Informative Health Articles And News: government's

government's etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

13 Eylül 2016 Salı

Campaigners criticise UK government’s response to air pollution warning

Campaigners have attacked the government for rejecting calls by MPs for greater action on air pollution, as severe pollution episodes were predicted for parts of the UK this week.

MPs warned in April that dangerously high pollution in British cities was a “public health emergency”, and told ministers to take further measures, including more clean air zones and a diesel scrappage scheme.

In its formal response on Tuesday, officials claimed that the government was already spending heavily on cleaner transport and that it plans to consult on a framework for clean air zones later this year.

“We will introduce new, tougher targets which will drive down air pollution from all sources, reducing transboundary pollution and significantly reducing the number of premature deaths across the EU caused by poor air quality,” said the response.

The MPs had wanted all cities to be able to charge polluting vehicles instead of just the five which government is planning to allow. But officials responded: “Local authorities can take action as and when necessary to improve air quality and we encourage them to do so.”

“[The government] has established the UK as a global leader in ultra low-emission vehicles. We are one of the largest and fastest growing markets in Europe and last year around one in five battery electric cars sold in the UK was built in the UK”.

It also flatly rejected the idea of a diesel scrappage scheme: “We have considered the use of scrappage schemes … and have concluded that this may not be an appropriate and proportionate response.”

The publication came as the environment department warned of “very high” air pollution – the worst on the scale – in and around Hull on Wednesday, and “high” pollution across much of northern England. The health advice for very high episodes is for the entire population to reduce physical exercise outdoors, and for asthma sufferers and other vulnerable groups to avoid any exertion.

Health and environment groups reacted angrily to the government response, saying plans to reduce UK pollution were “inadequate” and “in disarray”.

“Despite the mounting evidence of the dangers people face having to breathe our illegally dirty air, the government is refusing to take the bold action needed to cut the 40,000 early deaths from air pollution each year in the UK,” said a spokeswoman for Friends of the Earth.

Bridget Fox, transport campaigner at Campaign for Better Transport, said: “It’s clear that the government’s rhetoric on tackling lethal and illegal levels of air pollution is still not matched by action.”

In mid-October, judges at the high court will consider a legal challenge against the government’s pollution action plan by the environmental law firm, ClientEarth, which last year won a victory in the supreme court against the government on its failure to meet EU air quality limits.

But David Cameron’s former energy and environment adviser said continuing legal action was unhelpful. In an article on the Green Alliance thinktank’s blog, Stephen Heidari-Robinson said that: “[court action] focuses on compliance with EU standards for just one pollutant, rather than addressing the problem holistically to save lives”.

“Worse, it encourages the belief that Brexit can simply sweep away the problem (it can’t). Second, it sets up a zero sum game – ban cars, save lives – when, to solve the problem with the consent of the population, we need to improve air quality and maintain mobility. And, third, it scares the hell out of officials who might end up in court and diverts their attention towards feeding the legal document monster.”

In a statement ClientEarth chief executive, James Thornton, said court action was a last, but necessary, resort. “It is necessary … particularly when tens of thousands of lives are at risk because an intransigent government persistently fails to comply with the law, which is where we find ourselves on air pollution in the UK.

“What sort of democracy would we be living in if we as citizens have to comply with the laws put in place by government, but ministers can ignore them when they feel like it? Many autocrats enjoy such an ability to ignore the law. But since Magna Carta, we have committed to live under the rule of law, government and citizen alike.”

Campaigners criticise UK government’s response to air pollution warning

20 Ağustos 2016 Cumartesi

The Observer view on the government’s childhood obesity strategy | Observer editorial

While the nation was enveloped in Olympics fever last week, celebrating the success of British athletes at the peak of physical perfection, the government published its long-awaited childhood obesity strategy. It was a disgrace, so thin on action it barely deserves to be labelled a strategy. It will condemn too many British children to a lifetime of health problems and a premature death.

One in three children leaves primary school overweight or obese, putting them at significantly greater risk of developing cardiovascular disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes later in life. Simon Stevens, the chief executive of the NHS, has described obesity as “the new smoking”; the health secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has labelled childhood obesity a “national emergency”; and the government’s chief medical officer, Sally Davies, has called on the government to include obesity alongside terrorism in its national risk planning. This is far from hyperbole: poor diet is the nation’s biggest premature killer, ahead of smoking and drinking, and costs the NHS around £6bn a year.

Last year, the government promised a “draconian” approach to tackling childhood obesity. Yet there were really only two significant measures in the watered-down plan. First, a sugar levy on soft drinks, already announced under David Cameron, which would have been very difficult for Theresa May to renege upon. While a positive step, this is unlikely to achieve anything like the progress needed without being part of a broader package of measures to cut children’s sugar and fat intakes. It is also likely to be tied up for years in the courts as it is subject to challenge by soft drinks manufacturers, if it is ever implemented at all. Second, the strategy set out measures to promote physical exercise, which, while uncontroversial, cannot alone counteract the impact of unhealthy diets.

The food industry is notorious for using friendly cartoon characters and online games to market directly at children

Just as telling is what’s missing. A year ago, Public Health England reviewed the evidence about what works in reducing obesity. It called for far-reaching measures: to reduce junk-food advertising directed at children, to limit the number of supermarket promotions on unhealthy foods, and to force manufacturers to gradually reduce the sugar content of high-sugar foods. None features in the government’s strategy: it simply sets out a voluntary approach to asking manufacturers to reduce sugar levels over time. This is the same approach adopted by former health secretary Andrew Lansley in his 2011 “responsibility deal”, which left it up to the food and drinks industry to voluntarily change its approach. Yet studies have shown it failed to work.

This is hardly surprising. There is a race to the bottom at work in our food industry. Packing foods with addictively delicious – and cheap – fat, salt and sugar is one of the fastest ways to a healthy profit. Once the worst offenders go down this road, conditioning our palates to crave more of the unhealthy in a way that puts paid to the idea of free consumer choice, others follow. There’s little point to one manufacturer taking action; consumers will simply switch away from their products. This is why enlightened members of the industry are pushing for a compulsory approach to reducing sugar and fat contents: they want to take action, but need a level playing field.

The food industry is notorious for using friendly cartoon characters and online games to market directly at children, pushing them to pressure parents into buying fat- and sugar-laden foods. It is known for misleadingly passing off products, such as breakfast drinks that contain more sugar than a can of cola, as healthy. There are parallels with the 1950s tobacco industry, which offered guarantees its products were safe that companies knew they could not make stand up.

Except this is even worse – this time, the target is young children. And food manufacturers are winning; children consume, on average, three times the maximum recommended amount of sugar. Tooth decay is the most common reason for children aged between five and nine to be admitted to hospital.

Obesity may be a national crisis, but it is a crisis we know how to address. The tragedy is that, prior to 2010, the UK was a world leader in nutrition policy. The previous Labour government devolved responsibility to the independent Food Standards Agency, insulating nutrition policy from heavy industry lobbying. The FSA led the way on the reformulation of food products, brokering industry-wide deals to get the industry to reduce salt contents. As a result, Britain was the first country in the world to successfully reduce salt intakes. It is an approach that has been copied around the world; countries such as South Africa, Chile and Argentina have applied it not just to salt, but sugar and fat, with great success.

Related: Theresa May’s climbdown on obesity is her first big mistake | Jackie Ashley

In 2010, the coalition government rubbished this approach. In response to industry lobbying, nutrition policy was restored to the Department of Health, with disastrous effect. Policy again became vulnerable to the powerful food and drinks lobby that, like the once-mighty tobacco industry formerly did, spends vast sums on influencing ministers and MPs. Companies that make billions from selling unhealthy food argue that if the government increases regulation of the industry, there will be a heavy price to pay in terms of job losses and economic output.

These arguments are easily demolished. The global bank Credit Suisse, hardly a bastion of anti-business sentiment, published a report calling for a sugar tax in 2013 and argued that it would have positive impacts on the economy in the long run. The only companies that greater regulation hurts are those that seek to make their money from pushing sugar. But what kind of society puts their economic interests over and above the health of our children?

When Theresa May stood on the steps of Downing Street last month, she pledged to the British public: “When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but of you.” Yet her government’s anti-obesity strategy echoes the costly vulnerability of governments around the world to big tobacco lobbying in the 1960s and 70s.

Damningly, it could not do more to promote the interests of the powerful at the expense of the health of our children. And it bodes terribly for other sectors of the economy in which regulation is needed to ensure decent businesses flourish and the cowboys don’t win out. Just five weeks into May’s premiership, capitalism has never looked less responsible.

• Comments will be opened later today

The Observer view on the government’s childhood obesity strategy | Observer editorial

Will the government"s new childhood obesity strategy work?

Related: Childhood obesity: UK’s ‘inexcusable’ strategy is wasted opportunity, say experts

There has been a lot of criticism of the government’s new childhood obesity strategy for being “watered down”. What was it originally going to look like?

The government promised a strategy that would take “draconian” action, in the words of health secretary Jeremy Hunt last October, to tackle the very serious obesity epidemic in children. One third of children are overweight or obese by the time they reach 11 years of age. Obesity can lead to major health problems in later life, including heart disease, cancer and diabetes, and costs the NHS more than £4bn every year. NHS boss Simon Stevens has said obesity is going to bankrupt the service.

David Cameron made childhood obesity a flagship issue for his second term, putting officials in No 10 in charge, rather than the department of health. Public Health England (PHE) was asked to investigate the evidence and recommend a series of interventions. Top of the list were hitting supermarket promotions of junk food via multibuys and “bogof” (buy one get one free) offers, and curbs on TV ad for foods high in fat, salt and sugar before 9pm, which would affect family shows such as Britain’s Got Talent and the X-Factor. PHE also backed cutting the sugar and fat content of foods. It supported a tax on sugar-sweetened drinks, but said it would be less effective.

So what did we get?

Instead of this comprehensive strategy, the brief document published this week focused on just two things – reducing sugar consumption and increasing physical activity. There is not a word on advertising or price promotion. And instead of something “draconian”, the focus is on voluntary action, apart from the sugar tax, which had already been announced.

Industry is being asked to reduce the sugar content of foods that children enjoy by 20% by 2020. That is how the Cameron government’s earlier obesity initiative, the Public Health Responsibility Deal, worked. This was a voluntary agreement with food and drink companies to reformulate their foods, reduce portion sizes and so on, but not all companies joined in, and critics say it achieved little.

The British Retail Consortium, representing supermarkets and other outlets, wanted the strategy to make the cuts in sugar mandatory, citing the responsibility deal pledge on cutting salt, which some companies complied with while others did not. But the government has gone firmly down the voluntary road again. The sugar cuts will initially be made in children’s breakfast cereals, yoghurts, biscuits, cakes, confectionery, morning goods (such as pastries), puddings, ice cream and sweet spreads. That does nothing to address the issue of “hidden sugars” in ketchup, pasta sauces, baked beans and all sorts of ready meals, although the document says work will begin later on other foodstuffs.

At the heart of the strategy is the sugar tax, which had already been announced by George Osborne in March. That is only on soft drinks and does not come in for two years. If manufacturers lower the amount of sugar in their drinks, they will escape the tax.

What about fat in the diet?

There is nothing about fat in the strategy – it is all about sugar. But Sara Petersson, of data analysts Euromonitor, says: “It is becoming abundantly clear that replacing a critical ingredient of a product, or single nutrient in a diet, is neither an easy process for food companies nor a successful obesity strategy from a public health point of view.” She adds that “similarly to sugar, fat intake is also higher in diets of countries with higher overweight and obesity rates”. And she points out that replacing sugar with “natural” sweeteners such as honey or coconut sugar will make no difference, because they are just as high in calories.

But surely the measures to get children off the couch and more active will work?

There’s no doubt that children would benefit from more physical activity in all sorts of ways. It is good for mind and body. But it’s no cure for obesity. To burn off a Big Mac cheeseburger, fries and cola, an adult would need to walk for six hours, it has been calculated. All the evidence shows that exercise can help you maintain your weight – but not lose it.

Related: Childhood obesity strategy: not even an E for effort

And there is a question mark over whether children will actually end up running about more. Schools are to be asked to give them 30 minutes’ more physical activity each day. Parents and carers are to be requested to ensure children do a further 30 minutes every day. That will be a big ask for some families.

For a flagship government strategy, did it get the big push you would expect?

Far from it. Instead of a prime-ministerial launch, it was slipped out in mid-August just before the A-level results by the department of health, while Theresa May was on holiday in the Swiss Alps. It would appear that obesity is not the priority it was for David Cameron.

Will the government"s new childhood obesity strategy work?

23 Haziran 2014 Pazartesi

The PIP chaos reveals the government"s contempt for disabled people | Sharon Brennan

Last yr, when I was waiting for a double lung transplant, my existence felt terrifyingly unpredictable. My lungs were failing, and it was challenging to cope emotionally, but a single factor that created factors slightly less difficult was the fast approach to secure disability residing allowance (DLA). This allowed me to make immediate decisions about getting carers to assist at home, getting the heating on far more, and taking taxis to appointments. It made a extremely hard time that tiny bit a lot more bearable.

Evaluate my encounter to that of Malcolm Graham, a 56-12 months-old from Romford. He was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer in September 2013 and applied for private independence payments (PIPs) on advice from Macmillan Cancer help and his nearby Citizens Suggestions. Pips are changing DLA and are supposed to assist individuals, regardless of whether in or out of work, to meet the added fees their disability triggers.

Graham says he has called the suitable department almost every single day in the eight months considering that he applied, and is nevertheless awaiting a last choice. Throughout that period he has endured 10 weeks of chemotherapy and a 10-hour operation in which big portions of his stomach and oesophagus were removed. He has had to rely on family and friends for monetary help, but is now in arrears on his electricity payments and has lately been visited by a debt recovery firm. With out the PIP mobility help he has utilized for, he is struggling to get out and about and says the wait has manufactured him feel ineffective and worthless. Following working for a lot more than 40 many years, he can not understand why the help he wants has been so far unattainable.

Graham is not alone in his wait for a selection. Last week, the public accounts committee report on the disastrous implementation of PIP however once more showed the cold-hearted contempt of the Division for Work and Pensions towards disabled folks. This has permitted us to be treated like guinea pigs, with an unwell-regarded and poorly trialed policy unleashed with tiny concern for the consequences.

PIPs had been at first trialed in the north of England in April 2013 just before currently being rolled out nationally just two months later on. In a very vital report on PIPs, published in February 2014, the Nationwide Audit Office mentioned this rush to implementation meant the DWP “did not allow ample time to test whether or not the assessment procedure could deal with big numbers of claims. As a result of this poor early operational efficiency, claimants face long and uncertain delays.”

By October 2013 only sixteen% of expected PIP choices had been created, partly because assessments by Atos and Capita, the private companies contracted by the government to approach these claims, have been only in a position to meet the anticipated 30 working-day turnaround of applications in 55% and 67% of situations respectively. The DWP had projected that 25% of assessments would avoid encounter-to-face consultations and be carried out solely on paper in actuality this figure is three%.

What is the result of this departmental failure? Terminally unwell folks, defined as those with less than 6 months to dwell, have waited for up to a month – 180% longer than expected – for a response as to regardless of whether they are entitled to government support in the final months of their lives. Beneath DLA the wait was 7 days. Ministers disingenuously protest that PIPs are a various benefit to DLA, when in fact the concepts for giving help to the terminally ill are the identical. What kind of government would make advantage changes that make terminally unwell people’s lives that bit harder anyway?

Mike Penning, minister for disabled individuals, protests that these delays have now been diminished to ten days, but there is no reply for those who are entitled to help but are not terminally ill. Last week’s report states that as a end result of delays of up to six months (despite the fact that charities have found that many candidates wait far longer), “some claimants have been forced to turn to meals banks, loans and charitable donations” although they wait for the rewards they are entitled to.

The DWP is lurching from 1 crisis to an additional, with genuine folks suffering genuine discomfort as a end result. David Cameron needs to urgently get to grips with what is taking place inside of that division. That procedure must start off these days, with a demand to Iain Duncan Smith that he publicly accepts accountability for the struggling that Graham, and the thousands of others like him, have gone through due to his department’s incompetence. Graham says he will get choked up just pondering about his predicament. He demands a determination – and an apology.

The PIP chaos reveals the government"s contempt for disabled people | Sharon Brennan

19 Haziran 2014 Perşembe

US Government"s marijuana farm grows for researchers

It may possibly be legal to get marijuana in 22 states, but increasing pot is nevertheless against federal law.

And however, the US government grows some of the purest pot in the nation, spending virtually a million dollars a yr on a contract with the University of Mississippi to expand cannabis and manufacture marijuana cigarettes.

The UMiss farm is presently the only source in the US for legal marijuana for researchers, and the government at the moment offers it away to researchers who get all the right approvals.

US Government"s marijuana farm grows for researchers

It may be legal to get marijuana in 22 states, but growing pot is nonetheless against federal law.

And nevertheless, the US government grows some of the purest pot in the country, paying almost a million bucks a year on a contract with the University of Mississippi to expand cannabis and manufacture marijuana cigarettes.

The UMiss farm is at present the only supply in the US for legal marijuana for researchers, and the government at the moment offers it away to researchers who get all the correct approvals.

US Government"s marijuana farm grows for researchers

It may possibly be legal to acquire marijuana in 22 states, but increasing pot is still towards federal law.

And nevertheless, the US government grows some of the purest pot in the country, spending virtually a million dollars a year on a contract with the University of Mississippi to develop cannabis and manufacture marijuana cigarettes.

The UMiss farm is currently the only supply in the US for legal marijuana for researchers, and the government at the moment gives it away to researchers who get all the appropriate approvals.

US Government"s marijuana farm grows for researchers

3 Mart 2014 Pazartesi

Grim toll of the government"s match-for-function exams | @guardianletters

Anti-Atos protest, Manchester, 19 February 2014. Photograph: Steven Purcell/Demotix/Corbis

I read with increasing queasiness the story of Mark Wood, an employment and support allowance (ESA) claimant with mental health problems, whose death by starvation was largely attributable to the Atos assessment of his being fit for work and the subsequent stopping of his sickness benefits (Vulnerable man starved to death after cut to benefits, 1 March).

Years after the Holocaust, ordinary German citizens were called upon by the younger generation to justify themselves: Surely you knew what was going on? Why didn’t you put a stop to it?

I hope I may crave an indulgence to use your paper to put on public record that I was one of those opposed to this government’s policy of abscission against the vulnerable. I submitted to the Harrington reviews on ESA and its assessment processes. I inveighed against the callous manipulation of public attitudes against claimants by the popular press that has driven many people to turn a blind eye to the real agenda. And it is in vain that I now look towards other political parties to protect the weak, when they so obviously realise that the propaganda battle has been lost.

The benefits system has failed those that have most needed help for decades, but it has not until now sought to eradicate them entirely.
Simon Wagener
Wallasey, Merseyside

• Your article quotes a DWP spokesman stating: “A decision on whether someone is well enough to work is taken following a thorough assessment and after consideration of all the supporting medical evidence from the claimant’s GP or medical specialist”. But the DWP does not itself request medical documentation, and it is up to the ESA claimants to produce it. Reasons for claimants not doing this include them assuming the DWP has requested medical records, claimants not realising the importance of such records, and disability such as depression or psychosis resulting in default.

Assessors rely on claimants to say what their medical illnesses are, but claimants sometimes give the wrong diagnoses and often don’t understand the complexity of their illnesses. Although Atos assessors fill in a “medical report form”, Atos nurses and physiotherapists far outnumber medical practitioners. Even when hospital records are obtained, the nurse/physiotherapist may not understand important details eg that an eGFR of 17 means that renal function is severely impaired. Without medical records, the Atos medical practitioner assessors also make decisions having woefully inadequate information. On appeal to first-tier tribunals, a significant proportion of sessions are adjourned to get medical evidence covering several years. A “thorough assessment” it is habitually not.
Morris Bernadt
London

• Following the death of Mark Wood, who starved to death after his benefits were withdrawn, it is surely time for a citizen’s arrest campaign targeting Iain Duncan Smith. The death of Mr Wood, who was disabled, follows the call for a woman in a coma to attend job training, and cuts to benefits after letters were sent to a blind man that he could not read. The responsibility for these appalling infringements of basic human rights lies squarely with the minister who designed and implemented the system. Could legal experts please advise on the case for charging him with manslaughter? I would be happy to place a hand on his shoulder.
Nicola Grove
Horningsham, Wiltshire

• Our twin 41-year-old sons, who have learning difficulties, epilepsy and other problems, have just been informed that they will have to reapply for their welfare benefits through a process conducted on behalf of the coalition government by the French-owned private company Atos.

Dr Giles Youngs, who wrote a letter to the Guardian (19 February) about his recent resignation as a medical assessor for Atos, in which he referred to “unrealistic criteria, set by the DWP, for a claimant being awarded employment and support allowance”, is absolutely right in expressing his concerns that people with disabilities are unlikely to be given even a job interview, never mind a job. Despite the Disability Discrimination Act, discrimination still continues, eg in February 1999 we arranged for one of our sons to meet the North Wales personnel manager of the Benefits Agency, requesting that he give our son work experience in its Wrexham office. At the interview the manager said that although they had given work experience to physically disabled people, they had never done so for a person with a learning disability. We heard no more from him.

What confidence, if any, should all disability welfare claimants now have of the work capability assessment in light of Dr Youngs’ revealing and damning indictment of both Atos and the DWP?
Ken and Mary Mack
(72-year-old unpaid carers), Wrexham

• We are beginning to see the results of several years of campaigning against unjust welfare reforms that target disabled people. But Atos attempting to pull out of its contract (Report, 22 February) represents only a partial victory. Other private corporations are already lining up to take over. So long as the work capability assessment (WCA) regime continues, so will the misery it causes to disabled people and their families, and to the workers involved in implementing a system they don’t agree with.

The WCA should be replaced immediately with a rigorous and safe system that does not cause avoidable harm to disabled people or those with chronic health issues or terminal illnesses. The UK government and opposition should follow the Scottish government’s pledge that private for-profit companies are removed entirely from having anything to do with the assessment of disabled people. This area of public policy belongs firmly within the NHS and the public sector.

The PIP contract must be removed from Atos with immediate effect: targets in its handling of the WCA have affected thousands of disabled people, leading to hastened deaths, waits of up to a year, and leaving people without income or food.
Linda Burnip Co-founder, Disabled People Against Cuts
Tracey Lazard CEO, Inclusion London
John McArdle Co-founder, Black Triangle
Mark Serwotka General secretary, PCS Union
Frances O’Grady General secretary, TUC
John McDonnell MP
Len McCluskey General secretary, Unite
Francesca Martinez WOW petition
Pat Onions Pat’s Petition
Rosemary O’Neill CarerWatch
Sean Vernell National secretary, Unite the Resistance
Eileen Short Chair, National Anti Bedroom Tax and Benefit Justice Federation
Rev Paul Nicolson Taxpayers Against Poverty
Claire Glasman WinVisible (women with visible & invisible disabilities)
Ariane Sacco WinVisible
Mark Harrison CEO, Equal Lives
Kevin Caulfield Chair, Hammersmith and Fulham Coalition Against Cuts
Rahel Geffen CEO, Disability Action in Islington
Lyla Adwan-Kamara Merton Centre for Independent Living
Shaun O’Regan Southwark Benefit Justice Campaign
Barry McDonald Chair, Bromley Experts by Experience
Ian Hodson National president, Bakers Food & Allied Workers Union
Ronnie Draper General secretary, Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union
Mick Carney National president, Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
Manuel Cortes General secretary, Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
Sean McGovern Unite executive councillor
Rob Murthwaite Equalities rep, UCU London region
Mike Cox Norfolk Disabled People Against Cuts
Dr Stephen Carty Medical adviser, Black Triangle Campaign
Debbie Jolly Co-founder, Disabled People Against Cuts
Andy Greene Islington Disabled People Against Cuts
Ellen Clifford Croydon Disabled People Against Cuts
Paula Peters Bromley Disabled People Against Cuts
Conan Doyle London Disabled People Against Cuts
Bob Ellard National steering committee, Disabled People Against Cuts
Anita Bellows National steering committee, Disabled People Against Cuts
Ciara Doyle National steering committee, Disabled People Against Cuts
Roger Lewis National steering committee, Disabled People Against Cuts
Jane Bence WOW petition
Rick Burgess WOW petition

Grim toll of the government"s match-for-function exams | @guardianletters

Anti-Atos protest, Manchester, 19 February 2014. Photograph: Steven Purcell/Demotix/Corbis

Years after the Holocaust, ordinary German citizens were called upon by the younger generation to justify themselves: Surely you knew what was going on? Why didn’t you put a stop to it?

The benefits system has failed those that have most needed help for decades, but it has not until now sought to eradicate them entirely.
Simon Wagener
Wallasey, Merseyside

Grim toll of the government"s match-for-function exams | @guardianletters

1 Şubat 2014 Cumartesi

1000"s march against Spanish government"s program to restrict abortion

Thousands of people march to protest a a government plan to limit abortions in Madrid

Thousands march in Madrid on Saturday in protest towards a government plan to restrict abortions. Photograph: Andrea Comas/Reuters

Tens of thousands of men and women have marched to Spain’s parliament to protest against the government’s new law that aims to restrict abortion, making it possible for the practice only in instances of rape or severe danger to health.

Saturday’s rally in Madrid was organised by dozens of women’s groups and bodies that fight for reproductive rights.

Protesters carried banners saying “Enable mothers to make a decision” and “Mothers and fathers in freedom”.

The previous Socialist government manufactured abortion before the 14th week widely legal. But the ruling Well-known celebration has extended sided with the Roman Catholic Church on moral and social troubles and made modifying the law one of its principal guarantees in the 2011 vote that brought it to energy.

In December, justice minister Alberto Ruiz-Gallardón said that abortion will only be allowed in the case of rape or when there is a significant mental or physical wellness threat to the mom. Accredited fetal deformities that would endanger a child’s existence if born will also be accepted.

He also said sixteen- and 17-yr-olds will when once again have to receive permission from their mothers and fathers to have an abortion.

The bill, which have to be accepted by parliament, been fiercely resisted by opposition events as well as women’s groups across Spain who explained that it set back women’s rights to the dark days of the dictatorship of Francisco Franco.

1000"s march against Spanish government"s program to restrict abortion