Free Covid-19 tests aren’t guaranteed after May 11, but there’s still time to stock up | CNN



CNN
 — 

When the US Covid-19 public health emergency ends this month, coronavirus tests will still be available, but there will be changes to who pays for them.

Questions remain about exactly what those coverage changes will look like, but the guarantee of free testing will be lost for many – and some costs may shift to become out-of-pocket.

There are still ways to take advantage of the benefits provided by the public health emergency before it expires May 11.

For the past two years, the federal government has required private insurance companies to cover up to eight Covid-19 tests each month. Packs of home tests can be found at pharmacies and other local retailers, and costs may be covered upfront or reimbursed by insurance plans.

The Biden administration launched COVIDtests.gov in January 2022 to allow US households to order free Covid-19 test kits to be delivered to home. The site is still up and running, with four free tests available to any household that hasn’t ordered since December.

Also, the US Food and Drug Administration has extended the expiration date for many home tests beyond what is printed on the box. Check the agency’s website before throwing them out.

“People should go out and ensure that they have tests available, because what we know about Covid is it’s quite pernicious, and clearly, people can get it more than once,” said Mara Aspinall, a professor at Arizona State University’s College of Health Solutions and a testing and diagnostics expert.

“It’s critical that people have the ability to test and then isolate or stay at home if they test positive.”

Once the public health emergency ends, Covid-19 tests – both home tests and laboratory tests – will be subject to cost sharing, in which costs of services are divided between the patient and their insurance plan.

Private insurers will no longer be required to cover the costs of testing. The federal government has encouraged continued coverage, but each company will ultimately be able to make their own decision. So far, details on those plans are scarce.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association told CNN that it’s evaluating the best way to keep members informed of changes. Moving into the next phase, coverage may include “reasonable limits” on tests.

“As COVID-19 becomes endemic, each Blue Cross and Blue Shield company is looking at how best to support access to diagnostic testing for COVID-19, just as is done for all other diagnostic testing,” said David Merritt, senior vice president of policy and advocacy for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association. “We are committed to protecting patients from unnecessary costs, while ensuring they receive the care they need, when they need it.”

Aetna told CNN that it did not have any details to share. Cigna, Humana and UnitedHealthcare did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Medicare Part B beneficiaries will continue to have coverage for lab tests when ordered by a provider, but the same will not apply for home tests.

For those on Medicaid plans, all tests will continue to be covered for free until the end of September 2024.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention will also continue to support uninsured individuals and socially vulnerable communities “pending resource availability,” according to a roadmap outlined by the US Department of Health and Human Services.

There may be other avenues to free or cheap testing, too – perhaps through state and local governments or other programs.

Recently, for example, the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services announced the expansion of a program that now allows all state residents to order free tests through June.

The Rockefeller Foundation, a private philanthropic organization, has also extended a public-private partnership program that works with states to get free tests to at-risk communities.

“The testing phenomenon during Covid changed many times,” Aspinall said.

It was a core focus at the beginning, but the priority then shifted to vaccines, she said. The initial Omicron wave brought a renewed interest in testing, and long waits for lab-based tests drove people to home tests.

“It put power and privacy in an individual consumer’s hand,” Aspinall said.

Millions of households took advantage of free Covid-19 tests provided by the federal government in the months after it launched, and a recent CDC report shows that the program helped to get kits to many who otherwise wouldn’t have tested and improved equity in testing overall.

About 60% of US households ordered a test kit from COVIDTests.gov, and nearly a third of all US households reported using at least one of those tests by April or May last year.

Nearly a quarter of people who reported using the government-provided tests said that they probably would not have tested for Covid-19 if not for the free kits, according to the report – suggesting that more than 13 million people took a Covid-19 test who otherwise wouldn’t have. More than 1 in 5 people who used their free tests reported at least one positive result.

Overall, use of the free test kits was similar across racial and ethnic groups. This is a “considerable difference” from other home test kits, where use was “highly inequitable,” according to the report. Black people were more likely than White people to use tests provided through COVIDTests.gov but 72% less likely than White people to use other at-home test kits.

Now, however, Covid-19 cases are a third of what they were a year ago, and hospitalizations and deaths are about as low as they’ve ever been. Testing rates have dropped significantly, too.

Along with the decreased transmission, the volume of testing may have dropped as people better understand what the course of an infection looks like, Aspinall said.

She estimates that people may use an average of one or two tests per incident, down from an average of five or six.

While Covid-19 “remains a public health priority,” the federal government says “we are in a better place in our response than we were three years ago, and we can transition away from the emergency phase.”

Still, experts agree that continued monitoring is key. Advancements in technologies like wastewater surveillance have helped supplement dwindling testing data, but testing will continue to be an important tool for individuals to keep themselves and their loved ones safe and healthy.

“The public health emergency may be over but Covid is not over,” Aspinall said.

Source link

#Free #Covid19 #tests #arent #guaranteed #time #stock #CNN

The Biden tax proposals that could hit baby boomer, family businesses

U.S. President Joe Biden delivers remarks about his budget for fiscal year 2024 at the Finishing Trades Institute in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, March 9, 2023.

Evelyn Hockstein | Reuters

President Joe Biden’s 2024 budget proposals contain several proposals that could hit small businesses right where it hurts — their wallets.

Proposals in the budget include boosting the top capital gains rate for income over $1 million, eliminating the so-called “step-up in basis” loophole, expanding who has to pay investment income tax and at what rate, and bumping up the corporate tax rate.

“The White House’s 2024 budget proposal contains $2.5 trillion in harmful tax hikes that would crush Main Street’s ability to grow and create jobs,” said Brad Close, NFIB president, in a statement detailing its campaign to prevent the measures from becoming law. “Some of these tax increases are again being wrongly characterized as the closing of a ‘tax loophole’ and would directly hit small businesses and compound with other rate hikes,” Close said.

Although the budget comes at a time when many small businesses are feeling thrown under the bus by the effects of inflation, hiring pressures and other adverse business conditions, the good news is that tax experts are circumspect about the chances of Biden’s wish list passing as proposed. 

For one, many of the provisions within the budget have been floated before, and a divided Congress lessens the likelihood they’ll be adopted without revision. Even so, the budget represents efforts to rebalance some of the cuts enacted by The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, especially for higher income individuals, said Eric Hylton, national director of compliance at alliantgroup, a Houston-based consultancy.

Currently, the top individual rate is 37% for income over $578,125 for a single taxpayer, or $693,750 for married couples filing jointly. Biden’s proposal would boost the top individual rate to 39.6% and change the threshold to $400,000 for a single taxpayer and $450,000 for a married couple filing jointly. The rate is already set to increase at the end of 2025, when certain provisions of The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act sunset, but this proposal would make it effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2022, and it could ensnare more businesses.

While Congress may be more inclined to move ahead with measures that apply more broadly to wealthy individuals, “there’s going to be a lot of debate as to what should go forward,” said Hylton, a former IRS Commissioner of the Small Business/Self Employed Division.

it’s important for small business owners to be aware of what’s being floated, especially since certain provisions that apply more directly to business operations are likely to rear their head at a later time and the recent tax season included some ugly surprises for small businesses related to recent changes in tax law. “These ideas don’t truly go away; they just go into hibernation until somebody else comes along,” said Ray Beeman, leader of Ernst & Young’s Washington Council.

Here are five provisions business owners should be aware of in President Biden’s budget:

A higher capital gains tax rate would be bad for business sellers.

Biden’s proposal would raise the top marginal rate on long-term capital gains and qualified dividends to 44.6% for income over $1 million, up from 23.8%, including the net investment income tax. The impact would be significant for many small business owners who want to sell businesses, especially the scores of Baby Boomers who are aging out, said Brad Sprong, national industry tax leader for KPMG Private Enterprise. “They don’t have big 401(k) accounts; they have equity in the business, so selling the business could mean an even bigger hit. I think that would be tough for people and it will impact their retirement.”

Eliminating the “step-up in basis” would hit family businesses.

Biden is once again floating the idea of ending the “stepped-up basis” rule that allows preferential tax treatment for assets held until death.

Current rules exempt capital gains on assets that a taxpayer does not sell before the end of his or her life, according to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a non-profit, non-partisan tax policy group.

The proposed change would be especially impactful when family-business assets are passed to the next generation, since there are few exceptions to the capital gains tax consequences, according to the NFIB, which opposes the change.

“That’s a factor in families transferring businesses from one generation to the other right now,” said Mark Prater, managing director with PwC’s Tax Policy Services team. It would be a double-whammy for small businesses, he said, if the other proposal to increase the capital gains rate moves forward.

Still, Biden’s budget partially mitigates these concerns by exempting $5 million of unrealized gains per individual and effectively $10 million per married couple, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. “The President also proposes allowing any family business (including farms) to delay the tax if the business continues to be family-owned and operated,” the blog said.

Property owners could lose leverage in real estate transactions.

The budget once again seeks to eliminate so-called 1031 like-kind exchanges of more than $500,000 for each taxpayer, or $1 million for married individuals filing a joint return. Under current law, if certain conditions are met, a property owner can sell and buy another piece of real estate for business or investment purchase and defer paying taxes on the initial gain, Sprong said. If that benefit is eliminated, certain small businesses would lose the ability to leverage their capital in this way.

A higher corporate tax rate would hurt businesses that don’t use a pass-through structure.

Biden is proposing that the corporate tax rate be increased to 28% from 21%. The majority of small businesses are pass-through businesses that are not subject to the corporate income tax, but for companies that are, the increase would be meaningful, tax experts said. Before moving ahead, Congress would need to consider how this pits the U.S. against other developed nations, Sprong said. “You wouldn’t want to be an outlier.”

Potentially higher net investment income tax.

Biden’s proposal would increase the 3.8% net investment income tax rate on small business income over $400,000 to 5%. Many small businesses today don’t pay this tax, but if the plan passes, they would not only pay, but at a higher rate than what’s currently in place, Beeman said.

Source link

#Biden #tax #proposals #hit #baby #boomer #family #businesses

Wall Street predicted a big surge for oil this year. But prices are now lower

Oil prices were rattled by the collapse of several U.S. and European lenders earlier this spring, which discouraged volatility-adverse investors from historically riskier assets, such as commodities.

Bloomberg | Bloomberg | Getty Images

A surprise decision by several OPEC+ producers to voluntarily cut output earlier this month had pushed analyst oil price forecasts near $100 per barrel, but stagnating prices now point to a deepening divide between macroeconomic sentiment and supply-demand fundamentals.

Oil prices have once again lulled near the $80 per barrel threshold, nearly revisiting territory walked in early April, before members of the OPEC+ coalition announced a unilateral cut totaling 1.6 million barrels per day until the end of the year.

The production declines prompted some analysts to warn prices could surge to triple digits, with Goldman Sachs adjusting its Brent forecast up by $5 per barrel to $95 per barrel for December 2023.

Analysts now flag that broader financial turmoil has so far obstructed this bullish outlook, as supply-demand factors are outweighed by recessionary concerns.

“Oil markets have completely faded the boost from the surprise OPEC+ cut earlier this month, and we think this primarily reflects deep pessimism about the macro outlook, with little evidence of incremental weakness in demand so far,” Barclays analysts said in a Wednesday note.

“Weaker refining margins and freight demand have been in focus recently, but we believe markets might be reading too much into the implications of these trends for the demand outlook. We also think that markets might be underestimating OPEC+’s resolve to keep the inventory situation in check.”

“People really bet on a China reopening,” Helima Croft, managing director and global head of commodity strategy at RBC Capital Markets, told CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Wednesday.

Beijing, the world’s largest importer of crude oil, reined in its purchases last year amid drastic “zero-Covid” restrictions that depressed transport fuel requirements. China has been progressively lifting its pandemic measures since the end of last year, and local crude oil demand is returning — but at a more “muted” pace, Croft noted.

“And the issue of the Fed is real. I think that is something that a lot of us got wrong in terms of the impact of, you know, the rate hikes, recession concerns,” she added.

“We have these OPEC cuts in place, we do have, you know, again, strong demand in India, China is reopening — this should be set up for a bullish story. People are still optimistic about the back half of the year, but the question is, can you get through the big macro wall of worry?”

Viktor Katona, lead crude analyst at Kpler, told CNBC by e-mail that oil prices have suffered from a “constant barrage of gloomy macroeconomic news that creates a negative sentiment background,” as well as market distrust in the implementation of the OPEC+ production cuts. Market participants often wait for a visible reflection — such as lower export rates — to factor in production cuts, which can create a disconnect when vessel loadings arise from stock inventories.

But Katona projected price-supportive tightness in the physical markets over the summer season:

“We still see July and August as being the tightest months of 2023, with demand surpassing supply by some 2 million b/d (barrels per day), so the overall direction is still the same,” he said, noting that, globally, consumers will be exiting their annual refinery maintenance periods that curb their intake by that time.

“Net length in crude futures contracts has fully recovered from the banking panic seen in March and net length in WTI is the highest since November 2022, so the belief that prices are to increase is definitely widely shared by the market.”

But China’s long-anticipated reopening may prove too little, too late. One trade source — who could only comment on condition of anonymity because of contractual obligations — said the market is waiting for concrete signs of physical inventory draws. Another pointed to generally poor refining margins in Asia and a “poor demand cycle.” Another said that China’s reopening has been fully factored into the current pricing, and Beijing’s needs are simply being met by Russian oil. Moscow has rerouted 20% of the oil it supplied to Europe to other markets such as Asia, Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Novak said Wednesday, in comments reported by Reuters.

Kpler data indicates that China’s imports of Russian crude oil averaged 1.59 million barrels per day in March, up 68% from the same period in 2022. Croft says that Chinese buyers have been “beneficiaries of sanctions policies,” as Moscow’s slashed prices also pushed other sanctioned sellers, such as Venezuela and Iran, to discount their crude.

OPEC+ weight

Oil prices were rattled by the collapse of several U.S. and European lenders earlier this spring, which discouraged volatility-adverse investors from historically riskier assets, such as commodities.

OPEC+ sources told CNBC at the time that these sentiment-driven fears would likely be temporary and pushed aside by supply-demand realities. The group convenes to discuss policy at a ministerial level for one of two annual meetings in June — when Croft flags that Gulf producers will likely set the agenda.

“When you think about Russia, Russia makes involuntary cuts. They basically rebrand the sanctions problem as a production cut. It’s really a question, I think, right now, about Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf producers, what they want to do. Again, Russia’s happy to have anything that raises prices, but they’re not in the driver’s seat.”

Oil is unlikely to hit $100 per barrel well before the end of the year, says Truist

The weight of OPEC+ co-chair Russia within the group has been stifled by Western sanctions against its crude oil and oil product imports, in place since December and February, respectively.

As markets settle near $80 per barrel, Croft questioned what recourses still remain in the OPEC+ arsenal. “The question is right now, do they have more bullets to play, as we go into a June meeting?”

The latest cuts already spell a tight supply-demand balance that could hit households, the International Energy Agency warned in its latest monthly Oil Market Report.  

“Our oil market balances were already set to tighten in the second half of 2023, with the potential for a substantial supply deficit to emerge. The latest cuts risk exacerbating those strains, pushing both crude and product prices higher. Consumers currently under siege from inflation will suffer even more from higher prices, especially in emerging and developing economies,” it said.

Biden’s bid

Historically a defender of curbing prices at the pump, the U.S. has repeatedly called on OPEC+ producers to lift supplies, waging a war of words with group Chair Saudi Arabia when the coalition instead opted for a 2 million barrels per day cut in October. The U.S.’ own shale production, “traditionally the most price-responsive source of more output, is currently limited by supply chain bottlenecks and higher costs,” the IEA warns.

Throughout Biden’s presidency, U.S. energy policy has been defined by a push toward climate awareness. Shortly after taking office, the head of state suspended new oil and natural gas leases on public lands and waters and kicked off a thorough review of existing permits for fossil fuel development. Biden has openly criticized the oil sector for raking in profit at the expense of consumers, in June last year claiming ExxonMobil “made more money than God.”

But crude oil supply shortages and soaring gasoline prices have pushed Biden — who on Tuesday announced his re-election campaign — to reconsider his tactic, Croft holds.

“You have President Biden coming into office, essentially saying, Keep the oil in the ground. And now when he is faced with higher retail gasoline prices, essentially they say to oil companies, no, put the money in the ground. So we have seen a significant pivot on oil policy from the Biden administration,” she said Wednesday.

“That said, the fully robust defense of the American oil and gas is usually on the Republican end of the House.”

Source link

#Wall #Street #predicted #big #surge #oil #year #prices

These women ran an underground abortion network in the 1960s. Here’s what they fear might happen today | CNN



CNN
 — 

The voice on the phone in 1966 was gruff and abrupt: “Do you want the Chevy, the Cadillac or the Rolls Royce?”

A Chevy abortion would cost about $200, cash in hand, the voice explained. A Cadillac was around $500, and the Rolls Royce was $1,000.

“You can’t afford more than the Chevy? Fine,” the voice growled. “Go to this address at this time. Don’t be late and don’t forget the cash.” The voice disappeared.

Dorie Barron told CNN she recalls staring blankly at the phone in her hand, startled by the sudden empty tone. Then it hit her: She had just arranged an illegal abortion with the Chicago Mafia.

The motel Barron was sent to was in an unfamiliar part of Chicago, a scary “middle of nowhere,” she said. She was told to go to a specific room, sit on the bed and wait. Suddenly three men and a woman came in the door.

“I was petrified. They spoke all of three sentences to me the entire time: ‘Where’s the money?’ ‘Lie back and do as I tell you.’ And finally ‘Get in the bathroom,’” when the abortion was over, Barron said. “Then all of a sudden they were gone.”

Bleeding profusely, Barron managed to find a cab to take her home. When the bleeding didn’t stop, her bed-ridden mother made her go to the hospital.

At 24, Barron was taking care of her ailing mother and her 2-year-old daughter when she discovered she was pregnant. Her boyfriend, who had no job and lived with his parents, “freaked,” said Barron, who appears in a recent HBO documentary. The boyfriend suggested she get an abortion. She had never considered that option.

“But what was I to do? My mom was taking care of my daughter from her bed while I worked — they would read and play games until I got home,” Barron said.”How was either of us going to cope with a baby?

“Looking back, I realize I was taking my life in my hands,” said Barron, now an 81-year-old grandmother. “To this day it gives me chills. If I had died, what in God’s green earth would have happened to my mom and daughter?”

Women in the 1960s endured restrictions relatively unknown to women today. The so-called “fairer sex” could not serve on juries and often could not get an Ivy League education. Women earned about half as much as a man doing the same job and were seldom promoted.

Women could not get a credit card unless they were married — and then only if their husband co-signed. The same applied to birth control — only the married need apply. More experienced women shared a workaround with the uninitiated: “Go to Woolworth, buy a cheap wedding-type ring and wear it to your doctor’s appointment. And don’t forget to smile.”

Marital rape wasn’t legally considered rape. And, of course, women had no legal right to terminate a pregnancy until four states — Alaska, Hawaii, New York and Washington — legalized abortion in 1970, three years before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land.

Illinois had no such protection, said Heather Booth, a lifelong feminist activist and political strategist: “Three people discussing having an abortion in Chicago in 1965 was a conspiracy to commit felony murder.”

Despite that danger, a courageous band of young women — most in their 20’s, some in college, some married with children — banded together in Chicago to create an underground abortion network. The group was officially created in 1969 as the “Abortion Counseling Service of Women’s Liberation.”

But after running ads in an underground newspaper: “Pregnant? Don’t want to be? Call Jane,” each member of the group answered the phone as “Jane.”

Despite their youth, members of Jane managed to run an illegal abortion service dedicated to each woman's needs.
From left: Martha Scott, Jeanne Galatzer-Levy, Abby Pariser, Sheila Smith and Madeline Schwenk.

“We were co-conspirators with the women who called us,” said 75-year-old Laura Kaplan, who published a book about the service in 1997 entitled “The Story of Jane: The Legendary Underground Feminist Abortion Service.”

“We’ll protect you; we hope you’ll protect us,” Kaplan said. “We’ll take care of you; we hope you’ll take care of us.”

What started as referrals to legitimate abortion providers changed to personalized service when some members of Jane learned to safely do the abortions themselves. Between the late 1960s and 1973, the year that the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, Jane had arranged or performed over 11,000 abortions.

“Our culture is always searching for heroes,” said Kaplan. “But you don’t have to be a hero to do extraordinary things. Jane was just ordinary people working together — and look what we could accomplish, which is amazing, right?”

Even after several members were caught and arrested, the group continued to provide abortions for women too poor to travel to states where abortion had been legalized.

“I prayed a lot. I didn’t want to go to jail,” said 80-year-old Marie Learner, who allowed the Janes to perform abortions at her apartment.

“Some of us had little children. Some were the sole breadwinners in their home,” Learner said. “It was fearlessness in the face of overwhelming odds.”

Marie Learner opened her home to women undergoing abortions. Her neighbors knew, she said, but did not tell police.

The story of Jane has been immortalized in Kaplan’s book, numerous print articles, a 2022 movie, “Call Jane,” starring Elizabeth Banks and Sigourney Weaver, and a documentary on HBO (which, like CNN, is owned by Warner Bros. Discovery).

Today the historical tale of Jane has taken on a new significance. After the 2022 Supreme Court reversal of Roe v. Wade and the mid-term takeover of the US House of Representatives by Republicans, emboldened conservative lawmakers and judges have acted on their anti-abortion beliefs.

Currently more than a dozen states have banned or imposed severe restrictions on abortion. Georgia has banned abortions after six weeks, even though women are typically unaware they are pregnant at that stage. In mid-April, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that would ban most abortions after six weeks. It won’t go into effect until the state Supreme Court overturns its previous precedent on abortion. Several other states are considering similar legislation. In other states, judicial battles are underway to protect abortion access.

“It’s a horrific situation right now. People will be harmed, some may even die,” said Booth, who helped birth the Jane movement while in college.

“Women without family support, without the information they need, may be isolated and either harm themselves looking to end an unwanted pregnancy or will be harmed because they went to an unscrupulous and illegal provider,” said Booth, now 77.

A key difference between the 60s and today is medication abortion, which 54% of people in the United States used to end a pregnancy in 2022. Available via prescription and through the mail, use of the drugs is two-fold: A person takes a first pill, mifepristone, to block the hormone needed for a pregnancy to continue.  A day or two later, the patient takes a second drug, misoprostol, which causes the uterus to contract, creating the cramping and bleeding of labor.

In early April a Texas judge, US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk – a Trump appointee who has been vocal about his anti-abortion stance — suspended the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone despite 23 years of data showing the drug is safe to use, safer even than penicillin or Viagra.

On Friday, the Supreme Court froze the ruling and a subsequent decision by the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals at the request of the Justice Department and the drug manufacturer. The action allows access to mifepristone in states where it’s legal until appeals play out over the months to come.

However, 15 states currently restrict access to medication abortion, even by mail.

The actions of anti-abortion activists, who have been accused of “judge shopping” to get the decisions they want, is “an unprecedented attack on democracy meant to undermine the will of the vast majority of Americans who want this pill — mifepristone — to remain legal and available,” Heather Booth told CNN.

“This is a further weaponization of the courts to brazenly advance the end goal of banning abortion entirely,” she added.

If women in her day could have had access to medications that could be used safely in their homes, they would not have been forced to risk their lives, said Dorie Barron, thinking back to her own terrifying abortion in a sketchy Chicago motel.

“I’m depressed as hell, watching stupid, indifferent men control and destroy women’s lives all over again,” she said. “I really fear getting an abortion could soon be like 1965.”

Chicago college student Heather Booth had just finished a summer working with civil rights activists in Mississippi when she was asked to help with a different kind of injustice.

Heather Booth, 18, with civil rights heroine Fannie Lou Hamer during

A girl in another dorm was considering suicide because she was pregnant. Booth, who excelled at both organization and chutzpah, found a local doctor and negotiated an abortion for the girl. Word spread quickly.

“There were about 100 women a week calling for help, much more than one person could handle,” Booth said. “I recruited about 12 other people and began training them how to do the counseling.”

Counseling was a key part of the new service. This was a time when people “barely spoke about sex, how women’s bodies functioned or even how people got pregnant,” Booth said. To help each woman understand what was going to happen to them, Booth quizzed the abortion provider about every aspect of the procedure.

“What do you do in advance? Will it be painful? How painful? Can you walk afterwards? Do you need someone to be with you to take you home?” The questions continued: “What amount of bleeding is expected, and can a woman handle it on their own? If there’s a problem is there an urgent number they can call?”

Armed with details few if any physicians provided, the counselors at Jane could fully inform each caller about the abortion experience. The group even published a flyer describing the procedure, long before the groundbreaking 1970 book “Our Bodies, Ourselves” began to educate women about their sexuality and health.

“I don’t particularly like doctors because I always feel dissatisfied with the experience,” said Marie Learner, who spoke to many of the women who underwent an abortion at her home.

“But after their abortion at Jane, women told me, ‘Wow, that was the best experience I’ve ever had with people helping me with a medical issue.’”

Eileen Smith, now 73, was one of those women. “Jane made you feel like you were part of this bigger picture, like we were all in this together,” she said. “They helped me do this illegal thing and then they’re calling to make sure I’m OK? Wow!

“For me, it helped battle the feeling that I was a bad person, that ‘What’s wrong with me? Why did I get pregnant? I should know better’ voice in my head,” said Smith. “It was priceless.”

Like many young women in the 60s, Heather Booth often protested for civil and women's rights.

Many of the women who joined Jane had never experienced an abortion. Some viewed the work as political, a part of the burgeoning feminist movement. Others considered the service as simply humanitarian health care. All saw the work as an opportunity to respect each woman’s choice.

“I was a stay-at-home mom with four kids,” said Martha Scott, who is now in her 80s. “We knew the woman needed to feel as though she was in control of what was happening to her. We were making it happen for her, but it was not about us. It was about her.”

Some volunteers, like Dorie Barron, experienced the Jane difference firsthand when she found herself pregnant a few years after her abortion at the hands of the Mafia.

“It was a 100% total reversal — I had never experienced such kindness,” Barron said. Not only did a Jane hold each woman’s hand and explain every step of the process, “they gave each of us a giant supply of maternity sanitary pads, and a nice big handful of antibiotics,” she said. “And for the next week, I got a phone call every other day to see how I was.”

Barron soon began volunteering for Jane by providing pregnancy testing for women in the back of a church in Chicago’s Hyde Park.

“It wasn’t just abortion,” Barron explained. “We also said, ‘You could consider adoption,’ and gave adoption referrals. And if the woman wanted to continue with her pregnancy, we said, ‘Fine, please by all that is holy make sure you get prenatal care, take your vitamins, and eat as best you can.’ It was women helping women with whatever they needed.”

Most of the women who contacted Jane were unable to support themselves, in unhealthy relationships, or already had children at home, so the service was a way of “helping them get back on track,” said Smith, who, like Barron, had begun working for Jane after her abortion.

“We were telling them ‘This isn’t the end of the world. You can continue to leave your boyfriend or your husband or continue to just take care of those kids you have.’ We were there to help them get through this,” said Smith, who later became a homecare nurse.

From left: Eileen Smith, Diane Stevens and Benita Greenfield were three of the dozens of women who volunteered for Jane.

Diane Stevens says she came to work for Jane after experiencing an abortion in 1968 at the age of 19. She was living in California at the time, which provided “therapeutic abortions” if approved in advance by physicians.

“I’d had a birth control failure, and I was coached by Planned Parenthood on how to do this,” said Stevens, now 74. “I had to see two psychiatrists and one doctor and tell them I was not able to go through with the pregnancy because it would a danger to both my physical and mental health.

“I was admitted to the psychiatric ward, although I didn’t really know that — I thought I was just in a hospital bed. But oh no, ‘I was mentally ill,’ so that’s where they put me,” said Stevens, who later went to nursing school with Smith. “Then they wheeled me off for the abortion. I had general anesthesia, was there for two days, and then I was discharged. Isn’t that crazy?”

Sakinah Ahad Shannon, now 75, was one of the few Black women who volunteered as a counselor at Jane. She joined after accompanying a friend who was charged a mere $50 for her abortion. At that time, Jane’s fee was between $1 and $100, based on what the woman could afford to pay, Shannon said.

“When I walked in, I said, ‘Oh my God, here we go again. It’s a room of White women, archangels who are going to save the world,’” said Shannon, a social worker and member of the Congress of Racial Equality, an interracial group of non-violent activists who pioneered “Freedom Rides” and helped organize the March on Washington in 1963.

What she heard and saw at her friend’s counseling session was so impressive it “changed my life,” Shannon said. She and her family later opened and operated three Chicago abortion clinics for over 25 years, all using the Jane philosophy of communication and respect.

“It was a profoundly amazing experience for me,” she said. “I call the Janes my sisters. The color line didn’t matter. We were all taking the same risk.”

Sakinah Ahad Shannon and her daughters went on to open and run three abortion clinics in Chicago.

It wasn’t long before the women discovered a “doctor” performing abortions for Jane had been lying about his credentials. There was no medical degree — in the HBO documentary, he admitted he had honed his skills by assisting an abortion provider.

The group imploded. A number of members quit in horror and dismay. For the women who stayed, it was an epiphany, said Martha Scott. Like her, several of the Janes had been assisting this fake doctor for years, learning the procedures step by step.

“You’d learn how to insert a speculum, then how to swap out the vagina with an antiseptic, then how to give numbing shots around the cervix and then how to dilate the cervix. You learned and mastered each step before you moved on to the next,” said Laura Kaplan, who chronicled the procedure in her book.

By now, several of the Janes were quite experienced and willing to do the work. Why not perform the abortions themselves?

“Clearly, this was an intense responsibility,” said Judith Acana, a 27-year-old high school teacher who joined Jane in 1970. She started her training by helping “long terms,” women who were four or five months along in the pregnancy.

“Remember, abortion was illegal (in Illinois) so it could take weeks for a woman to find help,” said Arcana, now 80. “Frequently women who wanted an abortion at 8 or 10 weeks wound up being 16 or 18 weeks or more by the time they found Jane.”

The miscarriage could happen quickly, but it rarely did, she said. It usually took anywhere from one to two days.

“Women who had no one to help them would come back when contractions started,” Arcana said. “One of my strongest memories is of a teenage girl who had an appointment to have her miscarriage on my living room floor.”

The group also paid two Janes to live in an apartment and be on call 24/7 to assist women who had no one to help them miscarry at home, said Arcana, a lifelong educator, author and poet. “But many women took care of it on their own, in very amazing and impressive and powerful ways,” she said.

Judith Arcana learned how to do abortions herself and wrote about the Jane experience in poems, stories, essays and books.

Any woman who had concerns or questions while miscarrying alone could always call Jane for advice any time of the day or night.

“People would call in a panic: ‘The bleeding won’t stop,’” Smith recalled. “I would tell them, ‘Get some ice, put it on your stomach, elevate your legs, relax.’ And they would say ‘Oh my gosh, thank you!’ because they were so scared.”

For women who were in their first trimester, Jane offered traditional D&C abortions — the same dilation and curettage used by hospitals then and today, said Scott, who performed many of the abortions for Jane. Later the group used vacuum aspiration, which was over in a mere five to 10 minutes.

“Vacuum aspiration was much easier to do, and I think it’s less difficult for the woman,” Scott said. “Abortion is exactly like any other medical procedure. It’s the decision that’s an issue — the doing is very straightforward. This was something a competent, trained person could do.”

It was May 3, 1972. Judith Arcana was the driver that day, responsible for relocating women waiting at what was called “the front” to a separate apartment or house where the abortions were done, known as “the place.”

On this day, a Wednesday, the “place” was a South Shore high-rise apartment. Arcana was escorting a woman who had completed her abortion when they were stopped by police at the elevator.

“They asked us, ‘Which apartment did you come out of?’ And the poor woman burst into tears and blurted out the apartment number,” Arcana said. “They took me downstairs, put cuffs on me and hooked me to a steel hook inside of the police van.”

Inside the apartment on the 11th floor, Martha Scott said she was setting up the bedroom for the next abortion when she heard a knock at the door, followed by screaming: “You can’t come in!”

“I shut the bedroom door and locked it,” Scott said, then hid the instruments and sat on the bed to wait. It wasn’t long until a cop kicked the door in and made her join the other women in the living room.

“We tell this joke about how the cops came in, saw all these women and said, ‘Where’s the abortionist?’ You know, assuming that it would be a man,” Scott said.

By day’s end, seven members of Jane were behind bars: Martha Scott, Diane Stevens, Judy Arcana, Jeanne Galatzer-Levy, Abby Pariser, Sheila Smith and Madeleine Schwenk. Suddenly what had been an underground effort for years was front page headlines.

“Had we not gotten arrested, I think no one would ever have known about Jane other than the women we served,” Scott said.

Top: Sheila Smith and Martha Scott.
Bottom: Diane Stevens and Judith Arcana.

An emergency meeting of Jane was called. The turnout was massive — even women who had not been active in months showed up, anxious to know the extent of the police probe, according to the women with whom CNN spoke.

Despite widespread fear and worry, the group immediately began making alternate plans for women scheduled for abortions at Jane in the next few days to weeks. The group even paid for transportation to other cities where abortion had already been legalized, they said.

News reports over the next few days gave further details of the bust: There was no widespread investigation by the police. It was a single incident, triggered by a call from a sister-in-law who was upset with her relative’s decision to have an abortion, they said.

“It wasn’t long after I was arrested that I came back and worked for quite a few months,” said Scott, one of the few fully trained to do abortions.

“I like to think I was a good soldier,” Scott said. “I like to think what did made a difference not only to a whole bunch of people, but also to ourselves. It gave us a sense of empowerment that comes when you do something that is hard to do and also right.”

As paranoia eased, women began to come back to work at Jane, determined to carry on.

“After the bust, we had a meeting and were told ‘Everybody needs to start assisting and learn how to do abortions.’ I was like, ‘Whoa, whoa, whoa!’” said Eileen Smith, who had not been arrested. “But you felt like you really didn’t have much of a choice. We had to keep the service running.”

Laura Kaplan volunteered for the Janes, later immortalizing the group in her book,

The preliminary hearing for the arrested seven was in August. Several of the women in the apartment waiting for abortions the day of the arrest suddenly developed amnesia and refused to testify. According to Kaplan’s book, one of the women later said, “The cops tried to push me around, but f**k them. I wasn’t going to tell on you.”

It didn’t matter. Each Jane was charged with 11 counts of abortion and conspiracy to commit abortion, with a possible sentence of up to 110 years in prison.

As they waited for trial, the lawyer for the seven, Jo-Anne Wolfson, adopted delaying tactics, Kaplan said. A case representing a Texas woman, cited as “Jane Roe” to protect her privacy, was being considered by the US Supreme Court. If the Court ruled in Roe’s favor, the case against the Jane’s might be thrown out.

That’s exactly what happened. On March 9, 1973, three months after the Supreme Court had legalized abortion in the US, the case against the seven women was dropped and their arrest records were expunged.

Later that spring, a majority of Janes, burned out by the intensity of the work over the last few years, voted to close shop. An end of Jane party was held on May 20. According to Kaplan’s book, the invitation read:

“You are cordially invited to attend The First, Last and Only Curette Caper; the Grand Finale of the Abortion Counseling Service. RSVP: Call Jane.”

Today, most of the surviving members of Jane are in their 70s and 80s, shocked but somehow not surprised by the actions of abortion opponents.

“This is a country of ill-educated politicos who know nothing about women’s bodies, nor do they care,” said Dorie Barron. “It will take generations to even begin to undo the devastating harm to women’s rights.”

In the meantime, women should research all available options, keep that information confidential, seek support from groups working for abortion rights, and “share your education with as many women as you can,” Barron added.

As more and more reproductive freedoms have been rolled back over the past year, many of the Janes are angry and fearful for the future.

Abortion rights demonstrators walk across the Brooklyn Bridge in New York nearly two weeks after the leak of a draft Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

“This is about the most intimate decision of our lives — when, whether and with whom we have a child. Everyone should have the ability to make decisions about our own lives, bodies, and futures without political interference,” said Heather Booth, who has spent her life after leaving Jane fighting for civil and women’s rights.

“We need to organize, raise our voices and our votes, and overturn this attack on our freedom and our lives. I have seen that when we take action and organize we can change the world.”

Source link

#women #ran #underground #abortion #network #1960s #Heres #fear #happen #today #CNN

Jiyad: Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle, Volume 4 | Iraq Business News

By Ahmed Mousa Jiyad.

Any opinions expressed are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Iraq Business News.

The Dedication, Preface, and Introduction of IPSC Project’ New Book

Ahmed Mousa Jiyad

Norway

My newest book in the Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle Project- IPSCP has been released this month; it is volume 4, has a sub-title, Contracts Amendments in the Making and covers the development in 2013 with comparative linkage to previous years.

This contribution comprises to whom the book was dedicated, the “Preface” jointly written by two prominent patriotic and progressive Iraqis and the “Introduction”, which it provides an executive summary of the book.

The recent book is dedicated to all my colleagues with whom I worked, at different capacities, between 1975 and July 1988, on many issues, projects, and missions (inside and outside the country) related to the petroleum sector and the Iraqi economy, particularly at: The Council of Ministers, Ministry of Oil’ headquarter, INOC and SCOP.

*****

PREFACE

A Guiding Light-tower in the Solitary of a Deserted Path

By

Fuad Al-Amir and Majid Allawi

 We did not have the opportunity to know closely our dear colleague Ahmed Mousa Jiyad until a group comprising many good patriotic oil experts and professionals stood fast confronting the attempt to promulgate a disastrous oil law in 2007, and we have not been able to meet until now. However, a bond of mutual respect, understanding and continuous contact and communication developed between us while we three follow-up and engage in the national discourse on variety of economic and oil issues.

The most intensive contact and important cooperation between us occurred when Iraq National Oil Company-INOC Law “smuggled” in the last days of the parliament’s term on March 14, 2018, and the dubious approval of the President of the Republic was granted after only eleven days on March 25, 2018.

Two days after that approval, dear brother Ahmed Mousa Jiyad, wrote and circulate a “direct appeal against the Iraqi National Oil Company Law” to the Federal High Court, on March 27. He provided detailed analysis showing where INOC Law violates the Constitution and shows that the President’s endorsement of it is a violation of his basic duty, according to Article 67, to protect and ensure compliance with the Constitution.

Ahmed’ initiative was a source of motivation, mobilization, and awareness on how the seriousness of the negative consequences that law could have on the existence of Iraq; as an entity and a state and could transform all oil-producing and non-oil-producing provinces into mini-states, resembling KR’ “mini-state,” fighting over resources, provincial borders, transit rights and fees, and even over water. Under a state that would be governed by a company, which owns all Iraq’s hydrocarbon, and its resources are managed by an appointed, unelected administration.

His memorandum galvanised efforts and assembled much wider support, was the basis for subsequent moves to crystallize and formalise our position and course of action, immediately after INOC Law was published on the Official Gazette, Al-Waqaai Al-Iraqiya.

Our communication continuous after the law was published, and in light of consultations with him, we decided to file an appeal case before the Federal High Court, challenging the premises of law; because the “public” appeal that Ahmed had previously submitted and circulated widely did not meet the legal procedural requirements for filing a case in terms of powers of attorney, legal representation, and other formalities, which may require many months of direct presence and attendance. His residency, work and commitments outside Iraq prevented him from be in Baghdad for the required period.

However, the most important role in that lawsuit was what Ahmed had played in the accurate formulation of all the articles of the lawsuit list, and the statement on the constitutional articles that were violated by the articles of the National Oil Company Law, in an in-depth legal formulation. The lawsuit statement was completely drafted by him, with the exception of the introductions and formalities necessary to be followed and adhered to in such lawsuit regulations. And he continued to follow up on every session during the course of the lawsuit, which was resulted in a decision by the Federal High Court accepting appeals almost all main articles that were appealed against; certainly, the thorough and well-articulated views on the constitutional and legal appeals that he formulated had the decisive role in accepting those appeals and “demolishing” the miserable INOC Law.

What should be highlighted is the depth, objectivity and diversity of his studies and interventions: he addressed and condemned the positions of successive, collusive governments regarding KRG’   unconstitutional control of oil operations in Iraqi Kurdistan region. Also, his analysis of the State annual budgets, as he wrote on 2019 budget, condemn the “Policy of extortion and negativity of acquiescence”, and asserting any payment from the federal government to KRG not only violates state budget law, but also indicates government failure in protecting the national interests. He addressed and uncovered corruption and irregularities in the work of Ministry of Electricity and how the Minister contract with “himself”. He conducted and published serious, in-depth and valuable series of economic studies regarding many projects and suggested agreements such as Basra-Aqaba Pipeline, Agreement with TotalEnergies, the SIIP with ExxonMobil, …, and many more studies and positions on different issues of petroleum policy, contracts, refineries, development of border joint-oilfields among other topics.

Ustath [Professor] Ahmed Mousa Jiyad is an extension and outcome of a generation of patriotic and progressive experts who carried the concerns of Iraq and its oil issues on their shoulders after the fall of the glorious July 1958 Revolution, after it dared to launch the battle for the  liberation of the national oil wealth by enacting Law No. 80 of 1961; the hostile forces mobilized all evil efforts to bring it down.

Great symbols prominent Iraqi experts and intellectuals have taken up the leadership of the oil battle, led by the deceased of Iraq, the great stature Dr. Mohammad Salman Hassan with his lecture that he delivered at the Economists Association and issued a pamphlet entitled “Towards the Nationalization of Iraqi Oil”, in which he presented the idea of the gradual nationalization of Iraqi oil. There is another pioneering work presented by Dr. Ibrahim Allawi in his book “Iraqi Oil and National Liberation” in 1967, which has become a reference for every follower of oil issues.

Dear brother Ahmed lived through that generation after his graduation in 1967, and he was among the elite of the progressive youth who gathered around Dr. Mohammad Salman Hassan and coordinate their movements and intellectual activity under that glorious banner.

Now, Ahmed, with exceptional qualities, represents and resembles an extension of all those who preceded him. He has enriched his first academic specialization as a graduate of the Faculty of Economics and Political Science with several specialized academic studies in the most prestigious international, UK and US, universities with a diploma in planning, a master’s in development and a master’s in law and diplomacy.

Moreover, he enriched the oil library with a series of volumes/books entitled Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle-IPSC Project, this fourth volume covers the year 2013. Ahmed’ research and publications, particularly IPSC Project, provide the most important documentary reference for Iraqi oil issues.

All that, in addition to his long experience as an employee, chief expert, and negotiator at the Ministry of Oil, INOC, Council of Ministers and Ministry of Trade, explain the depth and width of his analytical approach. Therefore, his treatment of all raised oil issues was distinguished by methodology, professionalism, objectivity, and accurate scientific approach; a spirit of the researcher and analyst of technical, legal and financial factors, economic feasibility, and possible alternatives to the subject he deals with, away from convulsions or constructive and polemical phrases or tendencies.

We mention this to testify how exceptional this unique talent is. And in the highly complex and volatile global conditions in the oil industries and policies, the failure of the competent state agencies, starting with the prime minister, not to benefit from his experiences and consultations is a grave loss and national negligence for which an apology is not sufficient.

He is the sparkling continuity of all generations of Iraqi experts and intellectuals who left and are leaving their marks and giving to their country and to future generations and he becomes a guiding beacon in the solitary of a deserted path.

Baghdad

March 2023

INTRODUCTION

Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle Project, Progressing

This fourth book/volume is, mainly, about the development in Iraqi petroleum sector during 2013, but also, it provides the needed continuity by covering the development in previous years that were addressed in the first three volumes in this series of books on Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle-IPSC Project.

There is a separate note in this volume outlining IPSC Project, which is one fruition of many decades of constant meticulous research, consultation, documentation, follow up and direct involvement efforts, and of more than six decades since my formal association and engagement with the Ministry of Oil.

The first three volumes/books were published by Lambert Academic PublishingLAP, this fourth volume is too.

All books have the same main title, Iraq Petroleum Sector Chronicle but with different subtitles, reflecting the major themes that dominate the debate in that particular year/period covered by the related volume.

The first IPSC book has a subtitle, “Grand Opening for Big Push Strategy” and covers the development in the upstream petroleum in Iraq prior to 2011. The subtitle reflects the mood, sentiments, actions, and views that prevailed then both inside and outside the country, expecting Iraq to be a game changer in the international petroleum scene. That was premised on the concluded service contracts pursuant to the bid rounds, particularly the first and the second. The book/volume was published in October 2021 and my dear colleague Tariq Shafiq wrote the Preface.

Signs of powerful restraints and constraints began to emerge and thoughts for revisions were contemplated during 2011. Hence, the subtitle for the second volume reflects that dramatic shift from high expectations originally formulated after concluding the above-mentioned contracts; it was, “A Game Changer, No More”. The volume was published in May 2022 and its Preface was written by my dear colleague Dr. Walid Khadduri.

The third book covers 2012, with subtitle “Reality Seldom Coincides with Expectations”; it is in fact a logical continuation or extrapolation of the subtitle for the previous volume. The third book contains many new additions and improvements, especially regarding data and statistics covered in part four. My colleague and twice Minister of Oil, Thamir Al-Ghadhban enriched volume three of the book by writing its Preface.

The current volume comprises the usual four parts, in addition to Preface, Introduction, a brief note on IPSC Project, Table of contents and Abbreviations.

Following the established structure of the previous volumes, Part One contains a selection of my own essays and research work published in 2013. Each of my “Essays…” has its own methodology, structure, assumptions, analysis, discussion and consulted references; information on each essay was provide, when and where it was published and the web-link to access it, if that is permissible by the related websites. This part contains 11 essays.

Part Two of the book comprises views of and positions taken by some selected well-known Iraqi oil professionals, senior government officials and others aiming at presenting a balance of wide spectrum of different, and sometimes opposing, views positions and affiliations; these are presented in a form of own articles, interviews, keynote statements or any other form.

The selected items reflect the richness and diversity of opinion that shaped the discourse among Iraqis at that time and, consequently, enriched the value of this book. Official views, expressed, through detailed interviews and statements, by senior government officials and decision makers reflect the political vision and economic aspiration of the dominant political parties, groups, religious/ politicized individuals and different associations and gatherings of professionals, notably oil experts and professionals inside and outside the country.

This part includes also other articles written or interviews given by non-Iraqi oil professionals, articles, abstracts and extracts from reports, studies and books written or done by international entities, consulting/legal firms, and authors, among others; they were included due to their relevance to Iraq upstream petroleum. There are 22 items in this part two.

Part three, provides much wider global views on the development of the Iraqi petroleum sector, comprises outside foreign and international standpoints and contributions to the debate about Iraq’s petroleum and its prospect; a large number of items compiled from many and different external sources includes reports, studies, articles, and media reporting among others, most if not all, were written by non-Iraqis.

This part adds the third perspective of the book; how the outside world looked to Iraqi petroleum matters, what was their preoccupation, how did they understand or fail to understand, analyse, debate the issues, and foresee the implications. Some items provide data and information that are not made available by Iraqi entities through formal channels and thus becomes important source for such information. In total, this part comprises 59 items.

In this volume, Part Four exhibits noticeable addition and improvements, with production of many charts, tables, and introduction of trendlines and regression equations. Data and statistics are vital material evidence and essential for understanding and assessing progress or otherwise in different aspects in petroleum sector.

The part has eight main sections with many sub-sections, 47 tables and 27 charts.

This part provides rather detailed data and analysis not only for 2013 but also covers previous years whenever possible and data are available. A brief review of quantitative and statistical indicators regarding the eight topics are provided hereunder.

This fourth book covers the development of the sector during 2013. It has the subtitle, Contracts Amendments in the Making; the most impacting action and financially rewarding to IOCs.

Click here to download the full analysis in pdf format.

Mr Jiyad is an independent development consultant, scholar and Associate with the former Centre for Global Energy Studies (CGES), London. He was formerly a senior economist with the Iraq National Oil Company and Iraq’s Ministry of Oil, Chief Expert for the Council of Ministers, Director at the Ministry of Trade, and International Specialist with UN organizations in Uganda, Sudan and Jordan. He is now based in Norway (Email: mou-jiya(at)online.no, Skype ID: Ahmed Mousa Jiyad). Read more of Mr Jiyad’s biography here.

Source link

#Jiyad #Iraq #Petroleum #Sector #Chronicle #Volume #Iraq #Business #News

State leaders targeting climate investing have quiet stakes in the fossil fuel industry

In October, Scott Fitzpatrick, then-treasurer of Missouri, announced his state would pull $500 million out of pension funds managed by BlackRock.

He said he would move Missouri’s money away from the asset manager because it was “prioritizing” environmental, social and governance investing over shareholder returns. Fitzpatrick, a Republican who won election as the state’s auditor in November, used his office as treasurer to target BlackRock after years of criticizing Wall Street for a perceived turn toward investing focused on climate and social issues.

As he homed in on BlackRock, Fitzpatrick quietly held a financial stake in a massive fossil fuel company that could suffer from the broader adoption of alternative energy. Fitzpatrick and his wife owned a more than $10,000 stake in Chevron during both of 2022 and 2021, according to his latest financial disclosures filed with the state.

Fitzpatrick is among a group of powerful Republican state leaders who have waged similar fights against environmentally conscious investing as they held personal investments in, or saw political support from, the fossil fuel industry.

A handful of state financial officers who have similarly attacked ESG practices owned stock or bonds in oil, gas or other fossil fuel companies in recent years, according to the latest state financial disclosure reports reviewed by CNBC. Some of the state officials have received campaign donations from fossil fuel companies or their executives.

Climate activists with Stop the Money Pipeline hold a rally in New York City to urge companies to end their support for the proposed Line 3 pipeline project and stop funding fossil fuels and forest destruction, April 17, 2021.

Erik McGregor | LightRocket | Getty Images

State leaders face possible conflicts of interest when they have a chance to see financial gains from the fossil fuel industry as they use their offices to defend the sector — or in some cases move their state’s dollars away from clean-energy investments, government ethics experts told CNBC. As the officials ramp up their criticism of Wall Street investment practices, a lack of state laws requiring regular stock disclosures makes it difficult for the public to monitor what personal stake their representatives could have in the actions they take in office.

Brandon Alexander, the chief of staff to the Missouri auditor’s office, told CNBC in an emailed statement that Fitzpatrick’s publicly traded securities are either in a trust or qualified retirement accounts that are managed by a financial advisor.

“Other than employer sponsored retirement accounts (the entirety of which are invested in target date funds over which he has no control), all of Auditor Fitzpatrick’s publicly traded securities, are held in a trust or in qualified retirement accounts which are actively managed by a financial advisor to whom he gives no direction,” Alexander said. “He has never ‘had private briefings tied back to the fossil fuel industry’ nor does he personally direct or execute trades himself. Auditor Fitzpatrick stands by his criticism of the ESG movement, especially as it relates to the application of ESG standards in the management of public funds.”

Unlike members of Congress, state financial officers in many cases only have to disclose their stock ownership once a year. In some states, they do not have to divulge their investments at all. In contrast with federal lawmakers, they also do not have to file regular records disclosing their new trades.

None of the officials mentioned in this story engaged in illegal conduct. But the fact that they have investments that could be helped by their high-profile campaigns against ESG investing may create trust issues with the people they represent, says ethics experts.

“This is a problem that we have elected officials at the federal and state level that are simply not willing to avoid personal financial conflicts of interest,” Richard Painter, who was the chief White House ethics lawyer in the George W. Bush administration, told CNBC in an interview. “You could have someone own stock in a company and pursue policy that could benefit that company. What’s good for Exxon Mobil’s stock is not necessarily good for America.”

Painter said that owning such stock is not illegal for state based leaders. Congressional lawmakers are also allowed to own stock but the 2012 STOCK Act disallows members of Congress to use non-public information to gain a profit and prohibits insider trading.

Another government ethics expert also cited an appearance of conflict as an issue for public officials.

“If an official has a financial interest in a company or an industry, it is reasonable to question whether that interest impacts how they approach their government work,” Donald Sherman, a senior vice president and chief counsel for watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told CNBC in an interview.

The fight against ESG investment standards has become a core issue for some Republicans at the federal and state level. Many of those officials have used their positions to target companies they believe are too politically active or, in some cases, are hurting certain industries, such as fossil fuels.

In the case of state financial officers, they have the power to shift public assets or pension funds away from certain firms and to other institutions.

Vocal ESG critics have fossil fuel ties

Georgia’s state treasurer, Steve McCoy, was appointed by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp in 2020. He was among state financial officers, including Fitzpatrick in Missouri, who last year co-signed a letter to President Joe Biden opposing policies that promote ESG. The Biden administration has promoted environmentally conscious investing, and the president used his first veto on a measure that would have shot down a Labor Department rule that promoted ESG policies.

The letter said the state officials “believe the White House should be spearheading a call to invest in American energy instead of pursuing ESG initiatives that divide American energy businesses and discourage investment in these reliable energy industries.” The group went on to say that “freedom is the key to addressing climate change. The depth and breadth of American innovation is unparalleled globally, including the development of green technologies. However, oil, gas, coal, and nuclear are currently the most reliable and plentiful baseload power sources for America and much of the rest of the world.”

McCoy is one of the state financial officers who held an investment in fossil fuels. He had a stake in the industry as recently as 2020 — though changes in disclosure rules mean he has not had to disclose his assets more recently.

McCoy disclosed in 2020 that he owns bonds in fracking company Halliburton and a stake in the U.S. Oil Fund, an ETF that tracks the benchmark price of U.S. crude oil. The disclosure says that these stakes are either “more than 5 percent of the total interests in such business or investment, or [have] a net fair market value of more than $5,000.”

The 2020 disclosure was the last time McCoy filed a document showing his investments. Some states, including Georgia, do not require officials who hold key state positions to file full disclosure forms, and require those leaders to publish only a one-page affidavit, according to Haley Barrett, a spokeswoman for Georgia’s Government Transparency and Campaign Finance Commission.

Two of McCoy’s affidavits filed with the state say virtually nothing about his business dealings and stock holdings. McCoy’s most recent affidavit, from 2022, shows his titles as treasurer and as a member of a variety of boards, including the state Depository Board.

McCoy also had to sign a statement to confirm that he has taken “I have taken no official action as a public officer in the previous calendar year which had a material effect on my private, financial or business interests.” That affidavit and a 2021 version of the document does not say whether McCoy currently owns any stocks in the fossil fuel industry.

When asked about what the state ethics commission does to verify if those signed statements are accurate, Barrett said in an email that “once these documents have been filed with our office and reviewed, there is an opportunity to determine if there are any discrepancies in the filings. Investigations can be initiated internally through our office or by a third party complaint.”

McCoy and his office did not return requests for comment.

McCoy is far from the only ESG critic who has a financial or political interest in fossil fuel companies.

Texas’ state comptroller, Glenn Hegar, argued in letters to money managers last year that he believes firms such as BlackRock, HSBC and UBS are boycotting the energy industry, saying in a statement at the time that he believes “environmental crusaders” have created a “false narrative” that the economy can transition away from fossil fuels. Hegar co-signed an open letter in 2021 with other state financial officers that was addressed to the U.S. banking industry and defended the fossil fuel industry.

“We will each take concrete steps within our respective authority to select financial institutions that support a free market and are not engaged in harmful fossil fuel industry boycotts for our states’ financial services contracts,” the letter reads.

He also co-signed the 2022 letter to Biden from a slate of other state financial officers defending the fossil fuel industry.

Hegar has since escalated his campaign against the institutions. Hegar sent letters to fellow state money managers arguing that they have not done enough to cut ties with BlackRock and other firms that he said boycotted the oil and gas industry, Bloomberg reported in February.

In the lead-up to his anti-ESG push, Hegar owned stock in the oil and gas industry. In 2021, the Texas comptroller and his spouse owned between 100 and 499 shares of Devon Energy and up to 99 shares of ConocoPhillips, according to his latest financial disclosure.

His financial records from all of the previous years since he became state comptroller in 2015 do not show any stock in these two companies or in the fossil fuel industry at large.

Hegar’s political ambitions have also seen a boost from the oil and gas industry — a dominating force in Texas. During his 2022 reelection, Hegar received donations from a range of PACs and executives from the oil and gas business.

His campaign received $10,000 last year from Ben “Bud” Brigham, the chairman of oil and gas development company Brigham Exploration, according to state campaign finance records. The PACs of Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Devon Energy, Calpine Corp. and Valero Energy were among Hegar’s fossil fuel donors during his run for reelection last year, according to state records.

Hegar and his office did not return requests for comment.

Jimmy Patronis, Florida’s chief financial officer, has been railing against ESG investment standards since around the time he was reelected to the position in November. Patronis was also among the co-signers of the 2022 letter to Biden defending the fossil fuel industry.

By December, Patronis announced that the Florida Treasury would start divesting $2 billion of assets managed by BlackRock. In an interview on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” in February, Patronis explained the decision.

“The bottom line: I’m seeing dollars are being siphoned off. I’m seeing individuals, like [BlackRock CEO Larry] Fink and others that are using the state of Florida’s money for a social agenda,” he said.

He added: “I just care about returns. And I’m not seeing that.”

Heading into 2022, he also had a financial interest in the fossil fuel industry.

Patronis owned 100 shares combined of Exxon Mobil and Chevron — the two largest gas companies in the world — at the end of 2021, according to his most recent publicly available disclosure.

His personal interest in fossil fuel companies has grown in recent years. In 2018, he disclosed only about 10 shares of Exxon and did not list any Chevron stock.

The document was the first time since 2018 that Patronis listed investments in the sector.

Frank Collins III, the state’s deputy chief financial officer, told CNBC in a statement that Patronis believes ESG efforts are part of a campaign to decimate the oil and gas industry. He said Patronis does not personally make trading or investment decisions for the state’s retirement systems.

“The CFO wants great returns for those in Florida’s retirement funds, nothing else. While the ESG movement has been on a campaign to erase America’s oil and gas industry from the map, those industries were making returns for investors,” Collins said.

Source link

#State #leaders #targeting #climate #investing #quiet #stakes #fossil #fuel #industry

Biden administration declares fentanyl laced with xylazine ‘an emerging threat’ in the US | CNN



CNN
 — 

The White House has declared that the powerful synthetic opioid fentanyl combined with xylazine – an animal tranquilizer that’s increasingly being used in illicit drugs – is an “emerging threat” facing the United States due to its role in the ongoing opioid crisis.

Administration officials call the threat FAAX, for fentanyl-adulterated or -associated xylazine.

The move, announced Wednesday, marks the first time in history that any administration has declared a substance to be an emerging threat to the country, said Dr. Rahul Gupta, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. The SUPPORT Act of 2018 established that the office has authority to declare such “emerging threats,” and no administration has used it until now. Last year, Congress declared methamphetamine an emerging drug threat but none have been declared by an administration previously. Under other agencies or in separate circumstances, concerns such as bioterrorism, infectious diseases or climate change may be identified as “emerging threats.”

“This drug, which is an animal sedative, is being mixed with fentanyl and is being found in almost all 50 states now,” Gupta said Tuesday. “It’s become an important part for us to make sure that we’re declaring it an emerging threat.”

Now that the administration has declared fentanyl combined with xylazine an emerging threat, it has 90 days to coordinate a national response. “We are working quickly to develop and implement a whole of government nationwide plan, with real deliverable action, that will save lives and will be published within 90 days of this designation,” Gupta said.

Xylazine, also known as tranq or tranq dope, has been linked to an increasing number of overdose deaths in the United States due to its rising illicit use. Between 2020 and 2021, overdose deaths involving xylazine increased more than 1,000% in the South, 750% in the West and about 500% in the Midwest, according to an intelligence report released last year by the US Drug Enforcement Administration.

And in some cases, people might not even know that xylazine was in the drug they used.

Just last month, authorities at the DEA issued a public safety alert about the “widespread threat” of fentanyl mixed with xylazine, reporting that in 2022 approximately 23% of fentanyl powder and 7% of fentanyl pills seized by the DEA contained xylazine.

Fentanyl, which has been driving the opioid crisis, is a fast-acting opioid, and people who use it illicitly say that adding xylazine can extend the duration of the high the drug provides.

Xylazine is not an opioid. It is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for use as a tranquilizer in veterinary medicine, typically in horses, but it is not approved for use in humans. And xylazine can do major damage to the human body, including leaving drug users with severe skin ulcers, soft-tissue wounds and necrosis – sometimes described as rotting skin – that can lead to amputation.

“Xylazine is one of the contaminants in fentanyl, but there could be others,” Gupta said. “So, I think with the declaration of an emerging threat, we’re sending a clear message to producers and traffickers of illicit xylazine and illicit fentanyl that we’re going to respond quicker, we’re going to match the challenge of evolution of these drugs supply, and that we’re going to protect lives first and foremost.”

Now that xylazine has been declared an emerging threat, some of President Biden’s $46 billion drug budget request to Congress can be used to respond.

This year, the Biden administration announced that the President has called on Congress to invest $46.1 billion for agencies overseen by the Office of National Drug Control Policy to tackle the nation’s illicit drug crisis.

If the budget request is not approved, there could be the option to reallocate money within the Office of National Drug Control Policy, but “we don’t want to be in a position where moneys that are being utilized for some other important aspect of saving lives has to be moved away for this purpose,” Gupta said Tuesday. “That is the reason we are asking Congress to act.”

Such funds could be used to test drugs on the street for xylazine, collect data on FAAX, invest in care for people exposed to FAAX and develop potential treatments for a xylazine-related overdose.

The medication naloxone, also known as Narcan, is an antidote for an opioid overdose, but people who have overdosed on a combination of opioids and xylazine may not immediately wake up after taking naloxone, as it may not reverse the effects of xylazine in the same way it does opioids.

“We need to recognize, first of all, that there is a shift that is occurring from organic compounds and substances like heroin and cocaine to more synthetics,” Gupta said of the state of the nation’s illicit drug crisis.

“Both the types of drugs have changed – from predominantly organic to predominantly synthetics – but the way drugs are bought and sold have also changed,” he said. “Now, all you need is a phone in the palm of your hand and a social media app to order and buy some of the most dangerous substances on planet Earth.”

Xylazine is just one of the many adulterants – or substances that are typically added to others – found in the nation’s illicit drug supply.

“All of a sudden, you can synthesize hundreds of compounds and kind of mix them together and see what does the best in the market,” Joseph Friedman, a researcher at the University of California, Los Angeles, told CNN in March. “People are synthesizing new benzodiazepines, new stimulants, new cannabinoids constantly and adding them into the drug supply. So people have no idea what they’re buying and what they’re consuming.”

Some of these adulterants may be as simple as sugar or artificial sweeteners added for taste or additives or fillers that bulk up the drug. Sometimes, they may be contaminants left over from the manufacturing process.

Addicted? How to get help

  • If you’re addicted to prescription drugs, help is available. You can call the Substance Abuse Mental Health Services Administration 24/7 hotline at 1-800-662-HELP(4357) or visit their website.
  • But all of these things can carry real-life health harms, says Naburan Dasgupta, an epidemiologist and senior scientist at the Gillings School of Global Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

    Like an opioid, xylazine can depress the respiratory system, so the risk of overdose multiplies when it’s combined with heroin or fentanyl.

    Also, “in the veterinary literature, we know that it causes a really bad severe form of anemia. And so when people are injecting heroin that’s contaminated with xylazine, they can end up with a near-fatal form of blood iron deficiency,” Dasgupta said in March. “We had one person here who ended up going to the hospital needing multiple blood transfusions. And it was all because of the xylazine.”

    US lawmakers are moving to classify xylazine as a controlled substance.

    In March, bipartisan legislation – the Combating Illicit Xylazine Act – was introduced in the House and Senate. It describes illicit xylazine as an “urgent threat to public health and safety” and calls for it to be a Schedule III drug under the Controlled Substances Act, a category on the five-level system for substances with moderate to low potential for physical or psychological dependence. Xylazine would be one level below opioids like fentanyl.

    “Our bipartisan bill would take important steps to combat the abuse of xylazine by giving law enforcement more authority to crack down on the illicit distribution of this drug, including by putting stiffer penalties on criminals who are spreading this drug to our communities,” Sen. Maggie Hassan, D-N.H., said in a statement in March.

    The bill would also require manufacturers to send reports on production and distribution to the DEA so the agency can ensure that the product is not being diverted to the black market.

    “This bill recognizes the dangers posed by the increasing abuse of animal tranquilizers by drug traffickers, and provides new tools to combat this deadly trend,” Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said in the statement.

    “It also ensures that folks like veterinarians, ranchers and cattlemen can continue to access these drugs for bona fide animal treatment.”

    Source link

    #Biden #administration #declares #fentanyl #laced #xylazine #emerging #threat #CNN

    Concerned about the courts, some states and universities are stockpiling abortion drugs | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    With an eye on the courts, a growing number of Democratic-led states are stockpiling the pills that can be used for a medication abortion, the most common form of the procedure in the US.

    The officials want to be prepared, in case US District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk’s decision to suspend the US Food and Drug Administration’s approval of mifepristone goes through, so medication abortions would still be available in their states for some period of time. But they’re taking different approaches to the idea.

    New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Tuesday that her state’s Department of Health would buy 150,000 doses of misoprostol, the other of the two drugs typically used in a medication abortion.

    Misoprostol can be used off-label for an abortion, without mifepristone, but patients often have to use more of it. It would not be covered by the court case, and if Kacsmaryk’s decision stands, the New York City’s Health Department tweeted, it will change to using this medication only.

    “Medication abortion continues to be available at our Sexual Health Clinics and NYC Health + Hospitals locations. Should mifepristone become unavailable, we will continue to make medication abortion accessible to all in NYC by shifting to a misoprostol-only treatment regimen,” the tweet said.

    The state says the 150,000 doses should represent a five-year supply of pills.

    “Anti-choice extremists have shown that they are not stopping at overturning Roe, and they are working to entirely dismantle our country’s reproductive health care system, including medication abortion and contraception,” Hochul said. “New York will always be a safe harbor for abortion care, and I am taking action to protect abortion access in our State and continue to lead the nation in defending the right to reproductive autonomy.”

    California is also stocking up on misoprostol.

    “While California still believes Mifepristone is central to the preferred regimen for medication abortion, the State negotiated and purchased an emergency stockpile of Misoprostol in anticipation of Friday’s ruling by far-right federal judge Matthew Kacsmaryk to ensure that California remains a safe haven for safe, affordable, and accessible reproductive care,” Gov. Gavin Newsom’s office said in a release Monday.

    California plans to purchase up to 2 million pills through CalRx, a state initiative set up to make drugs more affordable.

    The governor’s office said the state now has more than 250,000 pills on hand, which it purchased for about $100,000.

    California said it shared the terms of its purchase agreement with other members of the Reproductive Freedom Alliance, a nonpartisan coalition of 21 governors who are committed to protecting reproductive rights, and who might also be interested in taking such action.

    Another member of that alliance, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, announced last week that his state bought a three year-supply of mifepristone, the drug at the center of Kacsmaryk’s ruling.

    Inslee directed the state Department of Corrections – which has a pharmacy license and is legally able to buy medications – to buy the drug last month, he said, and the shipment was delivered March 31. The University of Washington also purchased 10,000 doses.

    Lawmakers are introducing a bill to authorize officials to distribute or sell the medication to licensed providers throughout the state.

    “This Texas lawsuit is a clear and present danger to patients and providers all across the country. Washington will not sit by idly and risk the devastating consequences of inaction,” Inslee said. “Washington is a pro-choice state, and no Texas judge will order us otherwise.”

    In the meantime, its attorney general, Bob Ferguson, is helping lead a multistate lawsuit to protect access to mifepristone.

    On Friday, the same day Kacsmaryk’s ruling came down, a federal judge in Washington ordered the US not to make any changes that would restrict access to mifepristone in the territories that brought the lawsuit: 17 states and the District of Columbia.

    On Monday, Massachusetts Gov. Maura T. Healey announced that at her request, the University of Massachusetts and health care providers have also taken action to stockpile doses of mifepristone.

    The governor’s office said last week that the university bought about 15,000 doses of mifepristone, enough to cover the commonwealth for about a year, and the pills are expected to arrive this week. Local health care providers have agreed to buy more, and the government agreed to set aside $1 million to pay for those doses.

    The Massachusetts governor also signed an executive order confirming protections for medication abortion under existing law.

    “Here in Massachusetts, we are not going to let one extremist judge in Texas turn back the clock on this proven medication and restrict access to care in our state,” Healey said. “The action we are taking today protects access to mifepristone in Massachusetts and protects patients and providers from liability. In Massachusetts, we stand for civil rights and freedom. We will always protect access to reproductive health care, including medication abortion.”

    Danco Laboratories, the manufacturer of the brand-name version of mifepristone, says that orders for the drug have increased substantially in recent months and are significantly higher than they were at this time last year.

    Demand for mifepristone is up across all types of customers, including clinics, pharmacies and individual providers, said Abby Long, Danco’s director of public affairs. But Massachusetts is the only state that has requested an especially large number of pills from the company.

    Maine Gov. Janet Mills, who called the Texas decision “reckless” and a “fundamental assault on women’s rights,” said Monday that her administration is evaluating its options, “including procuring mifepristone if needed, to protect access to medication abortion for Maine women.”

    The Connecticut governor’s office said Wednesday that it is also monitoring the situation.

    Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek’s office said in an email Wednesday that she has directed the Oregon Health Authority to “explore all available avenues for ensuring Oregon is prepared should Mifepristone become less available. That includes evaluating the supply of Mifepristone and Misoprostol and consulting with providers to better understand the potential impact on the provision of abortion and reproductive health care and what additional support might be necessary.”



    Source link

    #Concerned #courts #states #universities #stockpiling #abortion #drugs #CNN

    Finland election: The issues making headlines on the campaign trail

    The latest election polling in Finland is too close to call between the incumbent Social Democrats, the conservative National Coalition Party and the far-right nationalist Finns Party. 

    Any one of those parties could find themselves in pole position to lead a new government when all the votes are counted. 

    Every policy question is being closely scrutinised by the media, every media gaffe or public slip-up is being pounced upon, and the three main party leaders — Sanna Marin, Petteri Orpo, Riikka Purra — are under the microscope like never before. 

    So what are some of the main policy strengths and weaknesses the parties face? 

    This election season it’s more about traditional party ideology — left versus right — than values-based issues like the environment, equality, or even joining NATO, which is now done and dusted. 

    Marin’s Social Democrats have been under fire from right-wing opponents for what they see as wasteful economic policies that have done nothing but add to Finland’s debt burden in an irresponsible way over the last four years. 

    And Marin herself has come under fire for comments she made during a recent trip to Kyiv, and not just from rival politicians. Commercial television channel MTV3 wrote an editorial branding her “either completely ignorant or downright unscrupulous” for saying that Finland “could” talk about giving up its Hornet fighters to Ukraine, with the Nordic nation waiting for deliveries of their next generation fighters from the US starting in 2025. 

    The country’s most-read newspaper Helsingin Sanomat went as far as to say the Hornet issue (Finnish politicians can be particularly prickly around discussions of national security) could tip the balance of Sunday’s election. 

    There’s also regular criticism that Marin rarely — if ever — takes responsibility for policy missteps and instead likes to pass the blame on to her opponents (which, to be fair, is something that most politicians try to do!) 

    The National Coalition Party — or Kokoomus as it’s known locally — has been criticised by politicians and economists who say its plans to balance the national budget simply don’t add up, and they’ll have to cut so deeply into basic services that it would hurt the lives of everyone in the country.

    This week, economist Jussi Ahokas told public broadcaster Yle that Finland is “in a very good situation” compared to European countries when it comes to finances.

    Kokoomus also has a problem that it’s seen by many — and repeatedly framed by Marin — as being too close to the far-right nationalists: and if you vote for Kokoomus, you’ll end up with a Finns Party government. 

    For their part, the Finns Party are perennially dogged by allegations of racism and xenophobia among their candidates; they’ve promised to take Finland out of the EU in one manifesto, while at the same time also said that’s not their goal any more.

    Their humourless leader Riikka Purra drew astonished gasps by saying on TV that culture was a “luxury” item – a hard sell in a country which revels in its rich literary, musical and visual arts scene: from small-town libraries to big international festivals and all points in between.

    But what do election candidates on the streets, in the market places and in shopping centres talk to voters about?

    Ahead of Sunday’s election, Euronews spoke with candidates on the campaign trail to find out which policies are most important to them, and where their opponents are falling short.

    Finland’s Minister for Transport and Communications Timo Harakka tells Euronews that his political opponents have dropped the ball when it comes to education policies. 

    “Kokoomus has been in charge through the 2010s when Finland cut education and research and development funding, and fell behind in percentage of college graduates. 

    They broke their explicit promise not to cut education in 2015 and removed the right for every child to attend pre-school,” the Social Democrat MP explains.

    “They opposed the Marin government’s school reform, which extended compulsory education until 18-years-old, just as they opposed equal comprehensive education back in the 1970s. 

    “Again, now, they vow otherwise. They cannot make the cuts they propose without jeopardising our good school system,” he says. 

    Green candidate Alviina Alametsä says that her party has put a particular focus on mental health services. 

    “We are pushing different ways to prevent mental health issues including with universal basic income, and the wellbeing of nature,” she tells Euronews. 

    Alametsä, who is one of Finland’s two Green MEPs in Brussels, says that programmes like one in Helsinki where three clinics provide therapy for free, are a good example of the concrete changes they’d like to see. 

    “I am worried though, that if the National Coalition Party is making it to government, or if they are the prime minister, I am worried they will put a lot of cuts to education and mental health budgets, and to social security.”

    “I think they are trying to push for economic growth from the wrong angle, and we have research to show this is not working.” 

    National Coalition Party politician Sinuhe Wallinheimo represents a constituency in Central Finland, and says that other parties aren’t concerned enough about the economic “crisis” in Finland. 

    “And by that I mean the amount of debt that Finland has right now, and what has to be done about it,” he tells Euronews. 

    “I think in my party we are better at pro-market politics than the other ones. We rely on the state but we believe in pro-market and competition between individuals, and competition between the companies, which is better for society,” he adds. 

    “When we discuss immigration policy, I believe our party understands the facts,” says Fatim Diarra, who is a Green League candidate in Helsinki. 

    “We need people to come to Finland, but at the same time we cannot treat immigrants as cows we milk to put money into the system. But instead, we must see Finland as a place where we welcome people to build a life to suit their circumstances,” she tells Euronews.

    Diarra, who missed out on a seat in parliament in the 2019 election by just 200 votes, says that people who come to Finland to make a better life for themselves need access to education and labour markets, and shouldn’t only be thought of as candidates for low paid jobs. 

    “Some parties see immigration only as a tool to make people work for Finns. When I discuss this with people from some parties, they want immigrants to work in the service industry and health care.

    “They see immigration as a cheap labour force, but this is not the way the Greens see it. Finland is a good country, our social structure is strong and we welcome people to come here and build a good life for themselves.” 

    The city of Jyväskylä in Central Finland has traditionally been a bastion of support for the Centre Party, Keskusta. Once a powerhouse of Finnish politics, Keskusta has slumped dramatically over the last four years despite being in government, and they’re now polling their lowest ever numbers. 

    They are predicted to lose up to ten seats on Sunday. 

    MP Joonas Könttä, a former Finnish diplomat, says his party’s focus has been on “aluepolitikka” or regional policies. 

    “We want to take care of the countryside and the cities, so the same level of services are available all over the country,” he tells Euronews. 

    “No other parties are underlining the possibilities of the whole country.”



    Source link

    #Finland #election #issues #making #headlines #campaign #trail

    New drug shortages in the US increased nearly 30% in 2022, Senate report finds | CNN



    CNN
     — 

    When a pharmaceutical plant in Shanghai that made contrast material for radiological scans shut down last year, half the United States’ supply of the radioactive substance immediately became unavailable. Health care providers had to make difficult choices about who got potentially lifesaving tests.

    “I work in the VA system. This impacted veterans literally overnight, where we needed to make decisions about whether we were going to allow some scans to be done to evaluate someone’s cancer or treat someone’s heart disease,” said Dr. Andrew Shuman, a head and neck surgeon who works at the US Department of Veterans Affairs and is an associate professor at University of Michigan Health. “Veterans deserve better and we should not be reliant on a supply chain that’s that tenuous.”

    Shuman was one of several experts who testified Wednesday in front of the US Senate’s Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that shortages like these make the US drug and medical supply far too vulnerable and put national security at risk.

    New drug shortages in the US increased nearly 30% between 2021 and 2022, according to a report commissioned by the Senate that was published Wednesday. At the end of 2022, drug shortages experienced a record five-year high of 295 active drug shortages, according to the report. It also found that while the average drug shortage lasts about 1.5 years, more than 15 critical drug products have been in shortage for over a decade.

    Many Americans became aware of national shortages during the Covid-19 pandemic. In one of the most notable examples last year, anxious parents reported going from store to store in search of common pain relievers and antibiotics during an especially rough RSV season.

    Increased demand can cause shortages, but the way drugs are made and sold for the US market is also a large part of the problem, the experts said Wednesday.

    Shortages of common and specialized drugs have been a constant for decades, the report says.

    “Since 2007, the FDA identified an average of over 100 separate drug shortages per year. In 2011, the FDA identified a whopping 267 drugs in short supply and despite possessing the most innovative medical industry in the world, the US is unable to maintain a consistent supply of the most crucial medicines,” ranking committee member Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, said at the hearing.

    Under the current regulatory system, the problem won’t probably get better any time soon, the experts said.

    “Even drugs needed to treat childhood and adult cancers, including some that have simply no alternative treatment, are regularly in shortage. And while some shortages may only be an inconvenience, others have had devastating impacts on patient care,” said Sen. Gary Peters, D-Michigan, who commissioned the new report.

    At its peak last year, there were 295 drugs in shortage, Peters said. In years past, the number has been even higher. The US Food and Drug Administration currently lists 130 drugs in shortage.

    Some common medications like Adderall have been on the list for months. Many others like albuterol sulfate, which doctors use to treat breathing problems, are a staple in hospitals.

    Albuterol has been in short supply since last summer, according to the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, and it’s been on the FDA shortage list since October. That particular shortage is expected to get even worse because a major supplier to US hospitals shut down at the beginning of March.

    The albuterol shortage shows how consolidation in the market has been a real problem for a number of drugs, experts say. In a consolidated market, labor issues and manufacturing disruptions can make drugs particularly hard to find.

    Only one company made certain albuterol products used for continuous nebulizer treatment. The manufacturer that shut down, Akorn Operating Co., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May 2020.

    Lower-priced drugs, generics like albuterol and certain antibiotics like amoxicillin tend to have a higher likelihood of being in shortage, according to an analysis presented at the hearing by US Pharmacopeia, a nonprofit that works to strengthen the global supply chain of medicines and publishes a set of guidelines for medicines. Economics is largely to blame.

    “Manufacturers only receive pennies per dose for some of these drugs,” testified Dr. Vimala Raghavendran, senior director of the pharmaceutical supply chain center at US Pharmacopeia. That means there is little financial incentive for multiple manufacturers to make a generic medicine.

    Another problem is with the suppliers of the ingredients that make the drugs. Nearly 80% of the manufacturing facilities that produce these active pharmaceutical ingredients are outside the US, the Senate report says. And there is no one agency that keeps track of all these manufacturers, so it is difficult to get a big picture of where the next problem will come from, Raghavendran said.

    “Policymakers are flying blind in our understanding of US reliance on other countries for critical ingredients used in the manufacture of medicines,” she said.

    Many ingredient makers are based in China or India. If there are work stoppages there, as during the pandemic, it can affect thousands of products.

    Consolidation in ingredient manufacturing was a problem even before the pandemic. In 2018, regulators discovered that material created by a Chinese-based company, Zhejiang Huahai Pharmaceutical Co., that went into certain heart drugs was contaminated with a potential cancer-causing impurity. Thousands of drugs had to be recalled in dozens of countries, causing shortages around the world.

    In too many cases, the experts said Wednesday, it is not clear why drugs wind up in such short supply. Part of the problem is a lack of transparency about quality results and inspections information. The cause of a specific shortage may be known to regulators, but the information is rarely publicly available.

    “FDA sees really clear quality differences between products and manufacturing sites, but this information is confidential, and it’s not available to people making the purchases. Buyers can’t easily see the reliability of manufacturing operations,” Erin Fox, associate chief pharmacy officer at the University of Utah, said at the hearing.

    Fox urged the government to develop a rating system for pharmaceutical manufacturing reliability. The FDA has been working on quality metrics ratings, but it doesn’t intend to make the scores publicly available, she said.

    Without knowing whether a company is reliable, a health care system can’t always anticipate that a facility is likely to be shut down and create a shortage. A government rating system could help health systems pick more reliable suppliers, Fox said. Because it is so difficult to anticipate what drugs will be in short supply, most health systems must employ someone full-time to exclusively deal with shortage management.

    At Michigan, Shuman said, there are multiple pharmacists whose full-time jobs are to manage drug shortages.

    “Not every hospital has that resource. Patients should not have better access to scarce drugs based on the hospital they go to,” he said.

    Shortages have a direct negative impact on patients and on their providers. Studies show that people often have worse health outcomes when they can’t be treated with the appropriate medication and even, in some cases, when alternative drugs are used.

    “One of the challenges of drug shortages is that it requires hospitals to essentially MacGyver different treatment opportunities and regimens, which is not necessarily evidence for data based,” Shuman said.

    People with sepsis, for instance, had a higher mortality rate when there was a shortage of the drug norepinephrine.

    With shortages of cancer drugs, Shuman described “a tragedy that’s happening in slow motion.”

    He cited etoposide, a medicine used to manage a wide variety of cancers, including those of the prostate, bladder, stomach and lung. It’s a low-cost drug at $50 a vial and has been on the market for more than 40 years.

    In 2018, when a manufacturing delay caused a national shortage, some doctors had to make terrible choices.

    “Which of our patients with cancer should get it? How can we prioritize between American lives? Should our limited vials go to an older woman who was just diagnosed with lung cancer, a young man who’s already been successfully taking it for testicular cancer, or a baby with neuroblastoma and aggressive cancer for which this drug is recommended but others might substitute?” Shuman said. “As a doctor who’s devoted my life to fighting cancer, it’s hard to express how horrible that is.”

    Source link

    #drug #shortages #increased #Senate #report #finds #CNN