Popular Articles

Blogs Comment On Supreme Court Decisions, Obama Administration, Other Topics
The following summarizes selected women"s health-related blog entries. ~ "Just Released: Gains and Losses for Women in 2008-09 Supreme Court Decisions," National Women"s Law Center"s "Womenstake": The Supreme Court"s 2008-2009 term, which concluded Monday, included "several crucial decisions that demonstrate the impact of the court on women"s lives," according to the blog post, which summarizes a new analysis from NWLC on the cases. For example, the blog post says that the rulings in Fitzgerald v. Barnstable School Committee and Crawford v. Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tenn., increased employees" protections against discrimination in the workplace. However, the rulings in Ricci v. DeStetano -- which overturned an appellate court"s anti-discrimination ruling -- and AT&T Corp. v. Hulteen -- which "permitted AT&T to pay women lower pension benefits for the rest of their lives" -- were "not as positive," the blog entry says. NWLC Co-President Marcia Greenberger said that the Supreme Court "ignored the realities of the workplace and the intent of Congress and ruled against female workers" in AT&T v. Hulteen. Greenberger also said that such cases "underscore why every seat on the Supreme Court is of paramount importance to women," adding that it is "absolutely critical" that Supreme Court nominees have "a strong commitment to upholding and enforcing women"s basic legal rights and protections" ("Womenstake," National Women"s Law Center, 6/29).~ "Waldman and Saletan: Oh What a Fine Bromance!" Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: In a recent bloggingheads.tv chat on "common ground" in the abortion-rights debate, Slate columnist Will Saletan and Beliefnet Editor-in-Chief Steve Waldman "spent as much time as possible complimenting each other"s work" and "as little as possible on any real substance regarding reproductive health and choice issues," Jacobson writes. It is "clear that the Obama administration"s stated intention to create "a common ground platform"" on abortion rights has become "a full employment program for both Waldman and Saletan," she writes. Jacobson continues, "So perhaps the most striking thing about the conversation was that, in the end, they both effectively concluded that the common ground enterprise was a "just for show" political strategy," and that the "real strategies" necessary to reduce the need for abortion "are the very prevention programs least likely to be supported by the far right. (Revelation!)." She adds, "However, they came to this conclusion through the same faux-expert uninformed arguments that characterize their columns." During the "Will-interviews-Steve format," Saletan "revealed once again that there is no core philosophy or framework underlying his ever-shifting positions on choice and abortion," according to Jacobson. She adds that "Waldman, for his part, several times underscored what is clear from reading his work": that he "just throws things "out there" without considered thought" about what "might be good versus bad data, not understanding how to read evidence," and "oblivious or uncaring about the effects his free-form moralistic misinformation and opinions might actually have on an already polarized debate." According to Jacobson, "Public policies affecting sexual and reproductive health issues" should be "based first and foremost on public health and on promoting individual rights balanced by individual responsibilities," but "as anyone living on Planet Earth knows, sex and reproduction have become the front in a war waged by ultra-conservative religious and political forces for which Waldman serves as a paid flacky." She continues, "In fact, Waldman himself stated during the program: "I have a corporate interest in injecting religion into every debate."" Jacobson states, "Reading and watching this duo is like buying the OK! magazine version of the culture wars at the grocery store; they put whatever sells on the front cover, no matter the truth or consequences.

Allergy Season: Cigarettes To The Rescue?
Everyone knows that smoking can kill you, but did you know that it may help with your allergies? A new study shows that cigarette smoke can prevent allergies by decreasing the reaction of immune cells to allergens.
News of the day
Fees Announced By Society's Council, UK
The Council of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain has announced a fee
Mental Health

Need Something? Talk To My Right Ear!

We humans prefer to be addressed in our right ear and are more likely to perform a task when we receive the request in our right ear rather than our left. In a series of three studies, looking at ear preference in communication between humans, Dr. Luca Tommasi and Daniele Marzoli from the University "Gabriele d"Annunzio" in Chieti, Italy, show that a natural side bias, depending on hemispheric asymmetry in the brain, manifests itself in everyday human behavior. Their findings were just published online in Springer"s journal Naturwissenschaften. One of the best known asymmetries in humans is the right ear dominance for listening to verbal stimuli, which is believed to reflect the brain"s left hemisphere superiority for processing verbal information. However, until now, the majority of studies looking at ear preference in human communication have been controlled laboratory studies and there is very little published observational evidence of spontaneous ear dominance in everyday human behavior. Tommasi and Marzoli"s three studies specifically observed ear preference during social interactions in noisy night club environments. In the first study, 286 clubbers were observed while they were talking, with loud music in the background. In total, 72 percent of interactions occurred on the right side of the listener. These results are consistent with the right ear preference found in both laboratory studies and questionnaires and they demonstrate that the side bias is spontaneously displayed outside the laboratory. In the second study, the researchers approached 160 clubbers and mumbled an inaudible, meaningless utterance and waited for the subjects to turn their head and offer either their left of their right ear. They then asked them for a cigarette. Overall, 58 percent offered their right ear for listening and 42 percent their left. Only women showed a consistent right-ear preference. In this study, there was no link between the number of cigarettes obtained and the ear receiving the request. In the third study, the researchers intentionally addressed 176 clubbers in either their right or their left ear when asking for a cigarette. They obtained significantly more cigarettes when they spoke to the clubbers" right ear compared with their left. According to the authors, taken together, these results confirm a right ear/left hemisphere advantage for verbal communication and distinctive specialization of the two halves of the brain for approach and avoidance behavior. They conclude: "Our studies corroborate the idea of a common ancestry - in humans and other species - of lateralized behavior during social interactions, not only for species-specific vocal communication, but also for affective responses." Springer Science+Business Media


Add your comment:
Name:
Site address: http://
Your message:
Enter today\\\\'s date, 2 digits
(spam protection):