Family First would be reckoned "far right", while the Greens are "far left". But both have come together to fend off the Australian Government's attack on Home Birth.
Meanwhile, Obstetricians milk the Medicare birth rebate system.
(1) 2000 women from across Australia attend Homebirth rally in Canberra - Green Left Weekly
(2) Government plan to ban Homebirth an attack on women’s rights - Senator Steve Fielding (Family First)
(3) ‘Mother of all rallies’ for home birth
(4) Doctors milking Medicare birth rebates
(5) Canberra obstetriciansmassively increased fees since Medicare safety net
(6) Caster Semenya shattered by humiliation on a global scale
(7) Attacks on Obama's Health Cover bill - has he compromised with the Big End of Town?
(1) 2000 women from across Australia attend Homebirth rally in Canberra - Green Left Weekly
Homebirth: defend a woman’s right to choose
Farida Iqbal & Melissa Nickols
13 September 2009
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2009/810/41659
In June, a raft of new legislation was presented to parliament to in effect, outlaw homebirth midwifery in Australia. Indemnity insurance would be a legal requirement for medical practitioners, under a new national registration and accreditation scheme.
Private insurers don’t cover homebirth midwives, and the government decided not to subsidise their indemnity insurance. Given the new laws, this will leave midwives in a position where, if they want to perform homebirths, they will be doing so illegally.
The September 4 Sydney Morning Herald said that from July 2010, about 200 independent midwives would be deregistered. They faced fines of up to $30,000 if they continued working.
But this is not simply an attack on independent midwives. It is a further attack on women’s freedom, on their right to choose if, when, and in what manner to have children. In most states and territories, abortion is still on the criminal code. So, for simply exercising their right to control their own fertility, women, their doctors and even their partners face potential criminal charges. The case now before the courts in Queensland illustrates the archaic consequences of such laws.
Women who do choose to go through with a pregnancy are now being told they have no choice over where they give birth: homebirth is not an option, unless midwives are prepared to practise uninsured and face the consequences.
But what is in effect criminalisation will not put an end to homebirth, it will merely force it underground. Women will continue to assert their right to choose if, when and where to give birth, and pro-choice campaigners will continue to campaign to have state and federal laws taken off women’s bodies.
The attack on homebirth midwifery has prompted a protest campaign, culminating in a large rally in Canberra on September 7. Despite the cold and rainy weather, more than 2000 people from across Australia attended. The rally demanded government funding and insurance for homebirths,
Beginning at the Aboriginal Tent Embassy, the rally marched to Parliament House. It was addressed by Justine Caines from Homebirth Australia, Liz Wilkes from the Australian Private Midwives Association, Lisa Metcalfe from the Maternity Coalition, Greens Senator Rachel Siewert, opposition health spokesperson Peter Dutton, Family First Senator Steven Fielding, independent midwives and others.
The crowd reacted disapprovingly when addressed by Labor senator Claire Moore, who defended the legislation. The rally was organised by Homebirth Australia and the Maternity Coalition, and was supported by the organisation Joyous Birth.
A rally was organised in Adelaide by the Homebirth Network on the same day.
The rally was the largest protest defending women’s rights in Australia for many years. As a young Cairns couple are now set to stand trial on charges relating to an abortion, it is a significant time to be campaigning in defence of women’s right to control their own lives.
Under increasing pressure, federal health minister Nicola Roxon met state and territory health ministers on September 4, days before the rally. She announced that a transitional clause would be inserted into the draft national registration and accreditation scheme legislation. This clause would give midwives unable to obtain indemnity insurance temporary exemption from this requirement until June 2012.
However, campaigners say this does not solve the problem; it simply defers the ban on homebirth midwifery for a further two years.
The Greens intend to move amendments to the legislation in the Senate to ensure access to private practice midwifery without financial penalties for the midwife.
Metcalfe told Green Left Weekly that access to homebirth was a question of women’s right to choose. “It is a feminist issue in the sense that women are the ones who have the babies”, she said. “Restricting women's right to decide where they have their baby and who they have their baby with is a violation of human rights.”
Metcalfe also pointed out the importance of having homebirth as an option in the context of increasing restrictions on hospital maternity services. “[Homebirth] is one of the few ways they can access maternity care in many areas of Australia”, she said.
“I'm not just talking about remote communities. I'm talking about places like the Blue Mountains and Kiama [in NSW]. In this situation, access to private practice homebirth has become absolutely critical.”
Defending maternity services in public hospitals is also very important. By restricting access to homebirth while closing maternity units in hospitals, the government is leaving pregnant women with limited access to essential care.
Metcalfe said there were problems with the two-year exemption as well: “It isn't just a simple matter that midwives will be exempted for two years from the requirement for indemnity insurance”, she said.
“There are rules attached to the exemption. Midwives have to be on a register. They will have to inform women that they have no insurance. There are increased reporting requirements; they will have to report every birth. This is about restricting women's access to midwives, rather than facilitating access.”
Like the campaign to take abortion completely off the criminal code, the campaign defending access to homebirth won’t go away until it wins.
Metcalfe said: “The first thing will be to identify how restricted private practice midwifery will be in the next two years. We have to keep the pressure up to ensure that indemnity insurance is made available to midwives.”
(2) Government plan to ban Homebirth an attack on women’s rights - Senator Steve Fielding (Family First)
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/news/details/government_plan_to_ban_homebirth_an_attack_on_womens_rights/
Government plan to ban Homebirth an attack on women’s rights
Press Releases August 04 2009
The Rudd Government’s plan to ban midwives from attending homebirths is an attack on women and their right to give birth how they choose, Family First Senator Steve Fielding said today.
Senator Fielding will be attending a rally today at 11am outside Minister Roxon’s office where he will be joined by approximately 200 mothers and midwives to voice his opposition to the ban on homebirths.
“This is an outrageous decision and one which is totally inconsistent with all other health care systems which operate around the world.
“I’ll be meeting with the Health Minister later today to discuss the matter.
“It is a woman’s right to decide how she gives birth. It is not up to the Government to tell her how to do this or where to do this.
“Slapping midwives with a fine of $30,000 simply for helping deliver a baby in a woman’s home is ridiculous.
“It is just another example of the Rudd Government treating Australians like children and trying to tell us what is best for us.
“Numerous studies have shown that for low-risk women with appropriate transfer-to-hospital options available, homebirths are at least as safe as births in hospitals or birth centres.
“This Bill is a dangerous move because it will not put an end to homebirths.
“Whether the government likes it or not, women will continue to give birth at home. All this will do is drive homebirths underground with disastrous ramifications for women and their newborn.”
http://savehomebirth.com.au/news/?p=575
Roxon a “no show” at Home Birth rally - Senator Fielding
Family First Leader Senator Steve Fielding says he was deeply disappointed that the Health Minister Nicola Roxon did not come and listen to the concerns of those rallying against the Rudd Government’s changes to homebirth indemnity insurance at Parliament House today.
“The Rudd Government acknowledges it made an error in essentially making homebirths illegal when it announced at the 11th hour that it would give homebirth midwives a two-year reprieve from its changes,” Senator Fielding said.
“First these women protested out the front of the Health Minister’s Melbourne office, then outside Parliament House today. But do you think Nicola Roxon could take five minutes out of her day to talk and listen? No.
“The Rudd Government needs to guarantee that women will be able to continue giving birth at home with the assistance of a registered midwife once the two-year reprieve has expired.
“Women should have the right to choose whether they want to have a birth in a hospital or at home, and midwives that assist in either case should be able to access affordable indemnity cover.
“Numerous studies have shown that for low-risk women with appropriate transfer-to-hospital options available, homebirths are at least as safe as births in hospitals or birth centres.
“If the Rudd Government insists on banning homebirths within two years it will only force homebirths underground with disastrous ramifications.”
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 8th, 2009 at 7:27 am
(3) ‘Mother of all rallies’ for home birth
http://savehomebirth.com.au/news/?p=573
THE official decision to withhold medical insurance for home births has come under fire as an unjustified step not supported by international evidence, a Liberal MP and former obstetrician, Andrew Laming, says.
Dr Laming said the call by state and federal health ministers for more data on the safety of home birth before providing medical indemnity was ”ridiculous”, given the relative safety and likely low cost of any government subsidies that might be needed.
He said several big international studies had made it clear that home birth was as safe as hospital birth in low-risk cases, which represented 90 to 95 per cent of births.
Dr Laming spoke to a cheering rally of home-birth supporters in Canberra protesting at the health ministers’ refusal to extend medical indemnity to home births.
The ”mother of all rallies” drew 2000 home-birth supporters to Parliament from all over Australia who braved drenching rain, chanted ”home-birth rocks” and declared they would ”haunt” the Health Minister Nicola Roxon over the official refusal to insure home births .
Labor senator Claire Moore, chairwoman of the Senate’s Community Affairs committee, defended the decision by the health ministers last Friday to exempt home births from provisions that would have outlawed the procedure for two years while a ”quality and safety framework” was developed.
Senator Moore said ”everybody talks about safety”, and the Government wanted to get it right for home birth.
The federal legislation to extend medical indemnity to private midwives, but not for home birth, is now before Parliament but is not expected to be opposed by the Coalition despite the strong support for women to be able to choose the option of home birth provided by Dr Laming and other Liberals.
Greens senator Rachel Siewert said that if the Opposition was genuine, it should support a Greens move to extend medical indemnity to home birth.
The protesters included Michelle Marazakis, from Melbourne, who decided on a home birth after suffering painful obstetric intervention when she had her first baby, a daughter, Mikaela, in a public hospital.
Ms Marazakis said she was subjected to ”high intervention” during delivery - drugs to induce labour, then a forceps delivery.
For her second delivery, she chose a midwife-attended, deep-immersion delivery at home, constructing a metre-deep pool in her lounge room by draping a tarpaulin over a frame and filling it with warm water.
”It was fantastic. It was safe … there were no drugs and no intervention.
”I had a home birth baby because I knew it was the safest way,” Ms Marazakis said.
Suzanne Clutterbuck, 87, came from Middle Dural in Sydney because two of her four daughters had given birth at her home.
Doctors were often too busy to spend time with women in labour and tended to intervene because they could not spare the time to let nature take its course, Mrs Clutterbuck said.
Dr Sarah Buckley, a GP who had her four children by home birth and has written books on the subject, said: ”Home birth is the safe choice.”
This entry was posted on Tuesday, September 8th, 2009 at 7:25 am
(4) Doctors milking Medicare birth rebates
By Sue Dunlevy
The Daily Telegraph
September 16, 2009 12:01am
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26080679-421,00.html
OBSTETRICIANS have doubled their charges as they take advantage of the taxpayer-funded Medicare Safety Net to earn more than $1 million a year.
Medicare figures obtained by The Daily Telegraph reveal obstetricians were charging on average $835 to manage a pregnancy in July 2004, which had almost doubled to $1535 by last year.
The figures reveal that in the past year alone obstetricians lifted fees by 20 per cent compared with just 5 per cent for other medical specialties.
The increase in charges helped turn obstetricians into millionaires with the highest earning 10 per cent of obstetricians now earning $1.8 million a year - $1.1 million of which comes from Medicare.
But a Federal Government attempt to try to cap further rises in these fees and save taxpayers $194 million was in danger of being blocked by the Senate.
Doctors were able to increase fees because the Medicare Safety Net introduced in 2004 meant mothers did not have to pay the fee rises.
Taxpayers instead picked up 80 per cent of the higher charges once the mother had spent more than $1100 a year on health fees.
Taxpayer funding for obstetrics leapt from $62 million in 2004 to $297.87 million in 2009.
The Government now wants to impose a cap on how much Medicare will refund under this scheme to try to control future fee increases by obstetricians.
"The Government is no longer prepared to provide a blank cheque to specialist doctors to allow them to increase fees and take advantage of a program designed to reduce costs for patients," Health Minister Nicola Roxon said yesterday.
Australian Medical Association president and obstetrician Dr Andrew Pesce conceded some of his colleagues took advantage of the Medicare Safety Net to raise fees.
"There are some doctors who were able to get more rebates through than colleagues doing exactly the same work because they worked in areas where patients could afford it," Dr Pesce said.
He said he warned the Federal Government about the problem five years ago and asked that obstetrics be removed from the Safety Net to solve the problem.
But he said the way the Government was trying to rein in costs would leave women giving birth from January up to $850 worse off if they use a private obstetrician to manage their pregnancy.
Currently Medicare pays rebates averaging $2386 that cover the planning and management of a pregnancy, antenatal visits and delivery of the baby.
Under Government cutbacks these rebates will drop to $1669.
The National Association of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists spokesman Dr David Molloy said the Government had set the new Medicare rebates for obstetrics at fee levels charged by the lowest charging 20 per cent of doctors.
He said fewer women would be worse off if the rebate was set at the higher average fee.
The Medicare Safety Net cost $414 million last year and 50 per cent of the money spent under the scheme went to obstetricians and IVF specialists.
(5) Canberra obstetriciansmassively increased fees since Medicare safety net
ACT obstetric fees 'extremely high': Roxon
Posted September 15, 2009 12:25:00
Updated September 15, 2009 12:36:00
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/15/2686376.htm
The Federal Government says some Canberra obstetricians have massively increased their fees since the Medicare safety net was introduced.
The Government is pushing for changes to the Medicare safety net, including capping benefits paid-out for some procedures.
ACT obstetrician Dr Andrew Foote says the plan will trigger a workforce crisis and he has threatened to stop delivering babies if it goes ahead.
Ms Roxon has hit back at the criticism, releasing figures on obstetric charges.
She says some ACT doctors are charging 80 per cent more than the national average for pregnancy care.
She says obstetricians' fees have increased by 20 per cent in the last 12 months.
"There are some obstetricians who have massively increased their fees since the introduction of the Medicare safety net several years ago," she said.
"This was intended to support patients and not increase the income of specialists.
"We've moved to put a cap in place for those professions and those specialties where there is evidence of those extremely high fee increases since the introduction of the safety net."
Ms Roxon says the caps will help prevent specialists from overcharging patients.
"We're not removing anything from the safety net but introducing these caps and calling on obstetricians to start modifying their fees," she said.
'Patently untrue'
Dr Andrew Foote says Ms Roxon's figures on obstetrics charges are wrong.
He says obstetricians have not increased their fees by 20 per cent in the last year.
"It's patently untrue," he said.
"To be statistically correct you need to talk about what the average doctor is doing not what someone in the eastern suburbs of Sydney is doing and comparing them to what someone in the Northern Territory is doing - you have to compare the averages.
"When you look at the averages it's not 20 per cent at all it's 6.7 per cent is what the average obstetrician has increased things over the last 12 months."
Dr Foote says fees charged by Canberra obstetricians are about 25 per cent higher than the national average.
"It seems that the national average is $2,200 and the Canberra average is $2,800," he said.
"But our fee structure is significantly more than say working in Darwin or Hobart."
Dr Foote says he does not know of any specialist charging 80 per cent more than the national average.
He agrees there should be a cap on the safety net.
"What you should have is a safety net that meets the average charging obstetrician," he said.
"Nicola Roxon met with the IVF doctors and came up with a formula that covered what the average IVF unit charges so that patients wouldn't be worse off.
"But what Nicola Roxon's done - she's done no consultation she's just come in and said 'we know what the right amount is'.
"In fact the average patient will be $1,000 worse off when you look at what the average obstetrician charges across the country."
Dr Foote says the changes will force more people to turn to the public system which is already under pressure and some specialists will leave the profession.
(6) Caster Semenya shattered by humiliation on a global scale
Gender test runner Caster Semenya has been "completely shattered" by the humiliation of global speculation she is a hermaphrodite, her spokeswoman said on Tuesday.
By Emily Miller
Published: 8:40PM BST 15 Sep 2009
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/athletics/6195264/Caster-Semenya-shattered-by-humiliation-on-a-global-scale.html
Headliner: Caster Semenya, the 800 metres world champion, is struggling to come to terms with speculation over her gender Photo: PA
Athletics officials in South Africa said the 18-year-old athlete had keenly monitored newspaper and television coverage of her controversial case and was devastated by claims last week that she had both male and female sex organs.
The 800 metres world champion has remained behind closed doors at her university amid claims the results of International Association of Athletics Federations gender tests proved she had internal testes and no womb.
On Tuesday Semenya's spokeswoman, Athletics South Africa official Phiwe Mlangeni-Tsholetsane, said the runner was struggling to come to terms with being humiliated on a global scale.
She said: "Caster does not shy away from what is being said about her, but she finds the negative and intrusive parts very upsetting. She is completely shattered by all that has been said about her.
"She is extremely fragile at the moment. The claims about her body over the past week have had a very damaging effect. She is only just an adult – she's very young to have to cope with something like this.
"Reports last week of the so-called 'leaked test results' were very hard for her, but she wants to know what the world is saying so she read and watched it all."
Mlangeni-Tsholetsane added: "Caster is a strong woman but even she has her limits. It would do her so much good to read some positive pieces."
South Africa's minister for women and children has filed a complaint with the United Nations over how Semenya's case was handled.
Noluthando Mayende-Sibiya says the international athletics governing body failed to safeguard the confidentiality of the runner. She says they showed "blatant disregard" for Semenya's "human dignity." The complaint, made on Monday, asks the UN Division for the Advancement of Women to investigate the matter.
The teenager continues to receive trauma counselling at the University of Pretoria, as she prepares to receive the results currently being debated by a panel of experts.
The saga began four weeks ago during the World Athletics Championships in Berlin and became international news when Semenya's masculine looks and outstanding performances sparked speculation that she might be male.
The teenager won the women's 800 metres in 1 minute, 55.45 seconds, the best time recorded in the world this year.
The IAAF has been accused by the South African government of breaching the gold medallist's human rights after the intimate details allegedly leaked from her private examinations ended up in the Australian Daily Telegraph.
News updates on the IAAF probe remain at the top of South Africa television news bulletins and on local newspaper front pages, with fresh opinion pieces written daily by commentators.
(7) Attacks on Obama's Health Cover bill - has he compromised with the Big End of Town?
From: Brian Salter <bsalter@gol.com> Date: 16.09.2009 01:50 PM
But now, even the Trotskyists agree that there is a cost-cutting, rationed-care agenda behind the Obama administration's "health care reform", exactly the fear that has ridiculed as "right wing paranoia". Are the Trotskyists working for Big Pharma and Insurers? Key quote:
"Many of the attacks on Emanuel have come from the right, including Republicans who are masquerading as defenders of health care for ordinary Americans. However, these right-wing opponents of Obama’s proposals are seizing on aspects of Emanuel’s theories that are, in fact, deeply reactionary."
In American politics, "socialism" is often used inaccurately as a catch-all to refer to any government policy that violates the principles of the constitution. If it is true that the Obama administration is trying to set up the country for severe budget austerity in the future - starting with health care - in order to keep "bailout" money flowing to Wall Street, then the "Town Hall Mob" are taking the right political position, but for the wrong ideological reasons. What they identify as "socialism" should better be identified as "fascism". The sneering claim that the anti-Obamacare protests are primarily an astroturf corporate front is disproved by the amount of attention given at these rallies to additional issues like the bank bailouts, failed stimulus spending, and the looming Cap- and-Trade scam (all of which many confused but justly outraged right- wingers describe as "big government socialism", ignorant of the fact that these sort of things have already long been criticized from the left as "socialism for the rich").
Comment (Peter M.):
Of course, Obama must appease the Pharma & Insurance lobbies somewhat, just to get his bill through.
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/sep2009/eman-s15.shtml
Obama advisor champions rationed health care
By Kate Randall
15 September 2009
... Obama has pledged to slash more than $600 billion from Medicare and Medicaid as part of his health care plan. Utilizing comparative effectiveness research (CER), this council will recommend cuts—in the form of cost-cutting “efficiencies”—to these federal programs for the elderly, disabled and poor. The cuts are central to Obama’s overhaul of the health care system and are supported by all versions of legislation currently under consideration in Congress.
For decades, efforts to slash Medicare benefits have been frustrated by political opposition, particularly from the working class and senior citizens. The appointment of this body is a thoroughly anti- democratic effort to ride roughshod over this popular opposition to implement deep cuts that will severely impact the health and lives of millions of Americans.
In his advisory capacities, Ezekiel Emanuel—the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel—has been placed in a strategic position to influence the Obama administration on these policies. An examination of Emanuel’s vision of health care restructuring reveals that Obama’s proposals have been informed by many of its guiding principles. Key among them are the defense of a health system based on private profit and the delivery of class-based, rationed medical care for the majority of Americans.
Opponents of Obama’s health care initiatives have attacked Emanuel for writings in which he advocates rationing care, particularly for the elderly, infants and those with mental or physical disabilities. He argues that this is necessary to ensure access to finite health care resources to what he deems to be more “participating” and productive segments of society.
Many of the attacks on Emanuel have come from the right, including Republicans who are masquerading as defenders of health care for ordinary Americans. However, these right-wing opponents of Obama’s proposals are seizing on aspects of Emanuel’s theories that are, in fact, deeply reactionary.
His recommendations about who will and will not receive certain health care services proceed from the premise that health care must remain subordinated to private profit and that “reform” must be geared to cutting the cost of health care for corporations and the government. ...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.