SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 01 2009, 11:00am EDT
Contact:
Andrea Keller Helsel, NPCA, 202.454.3332
National Parks Conservation Association Praises Introduction of the Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation
Statement by Mark Wenzler, Director, Clean Air and Climate Programs
WASHINGTON
"Already, global warming is degrading America's national parks. Chairman Nick Rahall (D-WV) and Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) have introduced a bill, the Climate Change Safeguards for Natural Resources Conservation Act (H.R. 2192), which offers effective tools to fight back. Safeguarding national parks like Glacier and the Great Smoky Mountains
will ensure the protection of wildlife and wild places for our children
and grandchildren, and provide economic and other benefits for the
communities that thrive near these priceless places."
NPCA is a non-profit, private organization dedicated to protecting, preserving, and enhancing the U.S. National Park System.
LATEST NEWS
Alarm as Trump Judge Sides With Company Claiming NLRB Is Unconstitutional
"This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations."
Sep 17, 2024
The National Labor Relations Board was prevented on Tuesday from moving forward with an unfair labor practices case against the social services tech company Findhelp, after a Trump-appointed judge granted the Texas-based firm's request for a temporary injunction.
In the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Judge Mark Pittman ruledin favor of Findhelp's claim that administrative law judges at the NLRB have unconstitutional protections from being dismissed by the White House.
The argument has been used by other large companies including billionaire Elon Musk's aerospace firm SpaceX and a subsidiary of the fossil fuel giant Energy Transfer, which have both also obtained preliminary injunctions from Trump appointees in Texas, shielding them from labor rights cases.
In the SpaceX case, the NLRB argued that "granting an injunction would encourage any employer or labor union unhappy with scrutiny of their labor practices to seek preliminary injunctions against NLRB proceedings."
Starbucks, Amazon, and Trader Joe's have also joined the corporate effort to strip the NLRB of its ability to carry out its duties as a federal agency tasked with protecting workers from unfair labor practices. The companies have claimed that the agency's structure, which was established by the New Deal's National Labor Relations Act nearly a century ago, violates the president's "removal powers" under Article II of the U.S. Constitution.
"Prior to the New Deal, judges claimed things like overtime and child labor rules were unconstitutional," said journalist Ryan Grim.
Lawyers for the NLRB argued in the Findhelp case that the company is not entitled to relief from a court until the president tries to remove the administrative law judge assigned to Findhelp's case, but Pittman said he was "unpersuaded by the NLRB's arguments."
Pittman cited a precedent established by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which ruled in 2022 that removal protections for the Securities and Exchange Commission's judges were unconstitutional.
This month, two federal judges—one appointed by former President Barack Obama and one by President Joe Biden—have rejected other corporate challenges claiming the NLRB is unconstitutionally structured, teeing up a potential U.S. Supreme Court case to settle the matter in the future.
Tuesday's ruling comes 18 months after the Office and Professional Employees International Union filed a complaint with the NLRB, saying Findhelp had illegally fired and coerced workers who were involved in organizing their workplace. The employees had voted 95-52 in favor of joining the union.
With Pittman's injunction in place, an NLRB administrative hearing on whether Findhelp unlawfully fired organizers and surveilled employees will not move forward.
"The NLRB protects Americans' right to unionize, fight unjust firings, and collectively bargain for higher wages," said the U.S. Congressional Progressive Caucus. "Without it, employers can ignore labor laws and deprive workers of their rights. This is yet another move by a Trump-appointed judge in favor of wealthy corporations."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Rips Pharma Giant for Charging $900+ for Drug That Could Be Sold for $100
"Why? Excessive corporate greed," said Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Sep 17, 2024
U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders called out the pharmaceutical giant Novo Nordisk on Tuesday for charging American patients more than $900 a month for the increasingly popular diabetes drug Ozempic, even though generic manufacturers are willing to sell the medication for significantly less.
During a panel discussion with experts, Sanders (I-Vt.) said he and his staff have been in contact with the top executives of major drug makers who say they could sell a generic version of Ozempic for less than $100 a month—and still turn a profit. A recent study found that the drug can be manufactured for less than $5 a month.
"Novo Nordisk, which has made nearly $50 billion in sales off of Ozempic and Wegovy, charges Americans almost $1,000 a month—the highest prices in the world," Sanders, the chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, said Tuesday. "Why? Excessive corporate greed."
Ozempic and Wegovy are part of a class of treatments known as GLP-1s. Wegovy, a weight-loss drug that Novo Nordisk sells for $1,349 a month in the U.S., contains the same active ingredient as Ozempic, which is approved only for people with Type 2 diabetes.
The drugs' growing popularity in the U.S. has drawn greater scrutiny to Novo Nordisk's pricing. Sanders' office noted Tuesday that the company's price tag for Wegovy is $186 in Denmark, $140 in Germany, and $92 in the United Kingdom.
Novo Nordisk's high prices for the drugs in the U.S. could have far-reaching impacts on the nation's healthcare system. A group of economists wrote in a recent op-ed for The New York Times earlier this year that "under reasonable assumptions and at current prices, making this class of drugs available to all obese Americans could eventually cost over $1 trillion per year," which is "almost as much as the government spends on the entireMedicare program and almost one-fifth of the entire amount America spends on healthcare."
Sanders warned Tuesday that if the prices of Ozempic and Wegovy aren't reined in, Medicare premiums could surge.
"Our healthcare system, I think most people understand, is in crisis," Sanders said during the panel discussion. "The business model of the pharmaceutical industry is unsustainable."
Over the course of our investigation into the outrageous cost of Ozempic and Wegovy in the U.S., I spoke with the CEOs of major generic pharmaceutical companies who confirmed:
They can sell a generic version of Ozempic for $100/mo. https://t.co/XDHdBRPIcM
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) September 17, 2024
Peter Maybarduk, director of the Access to Medicines Program at Public Citizen, said in a statement Tuesday that "all we need to make Ozempic for $100 a reality is to overcome Novo's patent monopoly, which the government has the power to do any time."
"States and clinicians are asking the feds for help," said Maybarduk. "We estimate taking action on Novo's patents could save Medicare more than $14 billion in the first two years of competition, while making diabetes and obesity drugs affordable."
Last month, Public Citizen delivered a petition to U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra urging him to use existing law to "authorize generic competitors to Ozempic and Wegovy."
"Novo Nordisk’s outrageous pricing of [Ozempic and Wegovy] threatens to break the coffers of federal health programs," the group wrote. "Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1498, the administration should authorize use of any and all patents necessary to allow manufacturers to produce generic alternatives to these treatments on behalf of the United States government, which can be used to supply Medicare, Medicaid, and other federal health programs. This will facilitate competition and make the treatments more affordable and accessible for patients."
The CEO of Novo Nordisk, which has spent aggressively on lobbying this year, is scheduled to testify before the Senate HELP Committee next week.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not Sick Enough Yet': Report Details Harms of Florida Abortion Ban
For one patient, doctors "had to wait for her creatinine to bump and her kidneys to be about to fail" before they could even offer her abortion care.
Sep 17, 2024
As new reporting on Amber Nicole Thurman's death highlights the dangers of Georgia Republicans' six-week abortion ban, a human rights group on Tuesday released a research brief about how a similar policy in a neighboring state "harms the health and safety of Florida patients while obstructing clinicians from providing basic reproductive and maternal medical care."
The Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) report, Delayed and Denied: How Florida's Abortion Ban Criminalizes Medical Care, focuses on the prohibition that was signed by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis last year but didn't take effect until May, following a state Supreme Court ruling.
The PHR brief follows late May reporting on how wait times soared at abortion clinics in the states closest to Florida after its ban took effect and the Guttmacher Institute's findings from last week that the law led to a "substantial drop" in clinician-provided abortions across the state, in part because many people don't even know they are pregnant until after six weeks.
"Florida clinicians shared harrowing accounts of how routine medical care has been delayed, denied, and deviated from standards of care."
This summer, PHR interviewed 25 of Florida's reproductive healthcare providers about their experiences caring for pregnant patients under the six-week ban. Brief co-author Dr. Michele Heisler said in a Tuesday statement that "Florida clinicians shared harrowing accounts of how routine medical care has been delayed, denied, and deviated from standards of care."
"Not only abortion care but miscarriage and broader maternal healthcare have suffered gravely due to the state's ban," noted Heisler, PHR's medical director and a professor of internal medicine and public health at the University of Michigan.
"Our research brief sheds new light on the health and rights crisis fueled by Florida's abortion ban—on patients, providers, and the medical system as a whole," she said. "Under the state's abortion ban, Floridians have lost their reproductive autonomy."
One Florida doctor in private practice told PHR that "with the six-week ban, I would say it is more like the inability to really offer anything at all now. I mean, we see patients for their new obstetrician-gynecologist visits usually around eight weeks, and sometimes we see them earlier, if they are having bleeding or other issues where we end up scanning them earlier."
"But I do not think I have ever had a viable pregnancy that was less than six weeks that I could offer a termination," the OB-GYN said. "They are never less than six weeks, so it is essentially impossible. By the time we see them for their first visit, that option is already gone."
Florida's ban technically allows some abortions after six weeks—in cases of rape and incest, or to protect the health of the pregnant person—though medical professionals and reproductive rights advocates often point out that many patients are still denied legal care even with the limited "exceptions" in place.
Before the current law, Floridians were living under a 15-week ban, which took effect in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing supermajority reversingRoe v. Wade with its June 2022 Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization ruling.
One doctor who spoke with PHR recalled a story from that period: "I strongly remember a patient who had severe kidney disease and was admitted to the hospital and was teetering on the edge of that 15 weeks. I think she was 14 weeks or so, and she got admitted, and we were trying to figure out how best to help her. She was getting sicker and sicker."
"[We] had to bring it to the head people of the hospital and be like, 'What are we allowed to do?' And they were like, 'She is not sick enough yet.' And we had to wait for her to get sicker before we were even allowed to offer her termination. And she was past 15 weeks at that point," the OB-GYN explained.
"I think it took over two weeks for us to get an answer from the hospital administrators," the doctor added. "So that hit very strongly, because it was kind of insane that we had to wait for her to become sicker. We had to wait for her creatinine to bump and her kidneys to be about to fail before we were allowed to even offer her [termination]. Then we had to jump through so many hoops to be able to do it. It really changed everything that we did in our practice."
The report features several other stories of patient and provider frustrations and the dangers created by the six-week ban.
"The findings of PHR's research brief demonstrate the need to remove Florida's extreme abortion ban and restore access to comprehensive reproductive healthcare in the state," argued Payal Shah, brief co-author and the group's director of advocacy, legal, and research. "Both patients and providers are trapped in an unworkable legal landscape."
"Despite state health agency statements to the contrary, the state's abortion ban is an egregious intrusion on patient autonomy that is causing medical harm," Shah added. "The ban's criminal penalties and narrow, vague exceptions have compelled clinicians to deviate from established standards of care and medical ethics. These impacts constitute violations of Floridians' human rights."
Florida voters will soon have an opportunity to restore much broader access to abortion care. This November, they can vote "yes" on Amendment 4, a state constitutional amendment backed by Floridians Protecting Freedom that would enshrine the right to abortion before viability in Florida.
Former President Donald Trump, a Florida resident and the Republican nominee facing Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris in the battle for the White House, confirmed last month that he plans to vote "no" on the ballot measure. In response, Harris said that "I trust women to make their own healthcare decisions and believe the government should never come between a woman and her doctor... The choice in this election is clear."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular