November, 17 2014, 12:15pm EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Charles Idelson, 510-273-2246, Korey Hartwich, 240-235-2006 or Liz Jacobs, 510-273-2232
Nurses Call on Federal OSHA, Other States to Follow California Mandate of Highest Ebola Safeguards for RNs, Public
OAKLAND
National Nurses United today called on the the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration and other states to follow the landmark mandatory safeguards established by California to protect nurses, other health workers, and the public from the threat of the deadly Ebola virus.
NNU will hold a press conference Tuesday morning at 10 a.m. EST in Washington in front of the Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave. NW to announce details of a stepped up effort nationally, based on the California model.
NNU/CNA leaders will also hold a press conference Tuesday in Sacramento, Ca at 12:30 p.m. PST to discuss the next steps nationally, and how nurses will work to monitor and enforce the new California standards on the North Steps of the State Capitol prior to a state legislative hearing on Ebola preparedness.
Late Friday, California state officials released updated Ebola guidance for all California hospitals that require the optimal level of personal protective equipment, comprehensive training procedures, and other protocols that mirror the standards NNU and the California Nurses Association RNs have campaigned for in California and across the nation for two months.
More than 60,000 people have signed a national on-line petition calling for the federal government to require hospitals to adopt the optimal Ebola safeguards. The petition may be viewed at https://www.nationalnursesunited.org/page/s/national-nurses-united-urges...
Just last week, 100,000 RNs and other health workers participated in a global day of Ebola awareness, sponsored in the U.S. by NNU, to demand the highest level of protections.
NNU will press for legislation and regulation in other states, and continue to demand the federal government enact mandatory guidelines all hospitals must follow for Ebola and other epidemics modeled on the California standards.
"Nurses have raised their voices, and California, under the leadership of Gov. Jerry Brown, has listened, acted, and once again set a benchmark for the nation," said NNU and CNA Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro.
"California nurses, other health workers and the public will be safer, but Ebola and other pandemics know no borders. Federal officials and other states should adopt the same standards. If California can act, all our other elected leaders and agencies can as well," DeMoro said.
The new California standards build on existing California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal OSHA) regulations that, as Cal OSHA acting chief Juliann Sum reports "clarify the requirements hospitals must meet to ensure hospitals and health care workers take the proper steps to safely provide care for suspected or confirmed Ebola patients" in hospitals "where the risk of infectious disease transmission is the highest."
NNU notes the standards go well beyond the faulty procedures and protective gear employed by hospitals across the U.S., and the current, unenforceable recommendations of the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
By contrast, California regulations are mandatory. If hospitals don't comply with the new guidelines, they will face civil penalties, noted Cal OSHA's Sum. CNA will closely monitor hospital compliance with the guidelines, and work closely with Cal-OSHA on enforcement.
"With the hospital industry dismissing the concerns of the nurses, and the federal government failing to order the hospitals to implement the optimal level of Ebola protection, California, under the stewardship of Gov. Brown, has heard the voices of nurses, and established a model that all should follow," said CNA Co-President Zenei Cortez, RN.
"The nurses are fighting for the public. They went to the governor demanding action. He departed from the paralysis of government and corporate inaction. He listened intently and heard the nurses reports of how deeply unprepared and resistant hospitals were and he moved to protect the public, the nurses, and other health care workers," DeMoro said, adding, "That's how government should work, Gov. Brown has delivered an example for the nation."
In addition to Gov. Brown's leadership, the nurses also praised the diligent work of Cal OSHA in developing guidance on the standards.
The California regulations embody the precautionary principle NNU has advocated in response to Ebola, that absent scientific consensus that a particular risk is not harmful, especially one that can have catastrophic consequences, the highest level of safeguards must be adopted, and a sharp contrast to the profit principle that has guided the response of most hospitals, DeMoro noted.
Among highlights, under the new standards:
- California hospitals are now required to have full-body protective suits, that meet the American Society for Testing and Materials F1670 standard for blood penetration, F1671 standard for viral penetration, that leave no skin exposed or unprotected, and that are available for all hospital staff providing care for a suspected or confirmed Ebola patient, employees cleaning contaminated areas, and staff assisting other employees with the removal of contaminated protective gear.
- Hospitals must provide powered air-purifying respirators (PAPRs) with a full cowl or hood for optimal protection for the head, face and neck of any RN or other staff who provide care for a suspected or confirmed Ebola patient. Like the suits, this requirement extends to cleaning contaminated areas or assisting staff in removal of protective gear. Both these respirators and the suits have been a key NNU demand, and as Cal OSHA noted, the respiratory protection standards "go beyond the current (CDC) recommendations."
- Infection by the Ebola virus can occur not just through direct contact with droplets of bodily fluids, but even through aerosol transmission of fluids from coughing or other aerosol exposure with an Ebola patient.
- Regular training is required for any staff who are at risk of exposure, including hands on practice in teams with the ability to interact and ask questions. Computer based training does not meet the requirement.
- Employees who report hospitals that violate the regulations are protected from retaliation by their employers with whistleblower protection.
National Nurses United, with close to 185,000 members in every state, is the largest union and professional association of registered nurses in US history.
(240) 235-2000LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular