A proposed total abortion ban in Poland will not be implemented, a member of the government has said on Wednesday, describing mass protests against the ban on Monday as a lesson in humility for the country’s leadership. The proposed total abortion ban would have outlawed the practice even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk
A proposed total abortion ban in Poland will not be implemented, a member of the government has said, describing mass protests against the ban as a lesson in humility for the country’s leadership.
Jarosław Gowin, the minister of science and higher education, said on Wednesday that the protests by women have “caused us to think and taught us humility”.
The comments appear to indicate that Poland’s conservative leadership will withhold support from the highly unpopular proposal to ban abortions, even in cases of rape, incest or when the mother’s life is at risk.
The rightwing government, led by the Law and Justice party, is also under international pressure not to move forward with the plan, with a debate scheduled for Wednesday in the European parliament on the situation of women in Poland.
Poland already outlaws abortions, with exceptions made only for rape, incest, badly damaged foetuses or if the mother’s life is at risk. In practice, though, some doctors refuse to perform even legal abortions, citing moral objections.
Polish women seeking abortions typically go to Germany or other neighbouring countries to get them or order abortion pills online.
Also on Wednesday, the Senate speaker, Stanisław Karczewski, said Poland’s upper house of parliament would not initiate work on a bill that would further restrict Poland’s abortion law.
Karczewski said senators would wait to see what the more powerful lower house of parliament would do. However, he voiced support for a ban on abortions of foetuses with Down’s syndrome, something currently allowed.
“They are wonderful children, very much loved by their parents, very loving parents, bringing a lot of warmth and a lot of love into a home. I am a great opponent of killing such children,” Karczewski said.
An anti-abortion initiative gathered 450,000 signatures in support of the total abortion ban. A parliamentary commission is now analysing it. Politicians voted against considering a separate initiative for a more liberal abortion law.
The matter has led to mass protests, the largest on Monday when thousands of women turned out dressed in black. Many also boycotted work and classes.
Last week brought news that Wen Hair Care, a celebrity endorsed “sulfate-free” shampoo and conditioner line is preparing a $ 26.5m settlement after a class action lawsuit over thousands of complaints of hair loss and skin rashes.
While cases like Wen put people on high alert, it is difficult to steer clear of potentially toxic products. Every day the average person uses nine personal care products, according to a survey by the Environmental Working Group. With most personal product ingredient lists taking up an unpronounceable paragraph, it can be a daunting area for consumers to navigate. Especially when something like the Wen lawsuit provides a reminder that personal care products are barely regulated in the US.
There currently is no independent testing of ingredients in beauty products. However, if a particular cosmetic product is causing serious health issues, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will step in with a consumer warning, as was the case with Wen. The FDA issued a public warning last month, saying that the company failed to address safety concerns. Wen, however, has persisted in saying that its products are safe, despite the FDA’s objections and the company’s own decision to settle the class action suit.
In a statement, the FDA said that it could do little else to compel the company: “We do not have the legal authority to require a cosmetics firm to provide product safety information.”
The only FDA regulation of the cosmetic industry dates back to a few rules adopted in 1938 that have remained largely unchanged, leaving the cosmetic industry effectively self regulating. That self regulation allows cosmetic companies to voluntarily report adverse effects from their products to the FDA.
In Wen’s case, 127 instances of adverse effects were reported to the FDA, a fraction of the around 21,000 complaints made to the company.
While cosmetic ingredients have not changed dramatically in the past 50 years, various additives in personal care products have received scrutiny in recent years. When there is a lot of attention around a cosmetic ingredient, companies will sometimes look to replace it with an alternative to avoid controversy. That can create new issues, as replacement ingredients have often been studied less than what they’re designed to supplant.
In the case of Wen, its products were advertised specifically as not having sulfates or detergents, as there have been public objections to their safety.
The FDA doesn’t require full ingredients lists to be made public, so it is still unclear what chemicals might have prompted consumers’ hair loss, but it’s possible that one of the substitutes was the issue.
Another way the beauty industry has responded to a lot of the concerns around its ingredients is by marketing “natural” cosmetic and hair care lines. But because the term “natural” is not regulated, it doesn’t mean anything.
“Natural is a marketing trick to get people to pay more,” says Perry Romanowski, a cosmetic chemist and a co-founder of The Beauty Brains, a blog about the ingredients in cosmetics. “Cosmetics are not natural: there is nothing natural about them.”
New legislation might help address the regulatory gap. Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein and Republican Senator Susan Collins have proposed legislation that would give the FDA the power to issue recalls and conduct their own safety tests of ingredients found in cosmetics.
A number of major cosmetic companies, such as Estée Lauder, have backed the bill, but it still faces opposition from the Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, the cosmetic trade group for small to mid-sized cosmetic companies.
While lobbyists fight it out in Washington, Nneka Leiba, deputy director of research at the Environmental Working Group, has a few words of advice for consumers. It’s best if you can use single-ingredient alternatives, says Leiba, but she allows that not everyone can use something like coconut oil for all their skincare needs. She says reducing the number of products used everyday or using products with fewer ingredients, like those without artificial fragrances, can be another strategy.
If a person is worried about the ingredients in their makeup, says Romanowski, not using products is another way to alleviate that worry. After all, he points out, there is “no health benefit in using cosmetics”.
The federal health minister, Peter Dutton, has signalled dramatic alterations to Medicare to tackle “staggering” increases in overall health investing, confirming the Abbott government would take into account a new charge for visits to the medical doctor.
Laying the groundwork for politically delicate reforms, Dutton stated he desired to “start a nationwide conversation about modernising and strengthening Medicare”. He mentioned the wellness technique was “riddled with inefficiency and waste” and warned that doing absolutely nothing to tackle the lengthy-phrase price range burden was not an option.
In a speech in Brisbane on Wednesday, the minister flagged a greater role for the personal sector and private insurers in principal care as the government desired to “grow the possibility for individuals Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their own healthcare costs”.
But Labor seized on his feedback of proof that the government planned “to ruin universal healthcare in Australia” by producing people pay out a lot more to accessibility services.
The shadow overall health minister, Catherine King, said Dutton’s claims about rising health costs were “hysterical” as Australia invested 9.one% of its gross domestic product on health in contrast with 17% by the United States.
Dutton followed up his speech with an interview on the ABC’s seven.30 program in which he stated the nation ought to debate how governments and buyers paid for health services. He explained the discussion must consist of payment models for people who had “a means to contribute to their personal healthcare”.
The minister told the program: “I want to make sure that, for argument’s sake, we have a discussion about you or me on reasonable incomes, no matter whether we should expect to pay absolutely nothing when we go to see the medical professional, when we go to have a blood test – ought to we expect to pay practically nothing as a co-contribution and other taxpayers to select up that bill?”
Asked about the notion of a new $ 6 co-payment for bulk-billed GP visits, which was raised in a submission to the Nationwide Commission of Audit, Dutton mentioned tips had been produced in favour and towards the proposal but it was “one factor that the government will want to consider”.
“Well, my very own see is that folks at the second pay a co-contribution through when they buy their medicines, regardless of their revenue,” Dutton mentioned.
“People spend as little as $ 6 for a $ 17,000 prescription, a single prescription. Folks spend a co-payment at the minute for their private well being insurance. Eleven million Australians have personal wellness insurance coverage.
“Many Australians presently shell out a co-payment when they go to see a medical doctor. Now, the situation is how you promise access, notably for people who are without having implies, and how you really do not deter folks from going to see a doctor if there is some kind of a payment mechanism in place.”
In the leadup to the 8 February Griffith byelection, Tony Abbott dismissed a Labor “scare campaign” over a new charge for bulk-billed GP visits.
The prime minister refused to rule it out, but played down the prospect. “Nothing is becoming considered nothing at all has been proposed practically nothing is planned,” Abbott mentioned on 1 February.
On Wednesday night the opposition sounded the alarm above the prospect of a “GP tax”, saying Australians ought to get the healthcare they necessary rather than what they could afford.
“The Liberal get together has in no way believed in Medicare and they have by no means believed in a universal healthcare technique,” King said.
“Australians who can afford to pay more currently do so through a higher contribution to the Medicare levy. What Mr Dutton is genuinely talking about is dismantling our fair and sustainable program in favour of a private health technique like that which exists in the United States.”
Earlier, Dutton stated in his speech that there had been “many shrill voices” decrying the government-ordered commission of audit regardless of the want to tackle federal debt and deficit.
The target of the minister’s address to the Committee for Economic Advancement of Australia was the rising value to the price range of wellness services, with the prospect of even greater increases as the population aged and the nation confronted weight problems, diabetes and dementia challenges.
Dutton said complete paying on healthcare in Australia had elevated by 122% in the ten many years to 2011-12, when it totalled $ 140bn. This equated to about $ 6,200 a person a 12 months on regular.
The commonwealth element of health spending was forecast to rise from $ 62bn now to $ 75bn by 2016-17.
Dutton described Australia’s “1980s model” wellness system as “tracking on an unsustainable path with no prospect of meeting the demands of the well being of our nation in the 21st century”.
“There’s been speak about simply escalating the Medicare levy to fix the sustainability concern. Let me just say right here [that] if we had been to improve the Medicare levy to cover the entire price of the commonwealth’s wellness budget, it would have to enhance to 9.5%. That is $ seven,220 per year on an common salary of $ 77,000.
“Either way, individuals finish up paying for their healthcare – whether or not it is immediately or indirectly by way of pay as you go or by way of increased taxes otherwise. To reap the positive aspects, there is usually a cost, and I think most Australian taxpayers realize this.”
Dutton stated governments met about 70% of complete paying on healthcare in Australia even though men and women straight contributed about 17% via out-of-pocket payments.
He said there would “always be value in leveraging individuals into supporting their personal well being wants in the personal sector”, arguing that picking up almost a hundred% of the price made “no sense” for the taxpayer when the patient was prepared to contribute to their personal expenses.
The minister said governments contributed about 35 cents in the dollar for private hospital services – which includes via the Medicare Rewards Schedule and the private overall health insurance coverage rebate – but 92 cents in the dollar for these taken care of in the public technique.
“Therefore a single essential task of the Abbott government is to increase the possibility for people Australians who can afford to do so to contribute to their very own healthcare fees,” he said.
Dutton voiced assistance for making it possible for higher involvement of personal well being insurers in main care, asking: “Why need to we see the private sector involving itself in public providers as a negative point?”
He also referred to as for “improved public sector efficiency” in the well being sector.
