India hails "historic" Supreme Court drug patent ruling against Novartis

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

Republicans Introduce Legislation To Discriminate Against Non-English Speakers

Left: Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK). Right: Rep. Steve King (R-IA)

Republicans are continuing their minority outreach efforts this month by introducing a bill outlawing Spanish and other non-English languages from being used in federal documents.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), most recently in the headlines after attacking President Obama’s young daughters for going on vacation, introduced the English Language Unity Act in the House earlier this month, along with Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) in the Senate. As King notes on his website, the bill would require “all official functions of the United States to be conducted in English.” Federal and state governments print thousands of documents every year, many of which are translated into other languages besides English.

One major impact King’s bill could have is to stop the decades-long practice of printing non-English ballots in areas where there’s a significant non-English language group. Indeed, Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 currently requires local jurisdictions with a substantial number of non-English speakers to allow them to vote in other languages.

King’s bill currently enjoys 39 co-sponsors in the House—37 Republicans and two conservative Democrats—though that number will likely increase over time. Inhofe’s Senate bill has five co-sponsors, all Republicans.

English-only bills not only discriminate against immigrants and minorities; they’re also wholly unnecessary. Conservatives fret that immigrants today aren’t learning English like immigrants of yesteryear, but are instead confining themselves to permanent non-English enclaves. That idea is, to put it mildly, nonsense. Though first-generation immigrants often have limited-English proficiency, their children quickly adopt English, just as it’s always been in the proverbial American melting pot. By the second generation, more than 80 percent speak English exclusively or very well, and the figure jumps to nearly everyone in the third generation. In fact, as Professor Tomas Jimenez at Stanford University notes, “immigrants today are learning English faster than the large waves of immigrants who came to the United States during the turn of the last century.”

Republicans have spent the months following last November’s election in a tailspin trying to figure out how to win over minority voters. Their autopsy, released this month, singled out minority outreach as an area where the Party has consistently fell short and planned to improve going forward. However, the GOP put forth no new policies, only a promise to be more sensitive in their communication. That pledge was quickly violated by Rep. Don Young and RNC Committeeman Dave Agema, among others.

View the original article here

Remembering the chemical atttacks against the Kurds

The ongoing slaughter in Syria is neither the first nor the worst tragedy in that neighborhood. 25 years ago this March, Iraqi forces coordinated a calculated campaign of genocide against the Kurds. During these eight campaigns known as Anfal, Saddam Hussein gave his cousin Ali Hassan al-Majid complete political and military control over a swath of northern Iraq with orders to destroy the Kurdish culture.
The Anfal genocide included more than fifty chemical weapons attacks against civilians and more than 2,000 villages were destroyed. As House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R-Mich.) said recently referring to Anfal, “As we remember that horror and reflect on the lives ended by a tyrant, we must realize the world is on the brink of witnessing a similar atrocity in Syria. Once again, we may see images of dying mothers vainly shielding their infants from the chemical storm.”

Iraqi planes launched a devastating chemical weapons attack on the people of Halabja on March 16, 1988. Thousands of men, women, and children died over the next five hours. The pictures are unforgettable. There are accounts of nursing mothers who died with babies suckling because they hoped that a suckling infant might survive. Horribly mistaken, but those mothers were helpless against the onslaught of planes and the combinations of toxic poison that rained down from the sky.
No living thing was safe: not the livestock, nor the pets, nor the birds. Kurdish families still suffer from cancers, birth defects, and deep trauma. During the genocide trial in Baghdad after the end of Saddam’s tyranny, the satellite imagery showed what had been Kurdish villages until regime bulldozers turned them into scarred remnants of torn earth. Some ‘lucky’ inhabitants survived the attacks only to end up in regime camps. They endured challenges similar to the victims of the Nazi atrocities or the Muslims that were detained during the Balkan Wars.  Even if we were somehow able to contort our minds to marginalize the slaughter, the mass graves across Iraq mark the definitive punctuation to the suffering of so many Kurds.
Now, some 25 years later, the lessons of Halabja cannot be forgotten. After the first Gulf War, thousands of Kurds fled Saddam’s wrath into the mountains of northern Iraq as their men stood toe to toe against Saddam’s tanks. NATO intervened in Operation Provide Comfort to prevent more massacres. Under the umbrella of the no-fly zone, the resilient and resourceful people of Kurdistan rose from the ashes of the Anfal genocide to restore their land and lay the foundations of democracy and prosperity. When U.S. forces deployed to the Kurdistan Region in 2003 as part of Operation Iraqi freedom, Kurdish forces joined with the coalition to defeat 13 Iraqi Army divisions in the Northern area of operations.   
The ghosts of Halabja cry out on this grim anniversary to remind the world that it must rally to the aid of those who suffer from brutal regimes. In Kurdistan today, the people have returned to create an economic and cultural miracle where human rights are protected under democratic stability. An old Kurdish saying promises that “only the mountains are our friends.” But Halabja commands us to rededicate ourselves to the principles of equal and exact justice. We stand on the side of those who fight for their families and cannot again allow chemical weapons to again destroy a way of life.    

Newton is a professor of Law at Vanderbilt University. Newton is the co-author of “Enemy of the State: The Trial and Execution of Saddam Hussein,” and is currently in charge of establishing the largest Anfal Genocide center in the U.S., located at Vanderbilt.

View Comments

View the original article here

Gun Lobby Bombards Newtown Families With Robocalls Against Gun Regulations

A 16-member Connecticut panel tasked with making recommendations for how to prevent gun violence in the aftermath of the Newtown shooting released its interim report this week, urging lawmakers to pass a ban on high-capacity magazines and limit ammunition purchases. The proposals, which came just one day before a state committee unanimously approved a bill requiring background checks for all guns sales in the state, have sent gun groups into overdrive, with some directly lobbying families in Newton to oppose the measures.

Newtown Action Alliance — a Sandy Hook-based, all-volunteer organization working to reduce gun violence and death — reported on Thursday that the National Rifle Association (NRA) is making robocalls and sending post cards to Newtown families asking them to oppose any new measures. The messages, first obtained by Christina Wilkie of the Huffington Post, warn that “Connecticut General Assembly are aggressively forging ahead with numerous proposals that are designed to disarm and punish law-abiding gun owners and sportsmen”:

The National Shooting Sports Foundation — a group which represents gun manufacturers — has also begun airing radio ads claiming that restrictions will “punish law-abiding citizens” and threatening that gun manufactures will leave the state and take away “thousands of jobs”:

Meanwhile, a recent Quinnipiac poll finds that Connecticut voters — and gun owners — overwhelmingly support universal background checks (93 percent, including 89 percent of gun owners) and stricter statewide gun safety laws. The Newtown families are also not taking kindly to the pr-gun advocacy. One resident told the Huffington Post, “The idea that this message could have been delivered to a sibling of one of the families who lost children at [Sandy Hook Elementary School] is just appalling.” “You’d think they could have scrubbed the list, just to be decent. Instead, you’re making an unsolicited call with no opt-out that my children could answer.”

The Connecticut panel, formally called Sandy Hook Advisory Commission, recommends: requiring registration, including a certificate of registration, for any firearm, a ban on the sale, possession, or use of any magazine or ammunition feeding
device in excess of 10 rounds, limiting the amounts of ammunition that may be purchased at any given time, and requiring that trigger locks be provided at the time of sale or transfer of any firearm.

Since the Newtown shooting, lawmakers proposed close to 100 gun safety measures, but have yet to enact new reforms.

View the original article here

NBC To Air ‘Interview’ Of Sandusky By Man Who Called The Case Against The Convicted Child Rapist ‘Remarkably Weak’

NBC is hyping an “interview,” to be aired Monday, with convicted child rapist Jerry Sandusky. But what they don’t tell you is the interview wasn’t conducted by NBC. Rather, NBC is airing excerpts of an interview by John Ziegler, right-wing documentarian and propagandist. Ziegler has been publicly skeptical of the charges against Sandusky, who was convicted of 45 counts of child sexual abuse, writing that at the time the grand jury was convened “the legal case against Jerry Sandusky was actually remarkably weak.”

Ziegler insists he is “not supportive” of Sandusky and does acknowledge he engaged in “criminal behavior.”

The interview being aired by NBC as news content is part of a larger documentary called “The Framing of Joe Paterno.” On his website, Ziegler lambasts the Freeh Report of the Penn State scandal, which concluded Joe Paterno “failed to protect against a child sexual predator harming children for over a decade.” Ziegler attacks the testimony of assistant coach Mike McQueary who said he observed Sandusky sexually assaulting a child in the shower. Ziegler says “the evidence indicates that McQueary did not witness an assault, but rather a botched ‘grooming’”

Previously Ziegler has produced films such as “Media Malpractice: How Obama Got Elected” and “Blocking The Path to 9/11,” a film defending an error riddled mini-series seeking to pin blame on Bill Clinton for the 9/11 attacks.

Ziegler is also defending Reno Saccoccia, the Steubenville football coach who “knew about the rape of a 16-year-old girl by two of his players, but didn’t say a word about it to school administrators or local law enforcement.” On his website, Ziegler asserts Saccoccia is “not culpable” and reveals he has been “advising him for the past several months on how to handle the media firestorm.”

Scott Paterno publicly opposes Ziegler’s efforts to defend his late father. He wrote on Twitter, “If John had a credible way to exonerate Dad, why would we oppose it? Think about that.”

One child advocacy group has called on NBC to cancel the segment featuring the Sandusky interview.

View the original article here

O’Reilly Sounds The Alarm About The Left’s War Against The Easter Bunny

Culture warrior and Fox News host Bill O’Reilly sounded the alarms on his show yesterday over the looming threat being posed by secularists towards…the Easter bunny.

O’Reilly, perhaps best known for his annual winter jeremiads on the imminent destruction of Christmas, explained to his audience that “secular progressives” are seeking to destroy such holy biblical figures as grown men in bunny costumes so they can legalize marijuana and allow abortions on demand:

O’REILLY: Secular progressives are running wild with President Obama in the White House. They feel unchained, liberated, and they’re trying to diminish any form of religion. The goal is to marginalize religious opposition to secular programs. For example, in Canada and China a woman can have an abortion for any reason at any time. Secular progressives want that here. But traditional forces in America are in opposition. Therefore in this country, you can’t terminate a baby about to be born without a damn good reason. And if you do abort a late term baby, you could be charged with murder. SPs hate that. In Scandanavia, there are laws that say you cannot criticize minorities and if you do, you could be arrested. Secular progressives want laws like that here. Also the legalization of drugs, well under way in many places, and that is a secular cause. So, if the far left can marginalize Santa and the Easter bunny, of they can tell the children those symbols are obsolete and unnecessary, they then set the stage for a totally secular society in the future.

Forgetting for a minute that religiously-affiliated lawmakers are actually imposing tougher abortion laws around the country, that nobody is pushing for a law to criminalize free speech, and that legalizing drugs is far from a secular progressive cause, there is simply no “war on Easter.” O’Reilly points to a handful of small community centers and elementary schools that are hosting “spring egg hunts,” sometimes with a “spring bunny” emceeing the festivities. Nowhere to be found is the word “Easter,” laments O’Reilly, fearful that the nation’s six year olds will one day forget the religious symbolism of crawling around a grassy schoolyard on all fours searching for chocolate-filled plastic eggs. Each of the schools highlighted by O’Reilly has off the day following Easter Sunday, an opportunity for parents to teach their children about the significance of the holiday and a luxury rarely afforded to the practitioners of any other religion in the country.

Conservative radio host Laura Ingraham joined O’Reilly to discuss this latest atrocity, and both agreed that the fault belongs to the nation’s “traditional forces,” who aren’t doing enough, in their estimation, to fight back against the rise of secularism and the persecution of religious Christians. It’s a bold statement coming from two people who have a history of being the chief persecutors towards people of other faiths.

HT: Mediaite

View the original article here

Environmentalists shouldn't side with Big Oil against biofuels

There’s a fight for the future of American motor fuels – renewable fuels versus fossil fuels. Environmentalists shouldn’t have much trouble deciding which side they’re on.

After all, the major source of greenhouse gas emissions is fossil fuel combustion. That mostly means running cars, trucks, and other vehicles with petroleum products such as gasoline.

If you don’t want to spew more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, there’s really only alternative fuel – ethanol. There is no other fuel available at scale today that matches ethanol’s ability to improve overall environmental quality, compared to gasoline.

Moreover, today’s grain ethanol is producing the infrastructure – from innovative companies to blender pumps -- to develop and commercialize the next generation of advanced biofuels, which offer even greater advantages.

That’s why it’s so troubling that some environmentalists are siding with Big Oil, which they have correctly criticized for polluting our air and water, to gang up on American ethanol, which is both renewable and cleaner than gasoline.

As the saying goes, some of these environmentalists were against Big Oil before they were for it.

The latest of these biofuels-bashers is Scott Faber, vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group. His recent op-ed (“Fix the Broken Biofuels Mandate, The Hill, March 12) urges unspecified changes in the Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which commits our country to using increasing quantities of clean-burning renewable fuels.

While criticizing the RFS and higher ethanol blends in gasoline, Faber makes confusing – and contradictory – arguments: First, he recycles Big Oil’s attacks upon grain ethanol. Then, he says the RFS must be failing because of what he believes is the slow progress towards cellulosic (non-grain) ethanol. Lastly, he rounds out his attack on the RFS by warning that it requires what he considers costly investments in the very infrastructure – such as fuel pumps and flex-fuel vehicles – that’s necessary for advanced biofuels to be widely used.

Why would an environmentalist oppose today’s ethanol and also, in spite of his lip-service to advanced biofuels, the infrastructure that’s required for cellulosic ethanol to succeed? Well maybe, it’s because, before joining the Environmental Working Group, Faber was vice president for federal affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers Association. Together with the American Petroleum Institute), the Grocery Manufacturers Association is working to repeal the RFS.

For the great majority of rank-and-file environmentalists who aren’t beholden to Big Oil or Big Food, ethanol’s environmental advantages over gasoline are clear and compelling.

The most recent data, in a study published by Yale University’s Journal of Industrial Ecology, conclude that grain ethanol reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 48 to 59 percent when directly compared to gasoline and by 34 percent even when highly uncertain land-use emissions are added.
In fact, using the GREET (Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in Transportation) model developed by the Department of Energy, the 13.3 billion gallons of ethanol produced in 2012 reduced greenhouse gas emissions from on-road vehicles by 33.4 million tons. That’s equivalent to removing 5.2 million cars from the road– as many as in the entire state of Michigan.

Ethanol does more than lower greenhouse gas emissions. Ethanol contains 35 percent oxygen, resulting in more complete fuel combustion and thereby reducing harmful tailpipe pollution. Because it’s non-toxic, water-soluble and quickly biodegradable, ethanol also displaces toxic gasoline components such as benzene, a carcinogen.

Yes, advanced biofuels offer even greater advantages. But watering down or wiping out the RFS and opposing higher ethanol blends are the wrong ways to nurture the next generation of ethanol.

By promoting the production and use of grain ethanol, the RFS has helped to sustain the companies, the skilled workforce, the markets, the infrastructure and the stream of private investment that are essential for developing and commercializing advanced biofuels. Moreover, the RFS promotes the evolution of ethanol by requiring that 21 billion gallons of advanced biofuels be blended into transportation fuels by 2022.

Thanks largely to the RFS, the cellulosic biofuels industry has facilities and projects under development in more than 20 states, representing billions of dollars in private investment. According to the Sandia National Lab, the US could produce 75 billion gallons per year of cellulosic biofuels by 2030.
We can get there from here, as long as environmentalists don’t join Big Oil in bashing biofuels and messing with the RFS.

Dinneen is president and CEO of the Renewable Fuels Association, the trade association of the American ethanol industry.

View Comments

View the original article here

U.S. Brings Terrorism Charges In Civilian Court Against Saudi-Born Man

The Department of Justice today unsealed a six-count indictment against a Nigerien citizen, including terrorism-related charges, making him the latest suspected member of al Qaeda to be brought before civilian courts.

Filed in the Eastern District Court of New York, the charges against Ibrahim Suleiman Adnan Adam Harun include “conspiracy to murder American military personnel in Afghanistan, conspiracy to bomb American diplomatic facilities in Nigeria, conspiracy to provide material support to al Qaeda, providing material support to al Qaeda, and related firearms and explosives counts.”

According to the indictment, Harun’s activities with al Qaeda spanned nearly a decade, including actively taking part in hostilities against U.S. forces between 2002 and 2003. From there he underwent additional training in Nigeria, with the ultimate goal of attacking U.S. diplomatic and consular facilities there. This aligns with a 2007 briefing on a separate detainee being held in Guantanamo Bay, released through Wikileaks, where Harun was identified as being an al Qaeda operative based in Nigeria at the time.

After the Libyan government released Harun from its custody in June 2011, right around the time then-leader Col. Moamar Qaddafi was fighting off rebels, the alleged terrorist was then arrested by Italian authorities following his assaulting officers on-board a refugee ship. He was then transferred to U.S. custody and later brought to New York, where charges were unsealed against him today:

FBI Assistant Director in Charge Venizelos said, “Vowing allegiance to al Qaeda and training to commit violent jihad are not the worst of Harun’s alleged crimes. The allegations include actually attacking U.S troops and plotting to use explosives to kill U.S. diplomats. As alleged, Harun not only intended to but did commit acts of terrorism against Americans. Now he is subject to the American justice system. We remain committed to protecting the safety of Americans and our national security.”

Following his arrival in the United States on Oct. 21, 2012, Harun was held in federal custody, a Justice Deparment official told ThinkProgress without providing further detail. While there, the U.S. government requested that the charges against him be sealed until today, to which Harun’s defense counsel agreed. This was done based on the government’s belief that Harun could provide information relative to U.S. national security, according to the same Justice Department official.

The fact that Harun is being charged in a civilian court at all, though, fits in with a change in the tide with regard to how instances of terrorism are prosecuted. Among the reasons to applaud this shift, civilian courts have been shown in the past to be better at obtaining usable information from suspected terrorists rather than military courts. Civilian courts also manage a much higher conviction rate than their military counterparts.

Harun joins Sulaiman Abu Ghaith — son-in-law of Osama bin Laden — in facing criminal charges in New York. The decision to try Ghaith in a civilian court, rather than at Gitmo, was immediately met with scorn from Republicans, including Rep. Mike Rogers (R-MI), Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).

View the original article here

BRIEF-MAKO Surgical announces patent enforcement actions against Stanmore entities

March 19 (Reuters) - MAKO Surgical Corp :

* Announces patent enforcement actions against stanmore entities

* Filed complaints against stanmore implants worldwide and stanmore inc with the U.S. international trade commission

* Says patent infringement actions are directed at stanmore's computerized orthopedic surgery guidance systems

* Says patents at issue relate to computerized orthopedic surgical devices and software

* Further company coverage

((Bangalore Newsroom; +1 646 223 8780))

View the original article here

House Republicans’ Final Written Argument Against Marriage Equality: Nuh-Uh!

House Republicans' Attorney Paul Clement

House Republicans have filed a reply brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act before the Supreme Court, but the arguments boil down to “nuh-uh” or “just because” responses to Edie Windsor’s attorneys. Though it reiterates many of the arguments made in their initial brief, here’s a summary of the final written arguments against marriage equality in the DOMA case:

Same-sex marriage is still an “experiment,” so Congress was allowed to be cautious: “But when Hawaii was poised to become the first jurisdiction in the United States to deviate from the traditional definition, there was nothing incautious about retaining the traditional definition as the federal definition while states began a process of experimentation. That approach was a rational exercise in caution and a rational approach to the issue given our system of dual sovereignty.”It’s more “uniform” to ban all same-sex marriages than to recognize all valid marriages: “But the federal sovereign has a unique interest in treating a survivor of a same-sex relationship in New York the same as a survivor of a same-sex relationship in Oklahoma. And DOMA rationally furthers that uniquely federal interest in nationwide uniformity.”Most states ban same-sex marriage, so it’s rational that Congress did it too: “It bears emphasis that the traditional definition was the only definition at the time of DOMA’s enactment and remains the rule in more than 80% of the jurisdictions.”Children are better off with their biological parents: “DOMA’s opponents challenge as irrational the long-held cultural judgment that a child’s biological parents are, other things being equal, the child’s natural and most suitable guardians.”Only straight couples need marriage because only they have kids accidentally: “Marriage as an institution is linked to the unique tendency of opposite-sex couples to produce unintended offspring and the societal interest in providing a stable structure for raising such children.”DOMA doesn’t deny marital eligibility to same-sex couples: “DOMA defines terms for purposes of federal law; it does not deny marital eligibility— which remains a matter of state law—to anyone.”Gays aren’t politically powerless like women because women were discriminated against under the law: “The Court’s application of heightened scrutiny, despite the majority status and substantial achievements of women, was explained instead by over a century of official disenfranchisement that left the statute books littered with laws based on outdated stereotypes.”Sexual orientation is a behavior, not an identity: “Unlike the recognized suspect classes, sexual orientation is defined by a tendency to engage in a particular kind of conduct.”Let democracy play out on same-sex marriage so opponents aren’t called bigots: “The democratic process requires opposing sides to attempt to persuade each other, to understand each other’s positions, and perhaps, at least temporarily, to reach compromises that both sides can accept. A constitutional right to same-sex marriage, on the other hand, could be achieved only by marginalizing, as bigoted at worst or irrational at best, the ‘profound and deep convictions’ of those who disagree.”

Some of these arguments are simply rhetorical speculation (“experiment,” “uniform”), others are completely untrue (DOMA rejects states that recognize same-sex marriages, gays do have a history of disenfranchisement under the law), and others defy the lived experiences of gays and lesbians and their families (children who are adopted, sexual orientation as an identity). None of them reflect reality, and none of them should survive the scrutiny of the Court’s questions next week.

(HT: Kathleen Perrin.)

View the original article here

Rove, RNC and GOP bigwigs rig the rules against the right

For insider Republican bigwigs, 2013 is the year of the double deal. They pay homage to CPAC while they write rules for the 2016 presidential campaign designed to fix the game against conservatives whose issues they claim to champion. The new "blueprint" from the Republican National Committee should be read with a calculator, an abacus and a copy of Machiavelli's The Prince to understand that the real blueprint is to freeze out insurgent conservatives (does Rand Paul ring a bell?) and lock in establishment Republicans (does Bush 45 ring a bell?) at the presidential campaign level. Will we soon read a headline on Drudge revealing "GOP insider fix exposed?"

The plan is to shorten the 2016 campaign, to compress 2016 into rapid-fire battles, to end or limit caucuses that help insurgents, and to dramatically cut down the number of debates. Taken together, these actions give a great advantage to establishment candidates with better-known names and access to lots of money. Couple this with the ubiquitous Karl Rove (the power-mad insider whose recent record is worse than the defunct Intrade) who is raising the big dough for the favored friends of the bigwig elites, and we find a game that is being fixed and a deck that is being stacked.

Bad news for the bigwigs — they will not trigger an insider triumph, they will trigger an all-out GOP civil war when grassroots conservatives realize they are the target of a nefarious (for them) fix.

This will lead to what the media will call, and I am coining a phrase here, "the battle of the GOP super-PACS" as the big buck Rovians battle the big bucks right (as in Adelson and Koch) for ownership of the 2016 nomination.

Will this intra-party coup d'etat from the GOP establishment work? Probably not. The GOP base will not take kindly to those who address the CPAC meeting with friendly words as Brutus once addressed Caesar. Stacked-deck primaries can backfire if an insurgent catches fire early. The money advantage for GOP insiders will mean nothing unless Messrs. Koch and Adelson et. al. buy into the fix, which is unlikely.

My guess is that the word got out too soon. The conservative base will figure out the fix and move to bring the demise of this baby before it leaves the crib, leaving chastened insiders to give speeches at next year's CPAC event wearing trench coats and gloves and saying: "don't blame me, the other guy did it".

View Comments

View the original article here

District Of Columbia Prohibits Insurance Companies From Discriminating Against Transgender People

Today, the DC Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking (DISB) issued a bulletin clarifying key protections for transgender people in the District of Columbia. The bulletin provides a clear directive to insurers that discrimination on the basis of gender identity or expression is not an acceptable business practice in Washington.

The bulletin prohibits insurance companies from some of the most egregious practices that have been used to lock transgender people out of health care coverage, including:

Denying, cancelling, limiting, or refusing to renew an insurance policy.Limiting insurance coverage on the basis of gender identity or expression.Denying coverage for a procedure that is provided for the treatment of other conditions of illness. For example, if a plan covers hormone therapy for some diagnoses, it cannot categorically exclude coverage for hormone therapy related to gender identity disorder or other transition-related diagnosis.

DC joins a growing number of states, municipalities, and employers who recognize that equal access to health coverage is supported by medical science, improves the health of transgender people, and does not significantly increase costs. Ending arbitrary insurance discrimination against transgender people simply supports what expert medical bodies have been saying for years: transition-related health care is medically necessary for many transgender individuals whose health and well-being depends on bringing their physical body into alignment with their gender identity, and determination of what care an individual patient needs properly rests with medical providers, not insurance companies.

Read the full bulletin and the joint announcement from the Mayor’s Office of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) Affairs and the Department of Insurance, Securities, and Banking.

View the original article here

Top Republican Governor Admits Conservatives Have Lost The Battle Against Marriage Equality

Republican Governor Scott Walker (WI) — a likely GOP candidate for president in 2016 — admitted on Sunday that young conservatives support marriage equality for gays and lesbians, suggesting that the Republican party cannot sustain its opposition to same-sex marriage into the future.

Responding to Sen. Rob Portman’s (R-OH) embrace of equal marriage rights during an appearance on Meet The Press, Walker said that the issue of marriage equality did not animate his governor’s race, but admitted to host David Gregory that the next generation of Republicans will expect the party to join the growing popular consensus in favor of full marriage rights and will not be interested in pursuing campaigns against gay people:

GREGORY: Are younger conservatives more apt to see marriage equality as something that is, you know, what they believe, that is basic rather than as a disqualifying issue?

WALKER: I think there’s no doubt about that. But I think that’s all the more reason, when I talk about things, I talk about the economic and fiscal crises in our state and in our country, that’s what people want to resonate about. They don’t want to get focused on those issues.

Walker also questioned why the government sanctions marriage in the first place, noting, “an alternative [would be] to say not have the government sanction it, period, and leave that up to the churches and the synagogues.”

New research released earlier this month found that “while 53 percent of eligible voters support marriage equality, 83 percent believe same-sex marriage will be legal nationwide within five to 10 years.” A majority of Republicans under the age of 30 also said that they “support marriage equality at the state level.”

View the original article here

GOP Senator Takes Credit For Anti-Rape Law He Voted Against

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)

Shortly after President Obama signed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) reauthorization into law, Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn (R-TX) released a glowing press release claiming that a “Cornyn bill” to “eliminate nationwide rape kit backlog” was signed into law. The so-called “Cornyn bill” is the SAFER Act, which was incorporated into the VAWA renewal, and which “provide[s] funding for state and local governments to conduct audits of untested DNA evidence and create[s] a national reporting system to help track and prioritize untested rape kits,” according to Cornyn. By all appearances, it seems like a wonderful law. There’s only one problem.

Cornyn voted against it.

Cornyn was one of 22 Senate Republican men who voted against the VAWA renewal. He opposed the bill because he objected to a provision enabling tribal courts to prosecute non-Native Americans who commit rape or other violent crimes against women on Indian reservations. This provision is intended to combat the virtual lawlessness that faces Native American women on these reservations without the VAWA renewal. A 2010 report by the Government Accountability Office found that federal prosecutors “declined to prosecute 46 percent of assault matters and 67 percent of sexual abuse and related matters” on reservations.

(HT: Steve Benen)

View the original article here

Afghan President Lodges Another Ridiculous Claim Against U.S. Troops

Afghan President Hamid Karzai

Afghan President Hamid Karzai, never one to mince words, on Sunday told the press that the United States and Taliban were each colluding to keep foreign troops in Afghanistan, albeit for different reasons.

Several explosions ripped through Afghanistan over the weekend during U.S. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel’s visit, killing 19 civilians and highlighting security concerns that continue apace ahead of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014.

According to Karzai, the attacks by the Taliban were meant to show that international forces will still be required after the 2014 deadline passes. Karzai chose a curious time to air his theory, putting it forward while delivering a speech on Afghan women:

“The explosions in Kabul and Khost yesterday showed that they are at the service of America and at the service of this phrase: 2014. They are trying to frighten us into thinking that if the foreigners are not in Afghanistan, we would be facing these sorts of incidents” he said.

Defense Department officials quickly cancelled a planned joint press conference after Karzai’s statements, denying the cancellation had anything to do with Karzai’s statements. The head of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) — the coalition headed by the U.S. in Afghanistan — strongly denounced the idea that the U.S. would work with the Taliban to keep U.S. forces in the country. “We have fought too hard over the past 12 years. We have shed too much blood over the past 12 years. We have done too much to help the Afghan Security Forces grow over the last 12 years to ever think that violence or instability would be to our advantage,” said Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford.

Karzai has a lengthy history of inflammatory statements, usually intended to provide himself some form of leverage when dealing with his Western counter-parts or bolster himself domestically. In 2010, Karzai threatened to join Taliban after coming under pressure to launch reforms in the Afghan government. Karzai also warned against the continuation of NATO airstrikes in 2011, saying that NATO risked becoming an occupying force, adding that “history shows what Afghans do with trespassers and with occupiers.”

Tensions between the U.S. and Afghans stretch beyond difficulties in relations with Karzai. Reports on Monday say an Afghan police officer opened fire killing two U.S. troops and three of his fellow officers. These “green on blue” attacks — in which Afghan allies turn on their Western counterparts — have proved to be an ongoing impediment to lasting trust between U.S. and Afghan forces. Gen. John Allen, then the U.S. commander in Afghanistan, told 60 Minutes that coalition troops were willing to sacrifice for the Afghan campaign, but unwilling to be murdered.

View the original article here

Remarks by the President and Vice President at Signing of the Violence Against Women Act

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

Interior Department
Washington, D.C.

2:16 P.M. EST

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  Thank you very much, Diane.  Thank you.  (Applause.) 

Some of you in the audience who are survivors know how much courage it takes to do what Diane did.  (Applause.)  Some people who don't know will say, well, she’s just recounting what happened.  But every single time you stand and recount what happened, it brings it all back.  It brings it all back like a very bad nightmare.  But your speaking out, Diane, and so many survivors like you are literally saving the lives of so many other women who, God willing, will be able to avoid the abuse that you had to put up with.

I want to thank all the advocates who are here today.  I got a chance to meet in my office with some of you a little bit earlier -- not only those on the stage who I, again, had a chance to meet with, but the many women out in the audience, as I look out and see some familiar faces like Pat Rouse and Ellie Smeal and Paulette Sullivan Moore from -- I’m being parochial -- Paulette Sullivan Moore from my home state, and so many others.  (Applause.) 

Those of you who have been around a while with me know that I quote my father all the time who literally would say, the greatest sin that could be committed, the cardinal sin of all sins was the abuse of power, and the ultimate abuse of power is for someone physically stronger and bigger to raise their hand and strike and beat someone else.  In most cases that tends to be a man striking a woman, or a man or woman striking a child.  That's the fundamental premise and the overarching reason why John Conyers and I and others started so many years ago to draft the legislation called the Violence Against Women Act.

It passed 19 years ago, and that's why we shortly thereafter instituted a hotline where women in distress could call for help. I remember, John, when we did that hotline, it was like, well, it will be useful, but I’m not so sure how much it will be used.  Well, the truth of the matter is it’s been used a lot and it’s saved a lot of lives.  Over 2 million women have had the courage -- the courage -- to try to get out of earshot of their abuser, escape from the prison of their own home, and pick up that phone and call to a line that you had no idea who on the other end was going to answer, and to say, I’m in trouble.  Can you help me?  Can you help me?

I love those men who would say when we started this about why don't they just leave.  Well, if they had one-third the courage that those women -- those 2 million women had who have picked up the phone and called, not knowing what to expect, it would be a whole lot better nation.

We’ve built a network of shelters that are immediately available to women in need because we found out that the vast majority of children who are homeless on the street -- Nancy knows and others -- were there because their mothers were abused. Imagine fleeing for your life with only the clothes on your back and your child in your arms.  The shelter was their only lifeline, and it’s worked.

We also have specialized law enforcement units with trained prosecutors, victim advocates, court personnel who understand the unique challenges of the access.  Because of all of you in the audience that are here today, we’ve been able to train judges and train intake officers, so when a frightened woman shows up at the family court and says to the intake officer, “I want to tell you” -- “Speak up, will you?”  “Well, I just -- my” -- and they turn around and walk away, because there’s only a very brief window, as all of you know, a very brief window, again, after a woman screws up the courage -- the courage -- to ask for help.

All these links in the chain have made a difference in the lives of women.  It’s one woman, one girl, one person at a time, one case at a time.  And you providers know that better than anyone. 

With all the law’s success, there are still too many women in this country who live in fear of violence, who are still prisoners in their own home; too many victims that we have to mourn.  We knew from the outset in 1994 that there was much more we could have done at the beginning if we were able to get the votes.  But we did what was necessary and important, but we knew more had to be done to reduce domestic violence, domestic violence homicides, to provide new tools, as was just spoken to, to protect Native American women, to address the perplexing rate of dating violence among young women, and so much more.

But because of the people on this stage and in this room, every time we reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act, we improved it.  Every single time, we’ve improved it.  (Applause.)

And we did this again.  First, we’ve given jurisdiction to tribal courts over those who abuse women on reservations regardless of whether or not they -- (applause.)  We’re providing more resources to the states so they can be trained as to how to collect evidence, acquire convictions, particularly in prosecutions for rape.  We’re going to increase the use of proven models to reduce domestic violence homicides. 

We’ve all focused on the tragic gun violence that has been in the news lately, but I want to point something out to you.  From 2009 to 2012, 40 percent of the mass shootings in America, other than the celebrated ones you’ve seen -- 40 percent where there’s four or more people who have been shot, the target has been a former intimate partner or a close family member. 

So they go into the office, just like that young man who -- or woman who stood in front of you when your husband came with a loaded pistol to shoot you.  Forty percent are a consequence of domestic violence. 

We created a strong -- strong -- anti-violence program.  Campuses will have more tools to educate students about sexual violence.  (Applause.) 

So when Congress passed this law that the President will sign today, they just didn’t renew what I consider a sacred commitment to protect our mothers, our daughters, our sisters.  They strengthened that commitment.  And I want to thank them.  I hope I don’t leave anybody out.  Starting off with my old buddy, Pat Leahy, who chairs the committee.  Pat, thank you very, very much.  (Applause.)  And Mike Crapo.  Mike, this wouldn’t have happened if you had not stepped up.  (Applause.)  Lisa Murkowski is not here.  But my friend who -- I don’t want to get her in trouble, but I know she really likes me because I like her a lot -- (laughter) -- Senator Collins.  Seriously, it was Republicans coming and standing up and saying this has to be done in the Senate.  So we owe you.  We owe you big.  (Applause.)

And by the way, if you ever want a partner to get anything important done, call Nancy Pelosi.  Call Nancy Pelosi.  (Applause.)  And Steny Hoyer, and Congresswoman Moore -- (applause -- and my old buddy -- I hope I’m not leaving anybody out here -- but my old buddy, John Conyers.  (Applause.)  I’m sure I’m leaving someone out, for which I apologize.

Look, we all know we have a lot more to do, but we’re going to continue to make progress.  And one of the reasons we’re going to continue to make progress is we’re going to have for at least three more years the President of the United States, my friend, Barack Obama.  (Applause.)

THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you.  (Applause.)  Thank you, everybody!  Please, everybody have a seat, have a seat. 

I want to thank all of you for being here.  I want to thank Secretary Salazar, my great friend, for letting us into the building.  (Laughter.)  Make sure, everybody, pick up their stray soda cans and stuff afterwards.  (Laughter.) 

I want to thank Attorney General Holder for joining us.  He’s doing a great job.  (Applause.) 

We usually host these bill signings over at the White House. But there were just too many of you -- (laughter) -- who helped to make this happen.  (Applause.)  And you all deserve to be a part of this moment.  I want to thank everybody on this stage.  Joe just mentioned the extraordinary work that each and every one of these leaders -- both advocates as well as legislators --

THE VICE PRESIDENT:  And I left out Congressman Tom Cole.

THE PRESIDENT:  Well, there you go.  Give Tom a big round of applause.  (Applause.)

But everybody on this stage worked extraordinarily hard.  Most of all, though, this is your day.  This is the day of the advocates; the day of the survivors.  This is your victory.

AUDIENCE MEMBER:  We love you, Mr. President!

THE PRESIDENT:  I love you back.  (Applause.) 

And this victory shows that when the American people make their voices heard, Washington listens.  (Applause.)  So I want to join Joe in thanking all the members of Congress from both parties who came together, got this bill across the finish line. 

I want to say a special thanks to Pat Leahy and Mike Crapo. (Applause.)  Thank you, guys, for your leadership.  (Applause.)  And I want to give much love to Gwen Moore, who worked so hard on this.  (Applause.) 

And I also want to take a minute before I begin to thank the Senators who, just a few hours ago, took another big step towards sensible gun safety reforms by advancing a federal gun trafficking bill.  That’s real progress.  (Applause.)  Now, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent legislation to the Senate floor that would crack down on folks who buy guns only to turn around and funnel them to dangerous criminals. 

It’s a bill named, in part, for Hadiya Pendleton, who was murdered in Chicago earlier this year.  You'll remember I told this story about how she had marched in the Inauguration Parade, and just a few weeks later had been gunned down about a mile away from my house. 

So I urge the Senate to give that bill a vote.  I urge the House to follow suit.  And I urge Congress to move on other areas that have support of the American people -- from requiring universal background checks to getting assault weapons off our streets -- because we need to stop the flow of illegal guns to criminals, and because Hadiya’s family and too many other families really do deserve a vote.  (Applause.)

Finally, I want to thank Joe Biden for being such an outstanding Vice President.  (Applause.)  That's right, you can stand for Joe.  Stand for Joe.  (Applause.)  Give it up for Joe Biden.  (Applause.)  Joe is a hardworking Vice President.

AUDIENCE:  Yes, he is! 

THE PRESIDENT:  And he told me when he agreed -- when I asked him to be Vice President, he said, well, I don't want to just be sitting around.  (Laughter.)  I said, I promise you I won't let you just sit around.  (Laughter.)  And he has not.  He has played a key role in forging the gun safety reforms that I talked about, largely by working closely with survivors of gun violence and their families.  He forged the Violence Against Women Act 20 years ago -- never forgetting who it was all about. (Applause.)  

So on behalf of everybody here and all the lives that you've had a positive impact and touched through the Violence Against Women Act -- the survivors who are alive today because of this law, the women who are no longer hiding in fear because of this law, the girls who are growing up aware of their right to be free from abuse because of this law -- (applause) -- on behalf of them and all their families, I want to thank Joe Biden for making this one of the causes of his career.  (Applause.) 

Now, as Joe said earlier, we’ve come a long way.  Back when Joe wrote this law, domestic abuse was too often seen as a private matter, best hidden behind closed doors.  Victims too often stayed silent or felt that they had to live in shame, that somehow they had done something wrong.  Even when they went to the hospital or the police station, too often they were sent back home without any real intervention or support.  They felt trapped, isolated.  And as a result, domestic violence too often ended in greater tragedy.

So one of the great legacies of this law is that it didn’t just change the rules; it changed our culture.  It empowered people to start speaking out.  It made it okay for us, as a society, to talk about domestic abuse.  It made it possible for us, as a country, to address the problem in a real and meaningful way.  And it made clear to victims that they were not alone -- that they always had a place to go and they always had people on their side.  

And today, because members of both parties worked together, we're able to renew that commitment.  Reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act is something I called for in my State of the Union address.  And when I see how quick it got done, I'm feeling -- (applause) -- makes me feel optimistic.  (Applause.)

Because of this bill, we’ll keep in place all the protections and services that Joe described, and, as he said, we’ll expand them to cover even more women.  Because this is a country where everybody should be able to pursue their own measure of happiness and live their lives free from fear, no matter who you are, no matter who you love.  (Applause.)  That's got to be our priority.  That’s what today is about.  (Applause.)

Today is about the millions of women -- the victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault -- who are out there right now looking for a lifeline, looking for support.  Because of this bill, they’ll continue to have access to all the services that Joe first helped establish 19 years ago:  the national hotline, network of shelters, protection orders that carry across state lines.  And because of this bill, we’re also expanding housing assistance so that no woman has to choose between a violent home and no home at all.  That’s what today is all about.  (Applause.) 
Today is about all the law enforcement officials -- like Police Chief Jim Johnson -- (applause) -- they’re the first to respond when a victim calls for help.  And because of this bill, we’re continuing all the training and support that’s proven so effective in bridging some gaps that were in actual enforcement of the law so that we can actually bring more offenders to justice.  And we’re giving our law enforcement better tools to investigate cases of rape, which remains a consistently underreported crime in our country.  Helping police officers deliver on the most important part of their job -- preventing harm and saving lives – that’s what today is all about.

Today is about women like Diane.  I’m so grateful Diane shared her story.  That takes great courage.  (Applause.)  And tragically, it is a common story. 

I know we’ve got tribal leaders here today, and I want to thank all of you for fighting so hard on behalf of your people -- (applause) -- to make this bill a reality.  (Applause.) 

Indian Country has some of the highest rates of domestic abuse in America.  And one of the reasons is that when Native American women are abused on tribal lands by an attacker who is not Native American, the attacker is immune from prosecution by tribal courts.  Well, as soon as I sign this bill that ends.  (Applause.)  That ends.  That ends.  (Applause.)

Tribal governments have an inherent right to protect their people, and all women deserve the right to live free from fear.  And that is what today is all about.  (Applause.)

Today is about all the Americans who face discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity when they seek help.  (Applause.) 

So I want to thank Sharon Stapel, who’s here -- where did she go?  There she is right there -- (applause) -- for the work she’s doing -- the great work she’s doing with the Anti-Violence Project.  But Sharon and all the other advocates who are focused on this community, they can’t do it alone.  And then now they won’t have to.  That’s what today is all about.  That's what today is all about.  (Applause.)
Today is about the women who come to Rosie Hidalgo looking for support -- (applause) -- immigrants who are victims of domestic abuse.  I mean, imagine the dilemma for so many -- if your immigration status is tied to a husband who beats you or abuses you, if you’re an undocumented immigrant, you may feel there’s too much to lose by coming forward.  The Violence Against Women Act already had protections so that victims could call the police without fear of deportation, and those protections saved lives.  And because we fought hard to keep them in place, they remain a lifeline for so many women.  That’s part of what today is all about.  (Applause.)

Today is about young women like Tye, who was brought into the sex trade by a neighbor when she was 12 years old.  Tye was rescued with the help of an organization led by trafficking survivors.  Today, she’s enrolled in college.  She’s working full-time to help at-risk girls stay out of the sex trade.  (Applause.)  Couldn’t be prouder of her.  So proud of her.  (Applause.)  So with this bill, we reauthorize the Trafficking Victims Protection Act to help more girls turn out like Tye.  That’s what today is all about.  (Applause.)

So today is about all the survivors, all the advocates who are standing on this stage.  But it’s also about the millions more they represent -- that you represent.  It’s about our commitment as a country to address this problem -- in every corner of America, every community, every town, every big city -- as long as it takes. 

And we’ve made incredible progress since 1994.  But we cannot let up -- not when domestic violence still kills three women a day.  Not when one in five women will be a victim of rape in their lifetime.  Not when one in three women is abused by a partner. 

So I promise you -- not just as your President, but as a son, and a husband, and a father -- I’m going to keep at this. I know Vice President Biden is going to keep at it.  My administration is going to keep at it for as long as it takes. 

And I know that all the advocates up here, all the legislators -- Republican and Democrat -- who supported this, I know they could not be prouder of the work that they’ve done together.  And I think I speak for all of them when we say we could not have done it without you. 

So with that, let me sign this bill.  (Applause.)

(The bill is signed.)

END
2:40 P.M. EST

In his weekly address, President Obama says that businesses have created jobs every month for three years straight – nearly 6.4 million altogether, and have added 246,000 new jobs in February. We must keep this momentum going, and that’s why the President recently met with Republican leaders to discuss how we can replace the harmful, arbitrary budget cuts, called the “sequester,” with balanced deficit reduction.

Mrs. Obama and Sec. Kerry celebrate International Women's Day by honoring nine extraordinary women.

President Obama has made promoting gender equality and advancing the status of women and girls central to our foreign policy and national security strategy, including by leading by example at home.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here

India rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case

CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board dismissed on Monday Bayer AG's petition against a government decision to allow a domestic company to sell cheap copycat versions of cancer drug Nexavar, delivering a blow to global drugmakers' monopolies on high-priced medicines.

Last year, the Indian patents office, under a mechanism called "compulsory licence", allowed Natco Pharma to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.

Bayer challenged this decision with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.

Although dismissing the petition, the board did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.

($1 = 54.90 rupees)

(Reporting by Anupama Chandrasekaran; Editing by Alex Richardson)

((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: INDIA BAYER/

View the original article here

Statement by Vice President Biden on the House Passage of the Violence Against Women Act

Statement by Vice President Biden on the House Passage of the Violence Against Women Act | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class A Plan for Refinancing Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Immigration Reform Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Rural Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Women Violence Prevention Now Is The Time

To do something about gun violence

Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet 2010 Video Reports White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Vice President

For Immediate Release February 28, 2013 Statement by Vice President Biden on the House Passage of the Violence Against Women Act

Today Congress put politics aside and voted to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act. Eighteen years ago, I envisioned a world where women could live free from violence and abuse.  Since VAWA first passed in 1994, we have seen a 64% reduction in domestic violence.  I am pleased that this progress will continue, with new tools for cops and prosecutors to hold abusers and rapists accountable, and more support for all victims of these crimes. 

The urgent need for this bill cannot be more obvious.  Consider just one fact—that 40% of all mass shootings started with the murderer targeting their girlfriend, or their wife, or their ex-wife. Among many other important provisions, the new VAWA will increase the use of proven models of reducing domestic violence homicides. 

This morning I met with several parents whose beautiful young daughters were killed by abusive boyfriends. Nothing puts this legislation in to perspective more than their stories. This issue should be beyond politics—and I want to thank the leaders from both parties—Patrick Leahy, Mike Crapo, Nancy Pelosi, Steny Hoyer and Gwen Moore—and the bipartisan majorities in both the House and the Senate who have made that clear once again.

 

Blog posts on this issue March 04, 2013 6:52 PM ESTHanging Out with First Lady Michelle Obama

Mrs. Obama joins a virtual conversation about Let’s Move!, her initiative to ensure our nation’s kids grow up healthy and reach their full potential.

March 04, 2013 3:52 PM ESTFulfilling our Commitment to Open Government: We Hear You

The Open Government Partnership publishes the text of the President's directive extending whistleblower protections to the intelligence and national security communities, as requested by the community.

March 04, 2013 3:01 PM ESTU.S. Department of Labor Celebrates 100 Years of Helping American Workers

The Department of Labor celebrates its centennial anniversary and looks forward to continuing its important work on behalf on America's workers.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Taxes Rural Urban Policy Veterans Technology Seniors & Social Security Service Snapshots Women Violence Prevention The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

UPDATE 1-India board rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case

* Bayer's appeal against licence for generic Nexavar dismissed

* Royalty payment to Bayer raised to 7 pct on Nexavar sales * Natco Pharma fined for presenting incorrect data

(Adds details, background, quotes)

By Anupama Chandrasekaran

CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board upheld on Monday a decision to allow a domestic company to sell a generic version of Bayer AG's cancer drug Nexavar, in a blow for global drugmakers' efforts to hold on to monopolies on high-price medicines.

The ruling paves the way for the issue of more so-called compulsory licences as governments, particularly in emerging markets such as China and Thailand, battle to bring down healthcare costs and provide access to affordable drugs to treat diseases such as cancer, HIV-AIDS and hepatitis.

Bayer, Germany's largest drugmaker, said it would continue to fight to overturn the decision, which it said weakened the international patent system and endangered pharmaceutical research.

Under a global Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement, countries can issue compulsory licences on certain drugs that are deemed unaffordable to a large section of their populations.

India's $13 billion drug market is seen by drugmakers as a huge opportunity, but there are concerns about the level of protection for intellectual property in the country -- where generic medicines account for more than 90 percent of drug sales -- after a series of judicial setbacks for "big pharma".

COMPULSORY LICENCE CHALLENGED

Last year, the Indian patents office allowed Natco Pharma

to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.

Bayer challenged this decision to grant Natco a compulsory licence at the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.

On Monday the board dismissed the petition, although it did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.

Also, the board fined Natco Pharma 50,000 rupees for presenting incorrect facts during the legal proceedings. The amount would be donated to a cancer treatment hospital, the board ordered.

Announcing the decision, Justice Prabha Sridevan said the kidney and liver cancer drug should be available at an affordable price to everybody.

Bayer said in a statement it "strongly disagreed" with the conclusions of the board, adding that it would seek to challenge it at the High Court in Mumbai.

"The challenges faced by the Indian healthcare system have little or nothing to do with patents on pharmaceutical products as all products on India's essential drug list are not patented," the company said.

Natco Pharma Company Secretary M. Adinarayana told reporters the board had delivered a "reasoned, detailed" decision that could be "sustained in any court of law".

LEGAL SETBACKS

In a separate case, Bayer has accused another Indian drugmaker, Cipla , of infringing its patent on Nexavar. Cipla had launched its generic version of Nexavar before Natco won the compulsory licence.

Cipla undercut Natco's price in May last year and now sells the drug at 6,840 rupees for a month's dose.

Among other setbacks for Western drug companies, India has revoked patents granted to Pfizer Inc's cancer drug Sutent, Roche Holding AG's hepatitis C drug Pegasys and Merck & Co's asthma treatment aerosol suspension formulation.

Another case involving drug patents is currently in front of the Supreme Court, with Novartis battling against an earlier decision refusing it a patent on cancer drug Glivec.

New Delhi has also taken other measures, such as controlling the prices of generic medicines and providing free medicines at government-run hospitals that cater to the country's poor.

Last week a government panel recommended a formula to curb prices of patented drugs to make them affordable for the world's second-most populous country.

($1 = 54.90 rupees)

(Additional reporting and writing by Kaustubh Kulkarni in MUMBAI; Editing by Alex Richardson)

((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: INDIA BAYER/

View the original article here

India rules against Bayer in cancer drug patent case

CHENNAI, March 4 (Reuters) - An Indian patent appeals board dismissed on Monday Bayer AG's petition against a government decision to allow a domestic company to sell cheap copycat versions of cancer drug Nexavar, delivering a blow to global drugmakers' monopolies on high-priced medicines.

Last year, the Indian patents office, under a mechanism called "compulsory licence", allowed Natco Pharma to sell generic Nexavar at 8,800 rupees ($160) for a month's dose -- a fraction of Bayer's price of 280,000 rupees.

Bayer challenged this decision with the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the southern city of Chennai.

Although dismissing the petition, the board did order Natco Pharma to pay a royalty of 7 percent on sales of generic Nexavar to Bayer, an increase from the 6 percent royalty that had earlier been set.

($1 = 54.90 rupees)

(Reporting by Anupama Chandrasekaran; Editing by Alex Richardson)

((kaustubh.kulkarni@thomsonreuters.com)(+91 22 61807399)(Reuters Messaging: kaustubh.kulkarni.thomsonreuters.com@reuters.net))

Keywords: INDIA BAYER/

View the original article here