[from NOW website]

Last week the National Organization for Women, along with five other groups advocating for women’s health, sent a letter to Congress calling for an investigation into the Food and Drug Administration’s review of silicone gel breast implants. We noted a number of concerns, including: inadequate data, a possible conflict of interest on the advisory panel, the exclusion of independent scientific experts and troubling documents indicating the panel’s recommendation may have been a foregone conclusion.

On April 13, an FDA advisory panel approved Mentor Corp.’s silicone gel breast implants with nine unusual and unenforceable post-market conditions. The nine conditions placed on the sale of these devices demonstrate the panel’s serious misgivings about the safety of this product. Just one day earlier, the panel voted to reject rival manufacturer Inamed Corp.’s application. (The FDA’s final decision is pending — the agency is not obligated to follow the panel’s recommendation but usually does.)

Last year the FDA decided not to lift restrictions placed on the sale of silicone gel implants in 1992, asking manufacturers to present data on the incidence of breast implant rupture, cause of rupture, and the long-term health effects of silicone gel leaked into the human body.

When manufacturers submitted additional information on their products, the agency’s staff scientists stated that the applications had serious weaknesses, calling the industry’s data “of limited value”i in the medical reviews prepared prior to the panel meeting.

Not only did manufacturers fail to deliver the information requested by the FDA, the data presented by manufacturers raised enormous red flags and displayed a disturbing manipulation of data and disregard for the public health.

The manufacturer’s studies were incomplete. Two of the six implant styles presented by Mentor lacked the studies on implant rupture requested by the FDA in 2004. Of even greater concern is the fact that Mentor’s core study was designed to eliminate the data from women whose implants were removed and not replaced. Patients who have their implants removed without replacement are among the most likely to have experienced rupture, complications or negative symptoms, but Mentor systematically excluded the data on those problems.

Manufacturers also ignored important toxicity issues. In January 2004, the FDA requested platinum and other toxicology analysis on tissue samples. Neither company provided this, nor was an expert on platinum appointed to the advisory panel. However, a study unveiled at the American Chemical Society’s August meeting found high concentrations of platinum not only in women with silicone breast implants, but also in the children they bore and breast-fed.ii

Manufacturers have never submitted more than 4 years of safety data to the FDA. However, the few longer-term government-funded studies that looked at women with leaking implants showed higher rates of fibromyalgia and certain cancers.iii These government researchers, however, were not invited to present at the last panel meeting, nor was their work mentioned by the manufacturer. Other voices, however, were heard from. The lead FDA panel advisor advocating for the re-marketing of silicone breast implants, Dr. Michael Miller, was the recipient of a $25,000 grant by an implant manufacturer.iv

At the advisory panel meeting, women gave heartbreaking testimony of failed silicone breast implants ravaging their bodies in the same room where male plastic surgeons said that breast implants were good for women’s self-esteem. The question remains: How could a medical device that has never have been proven safe be implanted into millions of women?

The pro-implant camp may claim that rigorous federal regulation protects the public, but that clearly isn’t the case for the millions of women who have been implanted with unapproved breast implants. Due to a 1976 grandfather clause, regulatory loopholes allow thousands of products to be marketed every year without clinical trials. With the popularity of breast implants skyrocketing, who can say what awaits the hundreds of thousands of women who opt for breast implants every year?

If manufacturers studied the long-term health effects of silicone on the human body like the FDA asked them to, they wouldn’t have to employ pricey PR firms, well-connected lobby shops or ethically-challenged panelists. But in this era of big money buying politicians and corrupting public policy, we know that dangerous drugs and devices are foisted off on an unwary public. For women who are fooled by the deceptive information of manufacturers and cosmetic surgeons, the cost is very high.

* Read the letter NOW and other groups sent to Congress.
* Learn more about NOW’s work on silicone breast implants.
—————————————————————————-
i Heavey, S. “FDA Staff Questions Value of Breast Implant Data.” Reuters, 7 April 2005.

ii “Platinum Found in Women with Implants.” The Associated Press, 26 August, 2004.

iii Brown SL. Silicone gel breast implant rupture, extracapsular silicone, and health status in a population of women. Journal of Rheumatology, 2001;28: 996-1003; Brinton, LA. Cancer risk at sites other than the breast following augmentation mammoplasty. Annals of Epidemiology, 2001;11: 248-256.

iv Kaufman, M, “Implant Panelist Received Grant from Maker.” The Washington Post, 18 November 2004.

[From NOW]
House Passes Anti-Abortion Legislation Endangering Teen Health

“By passing this deceptive legislation, the House took another step toward final passage of a law that will endanger a women’s health and safety,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “It is not for anyone else but the woman and her doctor to decide how or when she should get an abortion.”

In a 250 to 157 vote, the House passed a teen endangerment bill which restricts a young woman’s ability to obtain an abortion outside of the home state by punishing any adult who accompanies her, even if the closest city is across state lines.

“This is an ill-advised and dangerous bill designed to prevent young women from seeking a legal medical procedure in an accessible and affordable location, particularly if her own state designed insurmountable barriers to her reproductive health care,” Gandy said.

The law will subject young women, abortion providers and others who assist the women to a confusing maze of overlapping and conflicting state and federal laws, which will make it more difficult and more dangerous for young women to obtain abortions. Additionally, there is no exception for a medical emergency unless she has complied with her home state’s parental involvement laws.

“Young women - especially those who are victims of family violence or incest - need to be able to involve an older sister, aunt, grandmother or minister in this decision, and they must be allowed to help,” Gandy said. “For these women, involving a parent in their decision to obtain an abortion is out of the question. To apply this kind of burden will cause more young women to seek unsafe methods for terminating their pregnancies.”

“This bill must be stopped. Anyone who is really concerned about protecting the health of our young women must contact their senators at once,” Gandy said.
————————————
[From PPRI]
Langevin FAILS to HELP young women

Tell Representative Langevin that his disappointing vote supporting CIANA won’t go unnoticed!
Please call Representative Langevin at 202-225-2735 or you can send him an email at http://www.house.gov/langevin/comments.html

Representative Kennedy once again did the right thing and voted against this dangerous and unconstitutional bill!

Please let Representative Kennedy know that you support his “NO” VOTE by calling him at 202-225-4911 or you can email him at http://www.house.gov/writerep/

The House of Representatives passed the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) on April 27th, which jeopardizes teens across the nation, by a vote of 270 to 157. Representative Langevin voted — against the majority of Democrats — for this bill.

Read the bill (HR 748): http://thomas.loc.gov

CIANA is unconstitutional: It contains no health exception to either the waiting period or the notification requirements and it lacks an exemption that would allow teens to pursue a judicial bypass.

The law also violates basic principles of federalism by imposing a federal parental notification requirement on the 27 states that have made public policy judgments to the contrary.

Join RI Women in Action for a lobby day to win policy that will improve the lives of Rhode Island women & girls!

Tuesday, May 3rd, 3:00 pm, State House

Use the flyer below to spread the word!

The lobby day coincides with the Senate Judiciary hearing on the Coalition Against Domestic Violence’s Homicide Prevention Act. We’ll stand in solidarity at the hearing (room 313 state house) from 3:00-4:00 pm and then hit the floor of the House and Senate to lobby on three critical pieces of legislation.

Details are below.

Statement of National Organization for Women President Kim Gandy

Social Security is an essential social insurance program that keeps half of women over 65 out of poverty.Women depend more on Social Security than men do for three reasons: 1) Women are less likely to have private pensions from their employers � and even when they do, women’s average pensions are half as large. 2) Pay inequity � women still make only 76 to every man’s dollar. 3) Time out of the workforce for care giving reduces women’s employment years, and this, combined with lower wages, makes it more difficult to save an adequate amount of money for retirement. Protesters at anti-privatization rally Activists at an anti-privatization rally in Washington DC April 26th. An investment expert said yesterday about privatizing social security: “On Wall Street, the biggest mistake you can make is to risk what you can’t afford to lose. The President wants millions of Americans to take risks with their minimum retirement security.” It’s a foolish gamble � and women aren’t buying it!

NOW President Kim Gandy speaks at rally opposting privatization. A clip of Kim’s rally speech was on NBC Nightly News. (watch the clip)

Tuesday, April 26, the Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on Social Security, weighted with witnesses presenting misleading testimony about the merits of private retirement investment accounts.

To counter this biased presentation and George W. Bush’s well-financed propaganda campaign, a broad coalition of progressive organizations, including NOW, joined Americans United to Protect Social Security on the same date for a “National Day of Unity to Protect Social Security and Stop Privatization.” Activists in 38 cities across the country united to demonstrate their opposition of the GOP’s plan to privatize Social Security.

NOW President Kim Gandy spoke at the rally in Washington, D.C., near the Capitol, along with other progressive leaders and members of the House and Senate voicing our joint opposition to privatization.

The U.S. Senate Judiciary committee, on a straight party-line vote, agreed to send two controversial appellate court nominees to the Senate floor for a confirmation vote: Janice Rogers Brown for U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Priscilla Owen for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

This vote was no routine matter. In fact, by this simple action of approving two judges who were filibustered in the prior administration, the Republicans signaled the launch of their “nuclear option” plan.

Any pretense of bipartisanship was jettisoned by this divisive action. Not satisfied with a more than 95 percent confirmation rate, Senate Republicans made it clear that they will only be satisfied with a complete takeover of the judiciary. The concepts of “advice and consent” and “checks and balances” are viewed as nothing more than roadblocks to complete domination of all three branches of the government.

Action Needed:

Take action by signing NOW’s petition supporting the filibuster.

Background:

The National Organization for Women is not pleased to oppose the elevation of two women to the highest courts of the land. Key to our mission is achieving parity for women in all seats of decision-making power, in government and out. However, there is a good reason why we are the National Organization for Women and not the National Organization of Women. Our primary focus, above all else, is to work to achieve equality and justice for women. Unfortunately, these two women, Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, have embraced with zeal judicial philosophies that do not respect women’s rights, consumer rights, environmental rights or minority rights.

Priscilla Owen

In her two previous hearings before the Judiciary Committee, Priscilla Owen defended her activist and extremist record as a justice on the Texas Supreme Court. Her punitive views about the abortion rights of young women compelled even U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, who sat with her on the Texas Supreme Court, to call her attempt to rewrite the state’s parental notification laws as “an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

Owen is notable for her support of corporate interests at the expense of consumers. Her record show that she sides time after time with corporate interests. She routinely rules against workers. Also, having received donations to her judicial campaign from Enron, she showed bias toward their interests when they appeared before her.

Janice Rogers Brown

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, regarded as the second highest court of the land, is not the place for judicial extremists like Janice Rogers Brown. Brown’s judicial record is replete with controversial decisions in the area of women’s rights, consumer rights, disability rights and employee rights. Her speeches demonstrate an ultra-conservative ideological view regarding employment and property rights as well as a clear hostility for the protection of fundamental constitutional rights. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution pronounced her as “far out of the mainstream of accepted legal principles” and “not qualified for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.”

NOW opposes both these nominees because of their steadfast opposition to the principles of justice and equality. Despite their gender, these two state Supreme Court Justices have revealed their hostility to employment rights and the reproductive rights of women, throughout their records of judicial opinions. Senate Democrats were right to filibuster these two nominees when they were first nominated. Yet George W. Bush thumbed his nose at the justifiable opposition to these nominees when he re-nominated them, knowing that he was throwing down the gauntlet.

The die has been cast. Very soon, perhaps as early as next week, the battle to preserve the essential right of the Senate to advise and consent to judicial nominees will begin. The nominations will move to the floor and the filibusters will begin again. It remains to be seen whether the Republicans really will play procedural roulette and risk the destruction of the operations of the Senate and its traditional comity, in order to cement their grab for absolute power.

Take action by signing NOW’s petition opposing the “nuclear option.”

The word is that Senator Chafee is a potential key vote on this issue. So it’s really important to give him a call and urge him to vote against the nuclear option. His phone number is 202-224-2921.
Here are some talking points from Planned Parenthood

• [If you are a Republican, please start off with this, as it may make your argument stronger] “As a fellow Republican…”
• Please oppose the nuclear option.
• I am a concerned constituent who does not want to see our system of checks and balances lost in a game of politics.
• No one party should have absolute power.
• The filibuster has been used by Democrats and Republicans for two centuries to protect the rights of the minority party in the U.S. Senate.
• I urge you to vote to keep longstanding Senate rules intact.

MoveOn PAC and its partners in the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary are organizing a massive national wave of protest to stop them, culminating with emergency rallies across the country on Wednesday, April 27, at 5 PM. There’s one locally, in Providence, in front of the Superior Court. More information here at MoveOn’s website.

The United Nations
Commission on Human Rights
April 15, 2005

In a resolution (E/CN.4/2005/L.28) on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, adopted as orally revised and by a roll-call vote of 52 in favour to one against, with no abstentions, the Commission urged States to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of their available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and called upon the international community to continue to assist the developing countries in promoting the full realization of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, including through financial and technical support as
well as training of personnel, while recognizing that the primary responsibility for
promoting and protecting all human rights rests with States.

The Commission encouraged States to recognize the particular needs of persons with disabilities related to mental disorders, as well as their families, including by reflecting their needs in national health and social policies, such as national poverty reduction strategies; and called upon them to place a gender perspective at the centre of all policies and programmes affecting women’s health. They also called upon States to protect and promote sexual and reproductive health as integral elements of the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health and decided to extend, for a period of three years, the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the right to everyone to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

The result of the vote was as follows:

In favour (52): Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Bhutan, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Canada, China, Congo, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Gabon, Germany, Guatemala, Guinea, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia, Mauritania, Mexico, Nepal, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Togo, Ukraine, United Kingdom and Zimbabwe.

Against (1): United States.

David Hohman (United States), speaking in explanation of the vote, said the United States believed that while the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights required government action, those rights were not an immediate entitlement to a citizen.

“Same-sex couples in Connecticut have gained access to important benefits that will help protect, nurture and provide for their families,” said NOW Action Vice President Olga Vives. “At the same time, the sharp tools of discrimination and exclusion were used to deny those couples justice and equality under the law.”

On Wednesday, the Connecticut legislature voted 26 to 8 to make civil unions legal for same-sex couples. Civil unions carry the rights and privileges of marriage at the state level, but not at the federal level. “This is simply a down payment in the struggle for full marriage equality,” said Vives. “Only full marriage equality will give all Connecticut families the respect, dignity and security they need and deserve. Equally important, they deserve to have the same rights, responsibilities and benefits that heterosexual married couples rely on for the health and safety of their families.”

The law, already signed by Gov. M. Jodi Rell and taking effect Oct. 1, includes a discriminatory amendment that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

“NOW is committed to ending the exclusion of same-sex couples from marriage because all people and their families deserve the full range of benefits that only marriage can provide,” said Vives. “We will continue to support the many activists in Connecticut, including Connecticut NOW and Love Makes a Family, who are leading the way in moving this national civil rights conversation in the direction of full marriage equality. Together, we will move the country toward fairness and justice for all.”

“The fact is simple and unacceptable - forty-two years after the Equal Pay Act was passed women working full-time, year round, are only making 76 cents to every dollar a man earns,” said NOW President Kim Gandy. “This kind of discrimination has an economically devastating impact on women and their families.”

The wage gap between men and women stubbornly remains despite passage of the Equal Pay Act in 1963. Why do more women than men live in poverty? Because many of them are working minimum or sub-minimum wage jobs and because they still are not receiving equal pay for equal work.

“Disparity in pay limits women’s buying power, affects their ability to pay for quality childcare, prevents them from saving for retirement, and hinders them from receiving livable Social Security benefits based on their wages,” Gandy said. “Pay discrimination not only affects women, but it also puts their families at a disadvantage.”

If women’s wages continue to increase at this sluggish pace, they will not achieve parity until 2042. Currently, women have to work more than three additional months into the next year to receive the wages that a man is paid in just a year.

“The consequences of deliberate pay discrimination for women and their families are profound,” Gandy said. “The workplace pay gap means that both single mothers and two-income families have less money to raise their children, less ability to afford health care and lesser savings to meet emergencies — we can’t let families suffer any longer.”

Eradicating the current wage gap that exists between the sexes is part of NOW’s longstanding commitment to women’s equality.

“We encourage women and supporter’s of equal pay to contact their legislators and demand the enactment of a Paycheck Fairness Act and Fair Pay Act,” Gandy said. “With your help, we can finally level the playing field for working women and their families.”

Join members of Rhode Islanders for Social and Economic Security (RISES) as we visit door-to-door to enlist Rhode Islanders in the fight to defend Social Security.

What: Canvassing to protect Social Security

When: Saturday, April 16, 10:00 – 1:00

Where: Meet at Slater Grove Memorial Park, Narragansett Parkway, Warwick (Drive south on Broad Street, through Cranston. Broad becomes Narragansett Parkway at the Warwick City line.)

There will be a brief training in the park, then we’ll set off in teams of two or three to talk with neighbors in Warwick’s Lakewood neighborhood about our efforts to protect Social Security for our elderly, our disabled and our families who have lost a loved one.

Call Ivette Luna at Ocean State Action at 463-5368 for more information.

Marriage Equality Rhode Island announces that the House Judiciary
Committee has postponed the hearing on our bill for Equal Marriage.

We have been assured by Rep. Art Handy, our bill sponsor, that we will
indeed get a hearing on our bill, but scheduling issues forced the
postponement.

The Rally for Equal Marriage will go ahead as planned - so please come
to the State House tomorrow!!

The rally will begin at 5:00 pm (if you can be there from the beginning,
you might aim for 4:30, to get through security). We will continue
rallying for at least an hour, so join us later if you can do that!

There is a hearing on an issue key to the LGBT community, that will be
posted about separately.

COME RAISE YOUR VOICE AND RALLY FOR EQUAL MARRIAGE TOMORROW!