which might be unaffordable or unavailable in developing countries, could prevent women from obtaining medical abortion in those areas (New York Times, 7/9).

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.

Justice Ginsburg Discusses Abortion Rights, Ladies On Supreme Court In NYT Magazine Interview

admin — Wed, 16 May 2012 12:00:00 +0000

4.8 (5 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

3 (1 votes)

In an interview to be published in this weekend’s New York Times Magazine, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg discusses the role of female justices on the court, including the effect on issues related to reproductive rights.

When asked if “part of a future feminists legal wish list” could include “repositioning Roe [v. Wade] so that the right to abortion is rooted in the constitutional promise of sex equality,” Ginsburg replied, “I think it will be.” In response to a follow-up question on what Ginsburg would want to see accomplished in future feminist legal agenda, she said, “Reproductive choice has to be straightened out.” She later clarified that she meant that the “basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for any woman.” Ginsburg said that there “will never be a woman of means without choice anymore” and that the “states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe (to make abortion legal) are not going to change it back.” However, “we have a policy that only affects poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often,” she said. She continued that she was “surprised” by the Supreme Court’s 1980 ruling in Harris v. McRae, which upheld the Hyde Amendment prohibiting states from using federal Medicaid funds to pay for abortion.

Ginsburg also discussed state restrictions on abortion rights, such as waiting periods, and other limits to accessing the procedure. She added that the “possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant” and predicted that emergency contraception “will become more accessible and easier to take.” Ginsburg said, “So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change” (Bazelon, New York Times Magazine, 7/12).

Vatican’s Method To Obama On Abortion Rights Contrasts With That Of U.S. Bishops

admin — Mon, 14 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000

3 (4 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

2 (1 votes)

Article Opinions:1 posts
National Partnership for Women & FamiliesDuring his visit to the Vatican on Friday, President Obama is likely to receive a warmer welcome from Pope Benedict XVI than he has from some U.S. Roman Catholic bishops, experts on the church say, the New York Times reports. The meeting will occur after the conclusion of the Group of Eight industrialized nations summit in Italy and three days after the pope released an encyclical, “Caritas in Veritate,” updating the church’s social teaching on the global economy.

Early in Obama’s administration, U.S. Catholic bishops “set an adversarial tone” over Obama’s views on abortion rights, contraception and embryonic stem cell research, the Times reports. Although the pope also disagrees with Obama on those issues, he and Obama both recognize an opportunity to come together on international issues like climate change, poverty, nuclear nonproliferation and immigration reform, according to the Times. In a session with reporters from Catholic publications last week, Obama said the church has “always been a powerful moral compass” on questions of social justice. He also said that U.S. bishops “have a profound influence” and that he would take his critics’ opinions seriously.

The Vatican has often taken a much softer approach than the U.S. bishops in its reactions to Obama’s abortion-rights policies, according to the Times. The president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a letter issued after the election that “aggressive pro-abortion policies” would “be seen by many as an attack on the free exercise of their religion.” In contrast, the Vatican sent Obama a telegram of congratulations immediately after his election, which experts say is “a highly unusual gesture” because the Vatican usually waits until inauguration, the Times reports.

More recently, several U.S. bishops denounced the University of Notre Dame for inviting Obama to give the spring commencement address and receive an honorary degree. The Vatican’s newspaper ran a “markedly positive” article about Obama’s speech in reaction to the controversy, according to the Times. Some Vatican officials have also expressed support for Obama’s “common ground” approach to reducing the need for abortion, whereas some U.S. bishops and antiabortion-rights leaders have reacted with “suspicion and disdain,” the Times reports (Goodstein, New York Times, 7/10).

According to John Allen, a Vatican correspondent for the National Catholic Reporter, cultural differences between U.S. and European Catholic views on abortion rights help explain their contrasting approaches to the issue. Allen said that abortion is usually “the defining social and political issue” in the U.S., and that “everything else, in a way, takes second place.” In Europe “that has never been the case,” and “even the most conservative Catholics in Europe … don’t evaluate political leaders exclusively through the basis of their positions on abortion and other so-called life issues,” Allen said (Poggioli, “Morning Edition,” NPR, 7/10).

The Vatican and the U.S. bishops also have different approaches to working with governments, according to the Rev. Drew Christensen, editor-in-chief of the national Jesuit weekly magazine America. Christensen, who formerly worked for the church in international relations, said that some Obama critics “think you have to be at war, and the pope is saying, there’s a different way to proceed here and it’s very essential to the church’s approach, in that what you want is consensus.” Christensen added that the pope is “trying to engage America’s capacity for good in the world at a time when it’s really critical” (New York Times, 7/10).

Democratic Senators Rally Support For Sotomayor; Hearing Witness List Released

admin — Fri, 11 May 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

Sens. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) held a press conference on Thursday to rally support for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor, whose confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee begins Monday, Roll Call reports. Boxer said that there is no need for abortion-rights groups and other women’s advocacy groups to publicly express their support for Sotomayor because the confirmation process has been progressing well. She said, “Things are going well. There’s no need to get involved.” However, Boxer added that “foul play” by Republicans to delay the confirmation would prompt women’s organizations to more publicly advocate for Sotomayor (Brady, Roll Call, 7/9).

Hearing Witness List Released

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday released witness lists for Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings, the New York Times reports. The Republicans’ list includes Charmaine Yoest, president of the antiabortion-rights group Americans United for Life. Among Democrats’ list is JoAnne Epps, dean of the Beasley School of Law at Temple University, on behalf of the National Association of Women Lawyers (Phillips, New York Times, 7/10).

Appeals Court Upholds Massachusetts Law Establishing Protest-Free Zone About Abortion Clinics

admin — Wed, 09 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000

5 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit on Wednesday ruled that a 2007 Massachusetts law requiring antiabortion-rights protesters to stay at least 35 feet away from clinic entrances does not infringe on their free speech rights, the Boston Globe reports. The law updated a 2000 statute that established a floating buffer zone, which police and clinics said was difficult to enforce. The 2007 law set a fixed 35-foot buffer zone around any reproductive health care facility and barred anyone from entering or remaining in the zone unless they work at the clinic; are entering or leaving the facility; are public safety or other municipal officials; or are walking by. Five abortion-rights opponents filed the lawsuit in January 2008. U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro rejected their claims in August 2008, ruling that the law did not regulate speech — only the location where the speech could occur — and that it was drafted in response to safety and law enforcement concerns. The protesters appealed the ruling.

The appeals court said that the 2007 law responded to “repeated incidents involving violence and other unduly aggressive behaviors in the vicinity of reproductive health care facilities” and “represents a permissible response by the Massachusetts Legislature to what it reasonably perceived as a significant threat to public safety.” The court also said that the law was “content-neutral,” as it applies to all protesters regardless of their viewpoints. According to the court, the plaintiffs argued in their appeal that the law had a “content-neutral patina” masking a “more sinister reality” that the Legislature’s true motive was to curb abortion-rights opponents’ speech.

Massachusetts Attorney General Martha Coakley (D) in a statement said that she was “pleased that the 1st Circuit has upheld this important law, which enhances public safety and access to medical facilities, while preserving the right to engage in expressive activity on public ways and sidewalks near clinics.” Tim Chandler, legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which helped represent the plaintiffs, said abortion-rights opponents “shouldn’t be penalized for expressing their beliefs.” He added that the fund and its supporters were evaluating the “next legal step” (Finucane, Boston Globe, 7/10).

Blogs Comment On World Population Day, Wellness Care Reform, Other Topics

admin — Sun, 06 May 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

5 (2 votes)

The following summarizes selected women’s health-related blog entries.

~ “World Population Day 2009 — Time To Finally Make Maternal Health a Priority,” Sharon Camp, Huffington Post blogs: World Population Day on Saturday “serves as an urgent reminder that … governments around the world must boost investments in global health,” especially maternal health, despite the global economic recession, Camp, president and CEO of the Guttmacher Institute, writes. Efforts “have fallen short” to date as the “financial resources and political will needed to promote maternal health have been lagging,” Camp writes. She notes that the nations are “hardly any closer” to achieving the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals of reducing maternal deaths by 75% and achieving universal access to reproductive health services by 2015. A “critical shortcoming” of recent efforts to achieve the MDGs has been the “reluctance of some governments and advocates to accept that better maternal health cannot be achieved without acknowledging, committing and fully funding sexual and reproductive health services,” Camp writes.In particular, “this includes contraceptive services to help women time and space pregnancies as well as treatment of septic or incomplete abortions,” and “providing safe abortion services consistent with individual country law,” according to Camp. However, there is “some good news,” she writes, noting that “[n]ew momentum behind worldwide advocacy efforts may yield the resources and political commitment needed to make a difference.” Camp concludes, “It is precisely because resources are scarce that they must be used wisely and efficiently in a way that serves both humanitarian and economic development goals. Investing in saving women’s lives fits this bill” (Camp, Huffington Post blogs, 7/9).

~ “Proposed Amendments Would Deny Health Care to Women,” Lois Uttley, RH Reality Check: In a blog post addressed to “Gentlemen of the Congress,” Uttley asks if they have “forgotten about the women” in their lives as they work on crafting health care reform legislation. Uttley writes,”[S]ome of you are wasting valuable time and taxpayer dollars proposing amendments that would deny health care” to several groups of people, including women. She writes that Republican Sens. Mike Enzi (Wyo.), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Tom Coburn (Okla.) this week submitted amendments to the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee that would ban coverage for abortion services; protect health care providers and insurers from “‘discrimination’ for refusing to provide health care requested by their patients,” including abortion and emergency contraception; allow federally qualified health centers to “not provide abortions and still get government grants”; and require that “[a]ny independent medical board appointed to determine the benefits that would be included in national health reform coverage would have to include ‘professional ethicists … with specialty in rights of the life of the unborn.’” Meanwhile, Democrats “are spending far too much time trying to win over colleagues who are never going to vote for health reform, no matter if you offer them abortion exclusions or new provider ‘conscience’ laws or other provisions that would hobble health reform,” Uttley writes. She continues, “Don’t forget that women are among the strongest supporters of moving quickly on health reform this year” because they are “grassroots experts on what is broken in the current health system,” such as insurers’ labeling of pregnancy as a “pre-existing condition,” using “gender rating” in individual policies and excluding contraception coverage. She asks, “So what do women want?” Uttley provides a “list we’ve been compiling at Raising Women’s Voices for the Health Care We Need.” Among the priorities, the list stresses that lawmakers should keep “moral values” out of the debate and that health insurance must be affordable, more simple to understand, fair, portable and universal (Uttley, RH Reality Check, 7/9).

~ “Reports on Judge Sotomayor’s Record,” Kristina Moore, SCOTUSblog: Moore presents a list of “published reports and substantive blog posts” analyzing Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor’s judicial record ahead of her confirmation hearings beginning Monday. The list is organized by subject matter, including general rulings, access to the courts, business, civil rights, criminal, disability, elections, First Amendment, national security and Second Amendment. The links include an analysis of opinion by the Congressional Research Service, as well as blog posts and reports from media outlets and organizations such as the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, CNN, the Ethics and Public Policy Center, the National Law Journal, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal (Moore, SCOTUSblog, 7/7).

~ “Abstinence-Only Advocates Attempt To Evolve, but Don’t Be So Easily Fooled,” Yvonne Fulbright, Huffington Post blogs: Fulbright writes that abstinence-only sex education advocates “have been long organizing a comeback” by “rebranding themselves as science-based and holistic.” She continues, “Sounds great, until you remember that this group of powerful virginity zealots, religious leaders and legislators are driven by regressive social values.” Fulbright writes that, considering the records of certain abstinence-only groups, “we can’t expect their take on ‘holistic’ and ‘healthy’ to be anything like that of comprehensive sexual education.” According to Fulbright, the attempt of abstinence-only groups to rebrand themselves could be “laughable until you realize that attempting to be more mainstream … may just work” because the “average citizen will have trouble deciphering what makes the comprehensive versus abstinence-centered efforts so different” (Fulbright, Huffington Post blogs, 7/7).

~ “Jill Stanek Doesn’t Want To Prevent Abortions,” Kathleen Reeves, RH Reality Check: In the blog, Reeves discusses a recent e-mail exchange between Steven Waldman, editor-in-chief of Beliefnet, and antiabortion-rights advocate Jill Stanek. According to Reeves, Waldman proposed “the following hypothetical situation: more premarital sex and fewer abortions. Would pro-lifers accept this trade-off?” Reeves continues that “Stanek wouldn’t” because “she thinks that contraception and sex education lead to more unintended pregnancies.” Reeves writes, “What both Waldman and I find more interesting is Stanek’s unconditional opposition to sex ed, even if she believed that it did help reduce abortions.” In addition, “there’s something much more immediate and practical in her refusal to consider contraception a ‘lesser evil,’” according to Reeves. She adds, “If she did, she would be admitting that she, and all religious fundamentalists, are wrong. She would be ceding ground to safe sex, to free condoms in bars, to Planned Parenthood.” According to Reeves, “A significant contingent of pro-lifers have always done their part to ensure that more abortions happen by resisting sex ed, resisting funding for contraception, and by teaching their children (and other people’s children) that condoms don’t work.” She concludes, “We’re going to have to look elsewhere to reduce unplanned pregnancies. Jill Stanek is not interested” (Reeves, RH Reality Check, 7/9).

Sens. Most likely To Raise Abortion-Rights Problems At Hearings For Supreme Court Nominee Sotomayor

admin — Fri, 04 May 2012 00:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

3 (1 votes)

The confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor are scheduled to begin Monday, and members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are expected to question her about abortion rights and other “politically charged issues,” the New York Times reports (Liptak, New York Times, 7/12). The hearing on Monday will include opening remarks from the 12 Democrats and seven Republicans on the committee, as well as an opening statement from Sotomayor. The questioning portion of the hearings is scheduled to begin on Tuesday (Sherman, AP/Houston Chronicle, 7/12). Although Sotomayor will be asked questions on abortion rights, race, foreign law and other contentious issues, she will “probably answer only a predictable few” and “will have little reason to deviate from the convention” of her predecessors, the Times reports. According to the Times, most Supreme Court nominees since former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have followed the same strategy of speaking knowledgably about precedent and law without specifically saying how they would rule (New York Times, 7/12).

According to USA Today, senators from both parties will use Sotomayor’s hearings not only to lay out their views but to “establish the tone for any future nominations” by President Obama (Biskupic, USA Today, 7/13). Because Sotomayor is replacing Justice David Souter, who retired in June, her addition to the court is not expected to change the balance of power (AP/Houston Chronicle, 7/12).

Although committee members are expected to ask Sotomayor about her position on abortion rights, the issue is not likely to play as large a role as in previous Supreme Court nomination hearings, the Times reports. It is possible that Democrats will raise the issue as they seek reassurance that Sotomayor would uphold the tenets of Roe v. Wade if such a case were presented to her as a justice. While most court nominees have not explicitly said if they would uphold Roe, Sotomayor will probably “respond in a sort of code” and say that she respects precedent on court rulings related to abortion rights, according to the Times (New York Times, 7/12). Sotomayor has not ruled on a constitutional right to privacy, and the decisions she has written that briefly deal with abortion rights do not reveal a specific stance on that issue, according to USA Today. In one decision regarding the prohibition of federal funding from international family planning groups that support abortion rights, Sotomayor wrote that the government is “free to favor the antiabortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds” (USA Today, 7/13).

Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Freedom, said the group has pressed Democratic senators to ask Sotomayor about her views on abortion rights. Northup said, “Constitutional protection for abortion rights should not be treated differently than other important questions of constitutional law” (New York Times, 7/12). Some women’s rights groups have remained relatively quiet in expressing their support for Sotomayor, citing her limited record on abortion rights, the AP/Google.com reports. National Organization for Women Vice President Melody Drnach said that the group has been publicly focusing on the health care reform debate but that it would soon step up efforts behind the scenes to lobby support for Sotomayor. She added that despite Sotomayor’s limited ruling on abortion rights, the group feels it would be “very, very surprising if the president and his team would nominate somebody who was not going to believe in full equality for women and girls to be a part of the highest court in the land.” NARAL Pro-Choice America officials said the group has focused its resources on urging senators to ask Sotomayor questions about the right to privacy during the hearings. Marcia Greenberger of the National Women’s Law Center said women’s groups are not withholding support for Sotomayor but have been busy examining her record. The National Association of Women Lawyers rated Sotomayor as “highly qualified” but noted that in reproductive rights and certain other areas important to women, there were “no decisions to review” (Hirschfeld Davis, AP/Google.com, 7/11).

Senators Predict Confirmation

Several senators expressed their support for Sotomayor ahead of the confirmation hearings. Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) said that she “predict[s] that she’s going to be confirmed.” Boxer added, “There is no need for [women's] groups to get all geared up and go out and tell people to write” in support of Sotomayor (AP/Google.com, 7/11). During an appearance on CBS’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that the GOP is “grasping at straws” and “nitpicking” Sotomayor’s record in an attempt to block her confirmation, according to the Times. He added that Sotomayor “has been a judge longer than anyone who has gone on the Supreme Court in almost 100 years” and has “shown over and over again that ultimately and completely the law controls” (Nixon, New York Times, 7/13).

According to the Washington Post, sources said several Republican senators may announce their support for Sotomayor late Monday, which would all but seal her confirmation to the court. Early announcements of support may come from Republican Sens. Mel Martinez (Fla.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), and Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, both of Maine (Shear, Washington Post, 7/13).

Members of the Senate GOP are likely to press Sotomayor on her role as a board member for the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund and her previous remarks that a “wise Latina woman” might reach a better decision than a white man, the Times reports (New York Times, 7/12). On “Face the Nation” on Sunday, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said that he is uncomfortable that Sotomayor has “advocated a view that suggests that your personal experiences, even prejudices,” will influence decisions (Jacobs, The Hill, 7/12). However, he added that the hearings would be an “education moment” rather than an attempt to block Sotomayor’s confirmation (New York Times, 7/13).

Home Labor-HHS Spending Bill To Fund ‘Teen Pregnancy Prevention Imitative’

admin — Tue, 01 May 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

On Friday, the House Appropriations Labor, HHS, Education and Related Agencies Subcommittee approved by voice vote a $730.5 billion spending bill to fund the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, CQ Today reports. The bill shifts funding away from abstinence-only sex education toward more comprehensive pregnancy prevention programs. The bill would allocate $114.5 million for a “teenage pregnancy prevention initiative” that offers “evidence-based and other approaches, such as abstinence.” The measure continues several prohibitions on using federal funds to cover abortion and restrictions on funding for embryo research (Wolfe, CQ Today, 7/10).

The measure includes $73.7 billion in discretionary spending for HHS, $2 billion more than President Obama requested (Hunt, CongressDaily, 7/10). The full committee is scheduled to mark up the bill on July 17 (CQ Today, 7/10).

Obama, Pope Concentrate On Abortion, ‘Life’ Issues In First Meeting

admin — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0000

4 (1 votes)

Healthcare Prof:

4 (1 votes)

In their first meeting, President Obama and Pope Benedict XVI on Friday discussed their views on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and the rights of health care workers to object to procedures and services that go against their beliefs, the Los Angeles Times reports. During a 30-minute discussion, the pope expressed to Obama his beliefs about “the defense and promotion of life and the right to abide by one’s conscience,” according to the Vatican. The Times reports that the statement was a “clear reference” to debates over abortion rights, embryonic stem cell research and “conscience” protections for health care providers who refuse care on moral or religious grounds (Chu, Los Angeles Times, 7/11).

According to Time, Benedict showed “no intention of papering over differences on what the Vatican calls ‘life’ issues,” including abortion rights. Vatican spokesperson the Rev. Federico Lombardi said that the pope told him how Obama “explicitly expressed his commitment to reducing the number of abortions and to listen to the Church’s concerns on moral issues” (Israely, Time, 7/10). According to White House deputy national security aide Denis McDonough, Obama was “eager to find common ground on these issues and to work aggressively to do that” (Simpson/Feller, AP/Boston Globe, 7/11). However, “[I]t may just be that there’s issues that you can’t come to agreement on,” McDonough added, noting that Obama believes that “you can disagree without being disagreeable” (Los Angeles Times, 7/11).

Montsignor Georg Ganswein, the pope’s personal secretary, said that Obama was given a copy of “Dignitas Personae,” or “The Dignity of a Person,” a Vatican document released in December detailing the Roman Catholic Church’s most recent stance on bioethics issues (Time, 7/10). The document “hardened” the Church’s opposition to embryonic stem cell research, cloning and in vitro fertilization (AP/Boston Globe, 7/11). Obama assured the pope he would read the document that day on his flight from Italy to Ghana. Ganswein said that the document “can help the president better understand the position of the Catholic Church.” Lombardi noted that it “would be ambiguous to hide or minimize what we believe,” adding, “It’s not meant to be divisive or polemical” (Time, 7/10).

Obama Addresses Ghana’s Parliament, Reiterates U.S. Global Well being Initiative

admin — Thu, 26 Apr 2012 12:00:00 +0000

Healthcare Prof:

During his visit to Ghana over the weekend, President Obama praised the country for its achievements while calling on African leaders to take responsibility for the future of the continent, CNN reports. “Despite the progress that has been made – and there has been considerable progress in parts of Africa – we also know that much of that promise has yet to be fulfilled,” Obama said during a speech before the Ghanaian parliament (7/11).

“Development depends on good governance,” Obama said during his address. “That’s the change that can unlock Africa’s potential. And that is a responsibility that can only be met by Africans.” Obama “outlined the four basic themes of his Africa policy – spreading democracy, diversifying single-product economies, extending public health, and mediating ethnic conflict,” the Christian Science Monitor writes (Hinshaw, 7/12).

President Obama cited the “enormous progress” that has been made in improving public health services in Africa, including HIV/AIDS care and treatment, but he also “observed ‘too many (people) die of preventable diseases’ on the continent,” Hispanic Business Journal writes. Obama also “acknowledged that Africa had continued to lose trained medical personnel to the developed countries,” and said that “more progress must be made” in Africa’s health sector (7/11).

Obama used his address to the Ghanaian government to reemphasize his administration’s support of the work of former President George Bush in the areas of HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis (AP/Fresno Bee, 7/11), and spoke of his commitment to a six-year, $63 billion global health initiative, which includes efforts to fight neglected tropical diseases, as well as the $3.5 billion pledge for farming aid made last week at the G8 summit, the Wall Street Journal reports (Weisman, 7/13).

“We will invest in public health systems that promote wellness and focus on the health of mothers and children. As we partner on behalf of a healthier future, we must also stop the destruction that comes not from illness, but from human beings,” Obama said, Africanews.com reports. Africanews.com writes: “The U.S. president said the commitment of America and the West must be measured by more than the dollars they spend and must also be looked at in the form of partnerships in building the capacity for transformational change” (7/11).

Obama told Ghana’s parliament, “You have the power to hold your leaders accountable, and to build institutions that serve the people. You can conquer disease, end conflicts, and make change from the bottom up,” The Hill reports (Swanson, 7/11).

Politico examines whether observers think the words Obama spoke in his address to Ghanaians will translate “into major changes in U.S. policies toward the continent, or, ultimately, to the dismal conditions of life on the ground for millions in Africa.” Politicio writes, “Those who were watching for clues on Obama’s trip to Africa – all 22 hours of it – were skeptical that Obama’s personal familiarity with the continent will ultimately result in much impact on programs and initiatives the U.S. undertakes there. That’s in part because the kind of transformational changes Obama is promoting will be costly and could face difficulty in a Congress usually hostile to foreign aid – and because Obama himself is preoccupied with pressing problems at home and two wars abroad” (Gerstein/Abrahamson, 7/11).

AP/Google.com published a transcript of Obama’s address in (7/12).

This information was reprinted from globalhealth.kff.org with kind permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. You can view the entire Kaiser Daily Global Health Policy Report, search the archives and sign up for email delivery at globalhealth.kff.org.