POLLS: Reuters And CNN Confirm Momentum For Marriage Equality

Earlier this week, an ABC News/Washington Post poll found one of the highest levels of support for marriage equality, with 58 percent of voters endorsing same-sex marriage. Two more polls this week have found similar — though not quite as high — results.

A CNN/ORC International poll found that 53 percent support same-sex marriage with 44 percent opposed, a slight dip from last May’s 54-42 result in the wake of President Obama’s endorsement. As other polls have found, young people (71 percent for those 18-34), women (56 percent vs. 49 percent of men), and those who attended college (59 percent vs. 44 percent of those who didn’t) are more likely to support equality. Both Democrats (70 percent) and Independents (55 percent) side with equality more than average.

Similarly, a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted between January 1 and March 14 found similar results, though it fell into the trap of asking about civil unions without forcing respondents to choose between same-sex marriage and nothing. As a result, it found 63 percent support marriage or civil unions, with 41 percent favoring full marriage equality. Only a quarter of respondents opposed any form of relationship recognition, though opposition was stronger in regions like the South and lowest in the Northeast. The poll does note that support for marriage is surpassing support for civil unions.

Whatever arguments the Supreme Court considers next week, any claim the opponents of marriage equality make about having a majority of Americans on their side would be an outright lie.

View the original article here

REUTERS SUMMIT-EU's Almunia sees more antitrust cases against drugmakers

BRUSSELS, Feb 26 (Reuters) - European Union regulators are investigating a number of drugmakers it suspects of preventing cheaper generic medicines reaching the market, in addition to four ongoing cases, the EU's competition chief said on Tuesday.

Antitrust regulators on both sides of the Atlantic oppose "pay-for-delay" deals where brand-name companies pay manufacturers of generic rivals to keep their medicines off the market. It can mean consumers ultimately paying more.

The European Commission, which acts as competition regulator in the 27-member EU, says such methods violate its rules against restrictive business practices and to prevent companies abusing their market power against competitors.

The EU executive, which has formally accused more than a dozen drugmakers over such practices as part of its four ongoing investigations, has identified more cases, Joaquin Almunia, the commission in charge, said.

"We have still some others in the pipeline," Almunia told the Reuters Euro Zone Summit.

"On the one hand, we need to create a framework to protect those who innovate and those who are owners of patents. Given the life of patents is not (unlimited), once the drug is transformed into generics, all citizens should have the right to benefit from lower prices," he said.

He did not identify the companies involved in the new cases.

Almunia said he was on the way to wrapping up investigations into French drugmaker Servier and Denmark's Lundbeck.

"We are now well advanced, in particular in two cases, Servier and Lundbeck. In the coming months, hearings of these two cases will take place. After the hearings, we will advance towards the end of these antitrust investigations," he said.

Lundbeck has denied any anti-competitive behaviour and maintains it has acted within EU rules. Servier too says it has not broken European regulations.

Lundbeck is scheduled to defend its case before the Commission and national competition regulators at a closed-door hearing on March 14-15.

The Commission launched its fight against pay-for-delay deals after a high-profile inquiry into the sector in 2009 found consumers were paying 20 percent more for their medicine because of such agreements.

Companies found in breach of EU antitrust rules can be fined of up to 10 percent of their global revenues.

(For other news from Reuters Euro Zone summit, click on http://www.reuters.com/summit/Eurozone13)

(Reporting by Foo Yun Chee; editing by Rex Merrifield/Jeremy Gaunt)

View the original article here

Is This A Subtle Bias At Reuters?

In a story about the White House in damage control mode over the President’s rather stupid remarks on the Supreme Court, Reuters reports the following:

“What he did was make an unremarkable observation about 80 years of Supreme Court history,” Carney told reporters during a White House briefing dominated by the topic.

and

The president, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago, qualified the remark a day later by stressing he meant action by the Court on a matter of commerce, a legal distinction that cut little ice with his critics.

and

“Since the 1930s the Supreme Court has without exception deferred to Congress when it comes to Congress’s authority to pass legislation to regulate matters of national economic importance such as health care, 80 years,” Carney said.

What Reuters did not bother to report is that, in fact, the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional a piece of legislation that passed with a bipartisan majority via the commerce clause just 17 years ago.

In referencing Carney’s spin twice and the President’s explanation, would it not have been worthwhile for the news organization to actually point out the undisputed fact that both Barack Obama and Jay Carney are wrong?

Heck, even NBC took time away from doctoring 911 tapes to point out that fact. You would think Reuters would actually, after three times broadcasting the White House spin, simply report an actual fact in contradiction to the spin.

View the original article here