hey, judy, wherever you are – the president signed the FDA tobacco bill. i think you’d be pleased with most of it.

miss you.

plus, he’s dreamy.

despite having a startling similarity in appellation, i’m pretty sure that janet napolitano is no relation to johnette napolitano. which kills any chance of hearing the DHS secretary sing joey anytime soon.

###

in reproductive health news, it’s looking likely that the FDA will be making it easier for 17-year-olds to buy plan B. the u.s. district court for the eastern district of NY has told them to, at least. (PDF of the memo & order in tummino v. von eschenbach)
i like the judge’s straightforward approach:

…the gravamen of plaintiffs’ claims is that the FDA’s decisions regarding Plan B – on the Citizen Petition and the SNDAs – were arbitrary and capricious because they were not the result of reasoned and good faith agency decision-making.

Plaintiffs are right.

…

Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA’s course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency’s normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug product from prescription to non-prescription use, referred to as a “switch application” or an “over-the-counter switch.” For example, FDA upper management, including the Commissioner, wrested control over the decision-making on Plan B from staff that normally would issue the final decision on an over-the-counter switch application; the FDA’s denial of non-prescription access without age restriction went against the recommendation of a committee of experts it had empanelled to advise it on Plan B; and the Commissioner – at the behest of political actors – decided to deny non-prescription access to women 16 and younger before FDA scientific review staff had completed their reviews.

somehow i don’t think the rank & file up in rockville are too broken up about the district court’s decision.

last week i was kvetching about monday’s late-winter snowstorm and subsequent single-digit temps. today it’s nearly 65 degrees at 9 a.m. yay, march.

###

atheists are responsible for the dwindling percentage of christians in the united states. (maybe they’re eating them?) and i should move to vermont. except for that cold thing.

nifty charts here.

###

almost everything i read online this weekend was about death and dying. one friend’s father passed away in late february. another friend’s mother, over the weekend. my great-uncle, on thursday. g’s grandmother was hospitalized with chest pains. then a friend’s dog had to be put down. isn’t spring supposed to be a time of rebirth?

###

as i tweeted on saturday, the best time to watch watchmen is the 9:00 showing. with the coming distractions and a run time of 163 minutes, it means you’ll be out of the theater at five to 12:00. freaky. even freakier: billy crudup’s blue CGI dingle, which doesn’t dangle much.

great flick, btw. and fantastic use of leonard cohen on the soundtrack (and muzak tears for fears), but other people differ. (contains some spoilers.) although i have to ask: how do you put together a 3-hour movie set in 1985 without a single duran duran song? they’d released duran duran, rio, and 7 and the ragged tiger by that point!

###

i’m not much of a batman fan, but the first issue of neil gaiman’s two-part “death of” is storytelling at its finest. and what a story it is.

###

and finally, in news of the sane, today obama will “issue a presidential memorandum aimed at insulating scientific decisions across the federal government from political influence.” the circular argument about that itself being political influence that will affect scientific decisions aside, it’s good to see obama continuing to dismantle the politicoreligious machine of the bush administration.

from his prepared remarks:

“This Order is an important step in advancing the cause of science in America. But let’s be clear:¹ promoting science isn’t just about providing resources — it is also about protecting free and open inquiry. It is about letting scientists like those here today do their jobs, free from manipulation or coercion, and listening to what they tell us, even when it’s inconvenient — especially when it’s inconvenient. It is about ensuring that scientific data is never distorted or concealed to serve a political agenda — and that we make scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.”

_______________
¹ am i the only one who would be happy if obama excised “but let’s be clear” from his vocabulary? i’m getting tired of being lectured at.

the colorado senate recently passed a bill, 32 to 1, requiring pregnant women to submit to HIV testing. the lone dissenting vote came from a republican who believes that the measure would “remove the negative consequences that take place from poor behavior and unacceptable behavior.”

apparently the senator believes that living with the consequences of untreated HIV appropriately punishes poor behavior. on the other hand, the rest of the state’s senators apparently believe that a fetus’ medical needs outweigh a woman’s right to privacy. according to one of the bill’s sponsors, “What this bill will do and why it’s so important to test the woman when she is pregnant — if she is HIV-positive, treatment is started immediately to protect the baby, the unborn baby.”

now, don’t get me wrong – i think HIV testing is a good idea. it’s a good idea if you’re sexually active and if there’s a possibility you could be exposed to HIV. it’s a good idea if you’re a pregnant woman who wants to make the most informed choices about health care for yourself and your fetus. so it’s a good idea to require doctors to offer the test, and to either require health insurance to cover it, or to pay for it out of government coffers. but requiring women to get tested – which is the likely outcome of an opt-out system – bothers me. interjecting the government anywhere in a woman’s reproductive health care bothers me, because in this country, it’s a quick jump to measures that limit reproductive choice, and that impinge on a woman’s right to conduct her life as she sees fit.

i believe the wording of the bill is highly problematic, even though it’s basically the existing syphilis law with HIV tacked on:

25-4-201. Pregnant woman to take blood test. (1) Every licensed health care provider authorized to provide care to a pregnant woman in this state for conditions relating to her pregnancy during the period of gestation or at delivery shall take or cause to be taken a sample of blood of the woman at the time of the first professional visit during the first trimester for testing pursuant to this section. The blood specimen obtained shall be submitted to an approved laboratory for standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. Every other person permitted by law to attend pregnant women in this state but not permitted by law to take blood samples shall cause a sample of blood of each pregnant woman to be taken by a licensed health care provider authorized to take blood samples and shall have the sample submitted to an approved laboratory for a standard serological test for syphilis and HIV. A pregnant woman may decline to be tested as specified in this subsection (1), in which case the licensed health care provider shall document that fact in her medical record.

(2) If a pregnant woman entering a hospital for delivery has not been tested for HIV during her pregnancy, the hospital shall notify the woman that she will be tested for HIV unless she objects and declines the test. If the woman declines to be tested, the hospital shall document that fact in the pregnant woman’s medical record.

25-4-203. Birth certificate – blood test. In reporting every birth and stillbirth, physicians and others required to make such reports shall state on the certificate whether a blood test for syphilis and HIV has been made upon a specimen of blood taken from the woman who bore the child for which a birth or stillbirth certificate is filed and the approximate date when the specimen was taken. In no event shall the birth certificate state the result of the test.

first, they’re requiring a sample of blood to be taken for the purposes of the HIV test, whether a woman agrees to be tested or not. then, the bill allows women to opt out, rather than requiring affirmative assent to the procedure, which would provide more protection for the woman. nothing will prevent a provider from taking the blood and “oops!” either “forgetting” to give the woman the option to decline the test, or “losing” any documentation of her refusal. finally, if they do offer her the option to decline, and she does, the fact of her refusal must be documented. why? and how will that information be used down the line? will providers be allowed to refuse to treat women who decline the test? will health insurers refuse coverage to women – or their infants – who have not tested negative? and what is the purpose of recording the fact or absence of the test on the child’s birth certificate?

the legislation is broadly written to cover all providers treating women for “conditions relating to … pregnancy.” this would require that a woman seeking an abortion must go through the HIV rigamarole. and to what end?

while this legislation might have evolved from good intentions, the potential for abuse seems very high, and the rationale behind requiring the testing, flimsy at best. i can only hope the house shows better sense than the senate and defeats it.

earlier this month, the VA state legislature passed what is (IMO) a pretty pathetic compromise clean indoor air bill. perhaps to show they can come up with meaningful legislation, they’ve just passed a bill to expand the death penalty.

you read right. once the ink dries, a whole new category of people will be eligible for capital punishment: those who assist in a murder, but don’t actually kill anyone.

yay richmond.

ecuador’s 2008 constitution has a governmental guarantee of sustainable development. the whole section on the environment is fascinating. (there’s also an interesting article in the post that leads one to question just how involved a spanish consulting group was in drafting the document.)

the news is telling us that the economic stimulus package is expected to receive final approval and head to obama’s desk. few of the news reports have any detail as to what’s actually in the bill, so i headed over to thomas to find out.

what struck me immediately was not so much what’s in it, but what’s been removed from it. (assuming i’m reading the strikes and italics correctly.)

for example:

the entirety of the transparency and oversight requirements. there had been requirements for a whole host of stimulus-package information to be published on the recovery.gov website. information like:

• Each Federal agency shall publish (1) a plan for using funds made available in this Act to the agency; and (2) all announcements for grant competitions, allocations of formula grants, and awards of competitive grants using those funds.
• detailed data on contracts awarded by the Government for purposes of carrying out this Act, including information about the competitiveness of the contracting process, notification of solicitations for contracts to be awarded, and information about the process that was used for the award of contracts.
• printable reports on funds made available in this Act obligated by month to each State and congressional district
• links to and information on how to access job opportunities created at or by entities receiving funding under this Act, including, if possible, links to or information about local employment agencies; state, local and other public agencies receiving funding; and private firms contracted to perform work funded by this Act.

heaven forbid the public is advised of how the money is actually spent, or where it is actually going. i suspect that would just be too dangerous for the congresscritters who are constantly running for re-election, or for the ones who oppose the package, and yet stand to profit tremendously from it (politically).

so that’s a glimpse at what was cut. but what’s still in the bill?

on the health care side, there seems to be more than a billion dollars earmarked for clinical effectiveness research, presumably to guide future government involvement in attempts to reduce health care costs (or perhaps as a precursor to universal coverage); the current language sets out:

the funding appropriated in this paragraph shall be used to accelerate the development and dissemination of research assessing the comparative clinical effectiveness of health care treatments and strategies, including through efforts that: (1) conduct, support, or synthesize research that compares the clinical outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of items, services, and procedures that are used to prevent, diagnose, or treat diseases, disorders, and other health conditions and (2) encourage the development and use of clinical registries, clinical data networks, and other forms of electronic health data that can be used to generate or obtain outcomes data

there’s also $118M for “energy conservation and investment” for military construction projects – something that is sorely needed, as new buildings seem to be going up on bases (at least in this area) without any consideration for green construction or energy efficiency (the new child development center on fort myer is an egregious example of this). $336M for the construction of child development centers, across all services. $481M for warrior transition complexes. (no army funding for barracks, though. interesting.) $1.3B for VA medical facilities, and $145M for VA benefits claims processing.

as i read through this, it’s an awful lot of government spending. i’m not sure how it’s supposed to result in jobs creation, though. food for thought.

i recently blogged about the clean indoor air legislation that seems to be on virginia’s horizon, and on shepherd fairey’s artistic talents. i may have typed too soon on both accounts.

in an otherwise horribly slanted article in today’s post, the reporter notes:

The fight over the ban is far from over in Richmond. Gov. Timothy M. Kaine (D) yesterday criticized the bill approved by the House, saying it violated and “weakened” the terms of the deal he worked out with House Speaker William J. Howell (R-Stafford.) In addition to dropping the ventilation requirements for smoking sections, the House version exempts bars that do not serve minors and would allow smoking on outdoor patios. “We need to get the bill back to the deal,” Kaine said.

weakening is what happens when something gets worn down. the house bill pretty much guts any meaningful legislation, although i wasn’t too crazy about the terms of the deal as reported earlier. if you’re passing clean indoor air laws to protect employees, having “separately ventilated smoking areas” isn’t going to cut it. exempting bars is even worse.

and shepherd fairey? well, he’s pre-emptively sued AP over his use of their photo of obama as the source material for his obey “hope” poster, and looks like he’s seeking a declaratory judgment that it’s fair(ey) use. whatever. it’s his previous unattributed use of other artists’ materials that’s bothering me. in those cases, he treated prior works as a clip gallery, not bothering to change them at all before working them into his designs. now, there’s an argument to be made that he’s simply doing the electronic equivalent of collage, but the difference there is that in a traditional collage, it’s obvious what has come from a third party. the computer-assisted design output has no such visual cuing.

anyhoo.

almost two years ago, a good friend and mentor died of pancreatic cancer. she’d managed to beat the odds for awhile, enrolling in a treatment study out of california that seemed to knock the tumors back and raise the possibility that she’d be able to get a whipple that, it was hoped, could extend her life. in the end she didn’t, but at least she was able to leave on her own terms, in her own house, with her family around her.

and now wapo is telling me that ruth bader ginsburg, author of one of the most well-mannered tongue-lashing dissents¹ i’ve had the pleasure to read, lone remaining woman on the supreme court, has been hospitalized with the same disease. it appears the cancer was caught early, and she’s undergone surgery (although what type is unclear). but still. it’s an ugly cancer, and has a very poor prognosis.

i hate pancreatic cancer.

###

in related news, obama is apparently trying to reframe the abortion debate. or, perhaps as the wapo put it, “appease both sides.” (yeah, like he tried to appease the house republicans by persuading the dems to drop a number of provisions in the stimulus bill, including expanded access to contraception for poor women? and how did that work out for him?) he seems to be trying to walk the “reduce unwanted pregnancies” tightrope with the establishment of a white house office on faith-based and neighborhood partnerships², but i’m wondering if he realizes that the antiabortion side also trends heavily toward anticontraception as well? if he starts pushing abstinence education as part of his agenda, i’m going to hurl.

___________________________
¹ gonzalez v. carhart. it should be required reading for anyone concerned about how the supreme court has consistently eroded abortion rights since roe.

The Court offers flimsy and transparent justifications for upholding a nationwide ban on intact D&E sans any exception to safeguard a women’s health. Today’s ruling, the Court declares, advances “a premise central to [Casey’s] conclusion”—i.e.,the Government’s “legitimate and substantial interest in preserving and promoting fetal life.” Ante, at 14. See also ante, at 15 (“[W]e must determine whether the Act furthers the legitimate interest of the Government in protecting the life of the fetus that may become a child.”). But the Act scarcely furthers that interest: The law saves not a single fetus from destruction, for it targets only a method of performing abortion. See Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 930. And surely the statute was not designed to protect the lives or health of pregnant women. Id., at 951 (Ginsburg, J., concurring);cf. Casey, 505 U. S., at 846 (recognizing along with the State’s legitimate interest in the life of the fetus, its “legitimate interes[t] … in protecting the health of the woman” (emphasis added)). In short, the Court upholds a law that, while doing nothing to “preserv[e] … fetal life,” ante, at 14, bars a woman from choosing intact D&E although her doctor “reasonably believes [that procedure] will best protect [her].” Stenberg, 530 U. S., at 946 (Stevens, J., concurring).

² headed by a 26-year-old, no less. wtf?