Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn against. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng
Hiển thị các bài đăng có nhãn against. Hiển thị tất cả bài đăng

Thứ Năm, 9 tháng 5, 2013

BOARD BOYCOTT:Republican Leaders Rally Against ObamaCare Panel

  • mcconnell_mitch_042313.jpg

    April 23, 2013: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell listens during a news conference on Capitol Hill.AP

The Republican leaders of the House and Senate announced Thursday that they will boycott the ObamaCare-created committee responsible for holding down Medicare costs, in a challenge to a controversial element of the health care overhaul. 

The Individual Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB, has been described as a "death panel" by some of its fiercest critics. Though that epithet is not often used anymore to describe the panel, Republicans still say it would hurt seniors by forcing doctors to stop seeing patients. 

House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, in a letter Thursday to President Obama, said they would refuse to recommend any nominees to the committee, reiterating that they think it should be repealed entirely. 

They revived concerns that the panel would enforce Medicare cuts by reducing payments to providers and/or "eliminating" certain treatments. 

"These reduced payments will force providers to stop seeing Medicare patients, the same way an increased number of doctors have stopped taking Medicaid patients. This will lead to access problems, waiting lists and denied care for seniors," they wrote. 

The 15-member advisory board, known as IPAB, would have the power to force payment cuts on insurers, drug companies and other service providers if Medicare costs rise beyond certain levels. 

The health care law explicitly forbids the board from rationing care, shifting costs to seniors or cutting their benefits. But Boehner, at a news conference Thursday, said the members still "have the authority to deny seniors access to care." 

It's unclear what effect the boycott will have on the panel. The law says the president should consult with Congress on the nominations, but the president is free to make his own appointments. The members of the board, though, are supposed to be from both parties and nominees would be subject to Senate confirmation. 

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney slammed Republicans for the stance and for renewed efforts to repeal the health care law. 

"It just demonstrates again how out of touch with what the American people want the House Republicans have become. Instead of focusing on measures that could help us invest in innovation and manufacturing and job creation, instead of focusing on common-sense efforts to reduce our deficit in a balanced way, House Republicans are voting again to repeal the Affordable Care Act," Carney said. 

Asked why the House was voting a 37th time to repeal all or part of the law, even though GOP leaders know the Democratic-controlled Senate will again ignore the vote, Boehner said there were about 70 new members of the House this year. "Frankly they have been asking for an opportunity to vote on it, and we are going to give it to them." 

He said he supports total repeal of the law rather than efforts to amend it as it goes into effect over the next year. 

Republicans say there have been only two previous votes to eliminate the health care law in its entirety. They say there have been more than 30 votes to partially repeal or defund the law, and several have been signed into law, including one eliminating an unpopular tax-filing requirement that would have affected millions of businesses. 

Economists have predicted that the Medicare board's services might not be needed in the near future because Medicare cost increases appear to be manageable. 

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Chủ Nhật, 28 tháng 4, 2013

Van Persie on target against Arsenal

Robin van Persie

On the spot ... van Persie kept his goal celebrations muted against his old club. Source: AAP

Robin van Persie returned to frustrate Arsenal as the Manchester United striker rescued a 1-1 draw at the Emirates Stadium.

Van Persie was making his first appearance back at Arsenal since last year's £24 million ($A36.24 million) transfer to United and he was given a hostile reception from home supporters.

PWDLGDPts
1Man United3527444385
2Man City3421853071
3Chelsea3419873365
4Arsenal35181073064
5Tottenham3418881762
6Everton35151461459
7Liverpool35141292554
8West Brom3414614248
9Swansea34101212-142
10West Ham3511915-842
11Fulham35101015-940
12Stoke3591313-1040
13Southampton3591214-1039
14Norwich3581413-2138
15Sunderland3491015-737
16Newcastle3510718-2337
17Aston Villa3481016-2734
18Wigan348818-2332
19QPR3541318-2725
20Reading3551020-2825

But, after Theo Walcott gave Arsenal a second-minute lead, the Dutch forward silenced the boo-boys when he fired home from the penalty spot after being fouled by Bacary Sagna in the 44th minute.

United manager Alex Ferguson saluted van Persie for keeping his composure and took a dig at the Arsenal fans in the process.

"It takes bottle to take a penalty when the crowd are booing,'' Ferguson said. "We have a great spirit of applauding players when they come back to our club. I expected the booing to be honest with you.

"Walcott apparently was offside for his goal. The referee apologised to (United centre-back) Rio Ferdinand saying he got it wrong.

"It wasn't his fault, it was the linesman's. It was an uphill fight for us after losing the first goal."

With the title already wrapped up, champions United were happy to settle for a draw, but the result was a setback for Arsenal, who dropped down to fourth place following Chelsea's 2-0 win over Swansea.

Gunners boss Arsene Wenger said: "We gave everything and at the end of the day the regret you have is the way we conceded the goal. Just before half-time that was a serious blow to us."


View the original article here

Thứ Hai, 8 tháng 4, 2013

FREE PRESS FIGHT: Estrich: The Case Against Jailing Fox News Reporter

This should be an easy case.

Jana Winter, a reporter for FoxNews.com, wrote a story last July about a “chilling notebook” that had been sent to offices at the University of Colorado by mass murder defendant James Holmes. The story cited “law enforcement” sources who Ms. Winter, like any reporter who relies on confidential sources to do her job, should not be required to name.   

It should be an easy case because not only does the First Amendment prohibit states from abridging the freedom of the press, but Colorado – like 31 other states – has enacted a shield law that goes beyond the protections afforded journalists by the Constitution. 

Under Colorado law, the courts of that state cannot force a journalist to reveal his or her confidential sources unless the identities of those sources are “directly relevant” to a substantial issue in the case, cannot be obtained by other means, and the interests of the requesting party in knowing those names outweigh  the journalist’s right to report and the public right’s to know. All three conditions must be met; here, none of them are.

The identities of Ms. Winter’s sources are hardly “directly relevant” to James Holmes' guilt or innocence, or to the proper punishment.

James Holmes is charged with multiple counts of capital murder. The identities of Ms. Winter’s sources are hardly “directly relevant” to his guilt or innocence, or to the proper punishment. Whether or not the notebook is admissible is an issue for the court to decide. Who told Ms. Winter about it is, in evidentiary terms, beside the point. 

The defense, in an effort to avoid the obvious conclusion that these sources are not directly relevant to a substantial issue in the prosecution, has attempted to recast this case -- not as the prosecution of Mr. Holmes but as the investigation of a purported violation of the Court’s gag order.   

That is absurd.   

This is a murder case.  The caption on all of the papers says it: "the People of Colorado v. James Holmes."   

If accepted, the defense’s argument would render the protections of the shield law a nullity in any case where a gag order is imposed, and its alleged violation is investigated: that is, precisely in those cases where public and press interest is greatest.

Nor is this a case where, if the Court were determined to do so, it could not use other means to seek out the leakers.   

In fact, a number of law enforcement officers have already been questioned under oath. If the Court wishes – and frankly, with all of the other issues in this case, there is hardly a compelling reason for such a sideshow – it can conduct further hearings.  But reporters have no place on the witness stand.    

Perhaps most important, Mr. Holmes’ only legitimate interest here -- his right to a fair trial, guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment – is hardly at risk, much less at such great risk as to outweigh the compelling interests of a free press and an informed citizenry that the Colorado statute seeks to protect.  

A fair trial does not carry with it a right to a jury that has not been exposed to pretrial publicity. Were it otherwise, no notorious defendant could ever be tried.  

The press coverage of this case reflects the enormous public interest in a particularly heinous crime.   It would be impossible to find a jury anywhere in America comprised only of individuals who had not been exposed to publicity about this case, some of it accurate, some of it speculative, and some of it probably just plain wrong.  

That is true in every “big” case.  I would be far more dubious of the honesty/capacity of a would-be juror who claimed to have heard nothing about the case than one who (as they will be asked) affirms that they can put aside what they have heard and decide the case based on the evidence presented in court.  

Only last week, the Colorado court granted, as against the opposition of  both the prosecution and the defense, the motion by various media organizations to release the affidavits supporting all arrest and search warrants in this case and any requests seeking the production of records.   

The prosecution claimed that it was seeking to protect the privacy of victims and witnesses; Mr. Holmes’ attorneys argued that the release of these materials would impair his right to a fair trial.  

The Court rejected both of these arguments, recognizing that only an “overriding and compelling” state interest could justify the burden on First Amendment rights, and that no such interest existed here.   

The same conclusion should apply to the defense’s demand that Ms. Winter name her sources.

At the end of the day, there are two puzzling aspects of Ms. Winter’s situation, neither of which relate to the merits, which should be easy.  

The first is that it has gone so far: that a story published last July, one of literally tens of thousands in this case, could subject a promising reporter to the choice of naming her sources (and destroying her career in the process) or going to jail.  

The second is that, even with a hearing only days away, there has been so little attention to the threat posed here not only to Ms. Winter, but to the core principles of the First Amendment, and to the efficacy of shield law such as Colorado’s.  

Is it because Ms. Winter works for FoxNews, and not for a more “liberal” media outlet?   I cannot imagine a more shortsighted response, nor one that is more inconsistent with the fundamental premise of a free press.

Susan Estrich is the Robert Kingsley Professor of Law and Political Science at USC. She has  taught criminal law and First Amendment law at both Harvard Law School and USC and is as former president of the Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts and a member of the national board of the ACLU.


View the original article here

Thứ Ba, 26 tháng 3, 2013

Italy's top court overturns Amanda Knox acquittal in murder case, orders new trial- VIDEO: How strong is the case against Knox?

Italy's highest criminal court on Tuesday overturned the acquittal of Amanda Knox in the slaying of her British roommate and ordered a new trial, prolonging a case that has become a cause celebre in the U.S.

The Court of Cassation ruled that an appeals court in Florence must re-hear the case against the American and her Italian-ex-boyfriend for the murder of 21-year-old Meredith Kercher. The exact issues that have to be reconsidered won't be known until the court releases its full ruling.

Lawyers for Knox and her ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito looked grim as they huddled with prosecutors and court officials to get details after the ruling was issued. Lawyers for the Kercher family said they had got what they wanted.

Kercher's body was found in November 2007 in her bedroom of the house she shared with Knox and others in Perugia, an Italian university town where the two women were exchange students. Her throat had been slashed.

Prosecutors alleged Kercher was the victim of a drug-fueled sex game gone awry. Knox and Sollecito denied wrongdoing and said they weren't even in the apartment that night, though they acknowledged they had smoked marijuana and their memories were clouded.

An Ivory Coast man, Rudy Guede, was convicted of the slaying in a separate proceeding and is serving a 16-year sentence. Knox and Sollecito were also initially convicted of the murder and given long prison sentences, but were then acquitted on appeal and released.

The high court's ruling Tuesday overturns the appeals court acquittals.

Italian law cannot compel Knox to return from the U.S. for the new trial. The appellate court hearing the case could declare her in contempt of court but that carries no additional penalties.

It is unclear what would happen if she was convicted in a new appeals trial.

"If the court orders another trial, if she is convicted at that trial and if the conviction is upheld by the highest court, then Italy could seek her extradition," Knox's lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova said Monday.

It would then be up to the United States to decide if it honors the request. U.S. and Italian authorities could also come to a deal that would keep Knox in the United States.

Knox, now 25, and Sollecito, who turned 29 on Tuesday, were arrested shortly after Kercher's body was found in a pool of blood.

The appeals court that acquitted them in 2011 criticized virtually the entire case mounted by prosecutors. The appellate court noted that the murder weapon was never found, said that DNA tests were faulty and that prosecutors provided no murder motive.

After nearly four years behind bars in Italy, Knox returned to her hometown of Seattle and Sollecito resumed his computer science studies, following the degree he successfully earned while studying in prison.

Knox is now a student at the University of Washington, according to her family spokesman, Dave Marriott.

Italy's judicial system allows for two levels of appeals, and prosecutors can appeal acquittals.

Although the court on Monday heard gruesome details, including how Kercher choked on her own blood, it wasn't ruling on the guilt or innocence of the defendants. Its sole task was to decide if the appellate trial was properly conducted.

Details of the ruling weren't issued Tuesday and won't be for several weeks.


View the original article here

Thứ Sáu, 22 tháng 3, 2013

DEMOCRACY 'USURPED?' NRA Joins Suit Against Tough New York Gun Law

  • nygunlaw12z.jpg

    Jan. 9, 2013: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo delivers his third State of the State address at the Empire State Plaza Convention Center.AP

The National Rifle Association on Thursday joined the the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, other sportsmen's groups, firearms businesses and individual gun owners in a lawsuit challenging the state's strict new gun control law.

The federal suit, filed in Buffalo, said the law violates the constitutional rights of "law-abiding citizens to keep commonly possessed firearms in the home for defense of self and family and for other lawful purposes."

In announcing the NRA's support for the lawsuit, Chris Cox, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, said Gov. Andrew Cuomo "usurped the legislative and democratic process" in passing the measures without sufficient input from the public.

“Despite the wishes of Governor Cuomo, law-abiding citizens have a fundamental right to keep commonly possessed firearms for defense of themselves and their families and for other lawful purposes including the enjoyment of New York’s rich hunting and sporting heritage,” Cox said in a news release.

The challenge takes aim at two key provisions of the law: a lower limit on magazine capacity and an expansion of the state's assault weapons ban to include some popular and formerly legal semi-automatic rifles.

The law pushed through by Cuomo on Jan. 15 -- the first new gun restrictions in the nation following the Dec. 14 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. -- also requires registration of an estimated 1 million older guns.

Other provisions require five-year renewals of handgun licenses statewide, direct mental health professionals to notify authorities of patients deemed likely to seriously hurt themselves or others and require federal background checks for private gun sales in New York. It will require registration of ammunition sellers and buyers.

The law also reduces the size of legal magazines from 10 bullets to seven, though lawmakers and Cuomo have recently proposed amending that.

The New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, the lead plaintiff and NRA affiliate, said it was bringing the suit on behalf of its 45,000 members. President Tom King has estimated there are about 4.75 million gun owners among New York's 19 million residents. Other plaintiffs include the Westchester County Firearms Owners Association, Beikrich Ammunition Corp., Blueline Tactical & Police Supply, gun manufacturer Bedell Custom and the Sportsmen's Association for Firearms Education.

"Criminals have and use magazines without any limitation in capacity. The act's provisions on magazines put law-abiding citizens at a grave disadvantage to criminals, who will not comply with the seven-round limit," the suit said. Likewise, it said the ban on assault weapons, "a pejorative term," is being broadened "to describe countless numbers of rifles, handguns and shotguns that were commonly possessed under prior law."

The suit seeks a ruling that both provisions violate the constitution's Second Amendment right to bear arms and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the laws as well as injunctions stopping enforcement. The suit does not challenge many other provisions, including stronger penalties for gun crimes.

State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, named along with Cuomo as a defendant, said Thursday the law is "making New York communities safer, while ensuring constitutional protections to responsible gun owners. My office will continue to aggressively defend the protections embodied in the law because every New Yorker deserves to live in a safe neighborhood free from the threat of gun violence," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.


View the original article here

Thứ Tư, 20 tháng 2, 2013

FDA warns against codeine use in children after tonsillectomy

U.S. health regulators on Wednesday issued the strongest possible warning to physicians to avoid prescribing codeine to children after surgery to remove tonsils, adenoids or both.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a posting on its website that deaths have occurred after surgery in children with obstructive sleep apnea who received codeine for pain relief following such surgeries. Codeine is converted to morphine by the liver.

"These children had evidence of being ultra-rapid metabolizers of codeine, which is an inherited ability that causes the liver to convert codeine into life-threatening or fatal amounts of morphine in the body," the agency said.

The new boxed warning, the strongest available, will be added to the label of codeine-containing products. The labels will also include a recommendation that the drugs not be used in these patients in this setting.

The FDA announced last August it was reviewing the safety of codeine due to deaths and serious side effects in children. The agency found that many of these events occurred in children with obstructive sleep apnea.

These patients may already have underlying breathing problems that made them particularly sensitive to the breathing difficulties that can result when codeine is converted in the body to high levels of morphine, the agency said.


View the original article here