A Critical Link: The Environment and Women's Health Conference

A Critical Link: The Environment and Women's Health Conference
In recent years there has been an increased awareness of the connections between environmental contaminants, fertility, and health -- and a growing body of evidence supporting these concerns that link reduced fertility to pregnancy loss, adverse birth outcomes, reproductive tract abnormalities, learning disabilities in children, and various cancers to environmental contaminants. It is becoming increasingly clear to those of us who work for women's health that we must begin to turn our attention to the environmental toxicants that are affecting the ability of couples to become pregnant, have healthy pregnancies, and give birth to healthy babies.

At Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, we feel a responsibility as a health care organization to help our patients and communities make the link between human health and the products we put in our bodies, and in our homes and schools.

On September 10, 2009, PPNNE is presenting A Critical Link: The Environment and Women’s Health, in Burlington, VT. This ground-breaking conference will feature a keynote address by ecologist, author, and cancer survivor Sandra Steingraber. Steingraber and other environmental health experts, will participate in a panel discussion moderated by Dave Rapaport, Seventh Generation’s senior director of corporate consciousness, and Mia Davis, national grassroots coordinator for the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics, Planned Parenthood Federation of America President Cecile Richards will kick off the conference and share the Planned Parenthood perspective on providing greener, healthier choices to patients. For more information go to http://www.good-chemistry.org/

A New Day...

Now that the numbers are in, here are some of the election results that our readers might be interested in:

South Dakota's Measure 11, aimed at triggering a Supreme Court showdown on Roe vs. Wade, has been defeated.

The ban on gay marriage is leading.

Colorado 'Personhood' Amendment Defeated.

The next American President is an advocate and steward for the environment.

Michigan became the 13th state to legalize marijuana for medical purposes, with 63 percent of the vote.

Voters in Massachusetts approved an initiative to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana.

So Little Time, So Much Damage To Do

In a quick and dirty driveby post, it's worth taking note that the current administration has 77 days left to change rules and regulations on the environment, civil liberties and reproductive rights (mind you, not in a progressive way)- and, according to an editorial in the NY Times, they are not wasting any time, intending to leave a series of little "surprises" (a euphemistic word for....well, I'm sure you can fill in the blank) for the next administration.

This will surely keep the watchdog groups busy...

EPA vs. States: Round 2

A followup to yesterday's post on the EPA:

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Washington, and other states have announced that they will join California in the lawsuit against the EPA.

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and Attorney General Doug Gansler, in a joint statement, said the Bush administration's decision is "thwarting the will" of more than a dozen states.

Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas, a Republican, said the EPA "is out of touch with the reality of climate change." New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine, a Democrat, called the decision "horrendous," while Maine Democratic Gov. John Baldacci called the administration "obstructionist." Officials in New York, Connecticut, Arizona and Pennsylvania made similar comments.

The current investigation by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee indicates that EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson disregarded staff recommendations that the EPA would lose a lawsuit should California file one.

Excerpt:

Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen Johnson overruled the unanimous opinion of his legal and technical staff in blocking California's effort to cut greenhouse gases from cars and trucks - a new revelation that California officials say shows his decision was based on politics, not the law.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, D-Los Angeles, launched a probe Thursday into why Johnson made his decision even though EPA staffers reportedly warned him he would lose in court if he denied California's request.

…The EPA's legal staff reportedly prepared a PowerPoint presentation advising Johnson that if he denied California's waiver request and the state sued, the EPA was likely to lose, agency staffers told the Washington Post. If he granted the waiver and automakers sued, the staff wrote, "EPA is almost certain to win."

This issue has clearly left the environmental sector to stake out a spot in Constitutional Law. Stand by for a big rumble.

‘Twas the countdown to Christmas

Our health -- in fact, our survival -- is inextricably connected to the health of our environment: it's not just an issue, like poverty or world peace, it is the overarching issue. Which is why I decided to do things a bit differently this Holiday season. But instead of simply explaining what, I inflicted some derivative seasonal doggerel on my long-suffering fiends and relations...and now on you, dear reader of this blog:

‘Twas the countdown to Christmas and all through my brain

Danced visions of giving to loved ones again.

With credit cards handy and Christmas cards too,

‘Twas Xmas like always -- what else could I do?

But then, from my Mac there arose such a clatter

I sprang to the keyboard to check out the chatter.

And right there on U-Tube was Al Gore himself

With flipcharts behind him -- a right angry old elf!

He’d gained a few pounds and was long in the tooth

But none of that mattered, ‘cause he’d seen the Truth.

His points were all listed -- a litany of shame,

And he highlighted each as he called them by name:

“On climate, on flooding, on habitat loss!

On the things that we purchase, and play with, and toss!

On warming, and melting, and drowned Polar Bears,

On species extinction! (I covered my ears…)

Al’s finger was wagging, it pointed at me.

I looked left and right and got ready to flee…

But what to my wondering eyes should appear

But a handy “Escape Clause” that said “sign right here.”

“Will you change,” asks the Gorester?

Er, sure thing, you bet…

I won’t give this year and (gulp!) I guess I won’t get.

You'll give," says St. Albert, "and here's what you'll do.

You’ll give to your Mother (that’s Gaia to you).

And so, my dear people, tho’ I love you a lot

This Xmas I’ll put all my bucks in one pot

And send a fat check off to where there’s most need.*

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL AND TO ALL A GOOD DEED!

And with peace and goodwill towards all women and men, Santa “Cause”

(A.K.A. Mary)

*Specifically: Conservation International, Amazon Conservation Team, and the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy

A simple Constitutional issue made murky by EPA

NYT reports that the EPA is now denying the right of states to set more stringent automobile emissions standards now that the new federal emissions standards were passed.

Excerpt:

The Environmental Protection Agency on Wednesday denied California and 16 other states the right to set their own standards for carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.

The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said the proposed California rules were pre-empted by federal authority and made moot by the energy bill signed into law by President Bush on Wednesday. Mr. Johnson said California had failed to make a compelling case that it needed authority to write its own standards for greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks to help curb global warming.

The decision immediately provoked a heated debate over its scientific basis and whether political pressure was applied by the automobile industry to help it escape the proposed California regulations. Officials from the states and numerous environmental groups vowed to sue to overturn the edict.

In an evening conference call with reporters, Mr. Johnson defended his agency’s decision.

“The Bush administration is moving forward with a clear national solution, not a confusing patchwork of state rules,” he said. “I believe this is a better approach than if individual states were to act alone.”

What we have here is, at the minimum, a desire for federal uniformity of a technological standard affecting local economies and health, placed against the right of states to democratically decide on stricter, more applicable standards for themselves. At the worst, we have a government that has corrupted a federal agency to pander to the interests of an industry. Believe what you will, but at the very least, this is a red flag for undermining the relationship between states and the federal government.

And science is not a factor in this decision:

Mr. Johnson, the E.P.A. administrator, cited federal law, not science, as the underpinning of his decision. “Climate change affects everyone regardless of where greenhouse gases occur, so California is not exclusive,” he said.

The Governator isn't going to take this abuse of federal power sitting down:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California said the states would go to federal court to reverse the E.P.A. decision.

“It is disappointing that the federal government is standing in our way and ignoring the will of tens of millions of people across the nation,” Mr. Schwarzenegger said. “We will continue to fight this battle.”

He added, “California sued to compel the agency to act on our waiver, and now we will sue to overturn today’s decision and allow Californians to protect our environment.”

Twelve other states — New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington — had proposed standards like California’s, and the governors of Arizona, Colorado, Florida and Utah said they would do the same.

Cars do not have rights. Car manufacturers do not have an inherent right to economic protectionism. No fundamental human rights are being violated. This is a capitalist society: consumer demand spurs the market. And in California, Washington, and other states, the consumers have spoken; they want cars with higher emission standards, and it is not the place of car manufacturers, the EPA, or George Bush to question their democratic voices when they wish to exceed the (embarrassingly) bare minimum standards established by the federal government.

While more related to environmental policy than to bioethics, this breach of Constitutionally established precedent allowing states to choose more specific and strict regulation than that presented by the federal government will have direct impacts on bioethical policy. We have already seen the federal government overriding democratically established legalization of physician-assisted dying in Oregon state, and I am certain that more issues will be affected as bioethical issues become more and more visible in society. Some will be overridden on moral claims and are therefore potentially open to discussion. But as ethicists, we cannot stand for a breach of Constitutionality based on industry concerns with absolutely no breach of rights.

Stand by for a clash at the Supreme Court, on an issue that a high school civics student should be able to answer:

AMENDMENT X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.