Safe drug-injection site can stay: Supreme Court of Canada

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

A poster shows how to use a syringe safely inside a safe injection site for drug addicts on Vancouver, British Columbia's eastside August 23, 2006.

Credit: Reuters/Andy Clark

By David Ljunggren

OTTAWA | Fri Sep 30, 2011 11:14am EDT

OTTAWA (Reuters) - Vancouver's Insite clinic, the only such safe-injection site for drug addicts in North America, can stay open, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Friday in a landmark defeat for the federal government.

The country's top court, slapping down the Conservative government with some harsh language, ruled unanimously that closing the site would threaten the lives of drug users and therefore violate their human rights.

The government, which is pushing a tough-on-crime agenda, said keeping Insite open made a mockery of laws designed to stamp out illegal drug use. The Health Department had said it would not extend a special exemption to drug laws that allowed the site to operate.

The court said such a decision would break the principles of fundamental justice and was arbitrary, ordering the health minister to maintain the exemption.

"It is also grossly disproportionate: the potential denial of health services and the correlative increase in the risk of death and disease to drug users outweigh any benefit that might be derived from maintaining an absolute prohibition on possession of illegal drugs on Insite's premises," it ruled.

Insite operates in Vancouver's poor Downtown Eastside district, one of the most deprived urban areas in Canada. The clinic was set up in 2003 to allow intravenous drug users to shoot up in a place that had medical supervision.

A study in the Lancet medical journal this year said the site had cut drug overdose deaths by 35 percent in the area. Police and local officials had campaigned for it to stay open.

The site's operators - who argued that drug addiction was a disease - said that, before the site opened, drug users were regularly dying of overdoses on the streets. The Downtown Eastside has around 4,600 intravenous drug users.

Recovered heroin addict Dean Wilson, a member of the board of the users' group, jumped in the air, whooped loudly and clenched his fists in delight when told of the ruling.

"This just substantiates what I've been saying for a long time, that what we've been doing is the right thing. This has nothing to do with the law-and-order platform, this has to do with gold standard medical intervention for a group of very very ill people," he told reporters.

Heroin and cocaine addicts receive clean needles to inject themselves with their own drugs under supervision by a nurse. They can then stay in a special "chill-out" room before returning to the streets.

Federal Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq will comment on the court ruling later Friday, a spokesman said.

The Conservatives, who won a majority in the May general election, plan to push through tougher laws on crime and open new prisons - moves that critics say are expensive and will put many more people in jail.

"They always took this political ideological partisan position," said Libby Davies, a legislator for the opposition New Democrats, whose parliamentary constituency includes the Downtown Eastside.

"I want to say to them: Have you now understood, have you learned the importance of what Insite is about? ... There have been no deaths from overdoses inside Insite," she said.

The case name is Attorney General of Canada et al. v. PHS Community Services Society, et al. (Case no: 33556).

(Reporting by David Ljunggren; editing by Rob Wilson)

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

Obama's healthcare law appealed to Supreme Court

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Opponents of the proposed U.S. health care bill are pictured during a rally outside the U.S. Capitol Building in Washington, March 21, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON | Wed Sep 28, 2011 6:43pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Wednesday asked the U.S. Supreme Court to back the centerpiece of Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare overhaul -- the requirement that all Americans have health insurance.

The appeal was largely expected as a high court ruling against the law could be a fatal blow to the president's signature domestic policy achievement and could have major implications for his re-election bid.

The same day the administration filed its appeal, 26 states and a major business group urged the justices to strike down the entire law, which would have a far-reaching impact on future healthcare coverage for Americans and company costs.

The case is likely to be heard and decided in the Supreme Court's upcoming term that begins next week and lasts through June 2012. A ruling is likely in the midst of the campaign for the November 2012 elections.

The administration and the opponents of the law called for a quick ruling by the high court to resolve uncertainty affecting the federal government, states and companies about the law's key provisions that are taking effect.

The 26 states and National Federation of Independent Business argued in their appeals the entire law should be invalidated because Congress exceeded its powers requiring that Americans buy health insurance or face a penalty.

The Obama administration filed its own appeal in which the Justice Department argued the so-called individual mandate, due to take effect in 2014, was constitutional and said the issue was appropriate for Supreme Court review.

"Throughout history, there have been similar challenges to other landmark legislation such as the Social Security Act, the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and all of those challenges failed," the Justice Department said.

"We believe the challenges to Affordable Care Act ... will also ultimately fail and that the Supreme Court will uphold the law," the department said in a statement.

White House adviser Stephanie Cutter said the administration asked the Supreme Court to hear the case "so that we can put these challenges to rest and continue moving forward implementing the law to lower the cost of health care and make it more secure for all Americans."

At issue was a ruling by a U.S. appeals court in Atlanta in August that declared unconstitutional the individual insurance requirement but refused to strike down the entire law.

That decision conflicted with rulings by other appeals courts that have upheld the law or have rejected legal challenges, including a lawsuit by the state of Virginia that was dismissed earlier this month on procedural grounds.

The law, passed by Congress and signed by Obama in 2010 after a bruising political battle, is expected to be a major issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another four-year term. Republican presidential candidates oppose it and Republicans in Congress have pushed to repeal the law.

EXPANDING COVERAGE

Obama, a Democrat, has championed the law as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow soaring healthcare costs while expanding health insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.

The Supreme Court long has been expected to have the final word on the law's constitutionality. The dispute has important legal, political and financial implications for companies in the healthcare field.

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi said the states sought Supreme Court review of their lawsuit.

"This healthcare law is an affront on Americans' individual liberty and we will not allow the federal government to violate our constitutional rights," she said.

Legal experts have said the nine-member Supreme Court, with a conservative majority and four liberals, most likely will be closely divided on whether the individual mandate requiring insurance purchases exceeded the power of Congress.

The Obama administration earlier this week said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the insurance requirement unconstitutional.

That decision cleared the way for the administration to go to the Supreme Court.

The states in their appeal also argued the law's expansion of Medicaid, a federal-state partnership that provides health care to low-income Americans, was unconstitutionally coercive, forced upon the states.

A senior Justice Department official told reporters that political considerations played no role in moving for Supreme Court review. The official said it was important to get a ruling soon so planning for the far-reaching law can proceed.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky and Karen Pierog in Chicago; Editing by Mary Milliken and Bill Trott)

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More

Obama healthcare law headed for Supreme Court

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

President Barack Obama is pictured as he delivers remarks on the need to provide states with relief from key provisions of the No Child Left Behind education policy, at the White House in Washington September 23, 2011.

Credit: Reuters/Jason Reed

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON | Mon Sep 26, 2011 6:00pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration on Monday cleared the way for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in its 2011-12 term the president's signature healthcare law that requires Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

A Justice Department spokeswoman said it decided against asking the full U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit to review the August ruling by a three-judge panel of the court that found the requirement unconstitutional.

The decision not to seek review by the full appeals court will likely speed up consideration of the matter by the high court in its 2011-12 term that begins next week. A ruling could come by late June, in the middle of the presidential campaign.

The Supreme Court has long been expected to have the final word on the legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of President Barack Obama's healthcare law. A big uncertainty has been over when the court would decide the issue.

The law's fate before the nine-member court, closely divided with a conservative majority and four liberals, could come down to two Republican appointees, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy, legal experts have said.

The law, adopted by Congress in 2010 after a bruising battle, is expected to be a major political issue in the 2012 elections as Obama seeks another four-year term. All the major Republican presidential candidates oppose it.

Obama, a Democrat, has championed the individual mandate as a major accomplishment of his presidency and as a way to try to slow soaring healthcare costs while expanding coverage to the more than 30 million Americans without it.

The 11th Circuit appeals court, based in Atlanta, ruled by a 2-1 vote last month in favor of 26 states and others who challenged the mandate for exceeding the power of Congress.

The Obama administration could have asked the full U.S. 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision. But that could have pushed back any Supreme Court ruling to its 2012-13 term.

The 2-1 ruling conflicted with other appeals courts that have upheld the law or have rejected legal challenges, including a lawsuit by the state of Virginia which was dismissed on procedural grounds.

A U.S. appeals court based in Cincinnati ruled Congress had the power to adopt the individual mandate, which takes effect in 2014. The losing side in that case, the Thomas More Law Center, already appealed to the Supreme Court in July.

The administration has steadfastly maintained its belief that the law will survive judicial scrutiny and be upheld by the Supreme Court. The states that have challenged the law have argued it went beyond Congress' authority to require coverage.

(Additional reporting by Jeremy Pelofsky; Editing by Doina Chiacu and Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Peliculas Online

Read More