The Hill reports on a significant development
regarding gay conversion therapy bans:
The Supreme Court has decided not to consider New Jersey’s
ban on gay conversion therapy.
The high court rejected a case Monday challenging a law Gov.
Chris Christie (R) passed in August 2013 prohibiting
state-licensed counselors from offering therapy services
that try to change a minor’s sexual orientation.
Licensed therapists Tara King and Ronald Newman appealed the
New Jersey Circuit Court of Appeals decision to uphold the
state ban. They argue New Jersey’s law violates their state
and federal rights to free speech and freedom of religion
under the First Amendment.
On behalf of their minor clients, King and Newman further
argued that New Jersey’s law interferes with clients’
rights to determine their own sexual identity and
parents’ fundamental right to direct the upbringing of
their children.
In the opinion, Judge Freda Wolfson said the New Jersey law
regulates conduct, not speech. There is “no indication in
the record that religion was a motivating factor for passing
the law,” she added.
“From its plain language, the law does not seek to target or
burden religious practices or beliefs,” she wrote. “Rather,
it bars all licensed mental health providers from engaging
in [conversion therapy] with minors, regardless of whether
that provider or the minor seeking [conversion therapy] is
motivated by religion or motivated by any other purpose.”
Two studies by the National Women’s Law Center have found that
many insurance companies are still charging for birth control,
exploiting loopholes that may take years to close. From Jezebel:
In two “State of Coverage” reports … the NWLC found
that many major insurers are ignoring the ACA’s new rule
that FDA-approved birth control methods should be covered
without a co-pay. Insurers do things like putting all
hormonal birth control methods together into one category,
then pay for just one or two of them. Others don’t cover
sterilization, although it’s an approved birth control
method that some women might choose, or impose arbitrary age
limits, refusing to cover birth control for women over 50.
(Which raises the question: do they think women are
continuing to take birth control after 50 for the hell of
it? Presumably they’re doing it because they can still get
pregnant and would rather not.)
The NWLC also found that insurers are putting odd limits on
things like maternity leave and breastfeeding supplies,
things that are also supposed to be well-covered under the
ACA. (Those odd limits include things like refusing to cover
more than one ultrasound for a pregnant person; most people
get at least two, possibly more if there are complications.)
From the Center for Inquiry’s Office of Public Policy:
The Center for Inquiry (CFI) was invited and today delivered
oral testimony at the Food and Drug Administration’s
first review of its policies regarding the regulation of
homeopathic products in more than 25 years.
Michael De Dora, director of CFI’s Office of Public
Policy, delivered CFI’s testimony during on the first
of a two-day public hearing at the FDA’s White Oak
Campus in Silver Spring, MD. His testimony, however, was
presented not only behalf of CFI, “but also on behalf
of dozens of doctors and scientists associated with CFI and
its affiliate program, the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry,
with whom we work on these matters.”
In his testimony, De Dora briefly reviewed the scientific
evidence on homeopathy, illustrated the harm caused by
homeopathy, and proposed actions the FDA should take to hold
homeopathic products to the same standards as
non-homeopathic drugs in order to fulfill its mandate to
protect the American public.
You can read more, including the full testimony,
here.
William Keener, a resident of North Carolina and member of the
state chapter of the Secular Coalition for America, writes on
a “modest” new bill that would enact stricter
immunization requirements in the state:
We can only hope that this proposed legislation leads to a
more rational, evidence-based public discussion about the
true risks and benefits of vaccinations and better informed
consent conversations between doctors and patients. Enacting
stricter immunization requirements is necessary but not
sufficient to save us from misinformed dissent against our
best medical advice on immunizations.
Sens. Jeff Tarte (R-Mecklenburg), Tamara Barringer (R-Wake)
and Terry Van Duyn (D-Buncombe) should be applauded for
introducing this bill and starting an important conversation
about immunizations and public health in North Carolina.
The HPV vaccine and the “home school loophole” still need to
be addressed, but we should do so and pass a bill as quickly
as possible based on the best medical knowledge and evidence
– not on our fears.
When it comes to vaccinations, we’re all in the same herd
and share in the responsibility for public health.
Reutersreports that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration will hold a public
hearing seeking information and comments on the use
of homeopathic products, as well as the agency’s
framework for such products:
The hearing, scheduled for April 20-21, will discuss
prescription drugs, biological products, and
over-the-counter drugs labeled homeopathic, a market that
has expanded to become a multimillion dollar industry in the
United States.
The agency is set to evaluate its regulatory framework for
homeopathic products after a quarter century.
Melissa Davey reports in The Guardian on the results
of an extensive review of existing studies on homeopathy:
Homeopaths believe that illness-causing substances can, in
minute doses, treat people who are unwell.
By diluting these substances in water or alcohol, homeopaths
claim the resulting mixture retains a “memory” of the
original substance that triggers a healing response in the
body.
These claims have been widely disproven by multiple studies,
but the NationalHealth
and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) has for the first time
thoroughly reviewed 225 research papers on homeopathy to
come up with its position statement, released on Wednesday.
“Based on the assessment of the evidence of effectiveness of
homeopathy, NHMRC concludes that there are no health
conditions for which there is reliable evidence that
homeopathy is effective,” the report concluded.
“People who choose homeopathy may put their health at risk
if they reject or delay treatments for which there is good
evidence for safety and effectiveness.”
An independent company also reviewed the studies and
appraised the evidence to prevent bias.
Nearly 8 of 10 Americans believe parents should be required to
vaccinate their healthy children against preventable diseases
such as measles, mumps, rubella and polio, according to a new
CNN/ORC poll shows. Furthermore, if the children are not
vaccinated, most agree the child should not be allowed to
attend public school or day care.
In The Guardian, Michael Marshall discusses a new
report from Mirror Online that focuses on a breast
cancer patient who has refused the surgery and chemotherapy
her doctors advised, electing instead to try and treat her
condition with an intense regime of raw food and supplements:
… there’s no shortage of voices within the the
so-called alternative movement advising seriously ill cancer
patients to abandon proven medicine for the latest rumoured
natural cancer cure.
Although most of the treatments promoted by well-meaning but
ultimately ill-informed alternative cancer activists merely
offer no benefit, some can be actively dangerous in their
own right.
On ThinkProgress, Sam P.K. Collins writes that,
troublingly, “an increasing number of people are turning
to alternative forms of medicine to reduce stress, relieve
chronic pain, and treat other ailments, according to two
studies from the National Institutes of Health.”
Researchers at NIH surveyed more than 89,000 adults and more
than 17,000 children between the ages of 4 and 17 about
their health habits. Their findings,
released
in the National Health Statistics Report earlier this month,
showed that nearly one out of three people in the United
States seek alternative forms of medicine, including fish
oil, probiotics, melatonin, chiropractic medicine and yoga.
For five percent of respondents in that group, the
nontraditional methods — primarily fish oil and melatonin —
served as their sole form of medication.
“While the National Center for Health Statistics study does
not assess why shifts in use occur, some of the trends are
in line with published research on the efficacy of natural
products,” Josephine P. Briggs, M.D., director of NIH’s
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health,
said in a press statement. ”For example, the use of melatonin, shown in studies to
have some benefits for sleep issues, has risen dramatically.
Conversely, the use of Echinacea has fallen, which may
reflect conflicting results from studies on whether it’s
helpful for colds. This reaffirms why it is important for
NIH to study these products and to provide that information
to the public.”
The
increasing popularity
of alternative medicine — defined as methods of treatment
that are not a part of conventional medical training — has
taken place amid
growing skepticism
about the medical industry. Recent surveys have shown that
Americans are increasingly distrustful of doctors, which falls in line with the public’s general distrust of
institutions.
Michael S. Rosenwald writes in The Washington Post on
an emerging leader in the debate over end-of-life care:
Diane Rehm and her husband John had a pact: When the time
came, they would help each other die.
John’s time came last year. He could not use his hands. He
could not feed himself or bathe himself or even use the
toilet. Parkinson’s had ravaged his body and exhausted his
desire to live.
“I am ready to die,” he told his Maryland doctor. “Will you
help me?”
The doctor said no, that assisting suicide is
illegal in Maryland. Diane remembers him specifically warning her, because she
is so well known as an NPR talk show host, not to help. No
medication. No pillow over his head. John had only one
option, the doctor said: Stop eating, stop drinking.
So that’s what he did. Ten days later, he died.
For Rehm, the inability of the dying to get legal medical
help to end their lives has been a recurring topic on her
show. But her husband’s slow death was a devastating episode
that helped compel her to enter the contentious right-to-die
debate.
“I feel the way that John had to die was just totally
inexcusable,” Rehm said in a long interview in her office.
“It was not right.”
