Sunday, July 22, 2012
German parliament defends circumcision after court ban
View the Original article
Monday, July 2, 2012
German court circumcision ban meets wave of criticism
"Germany is an open-minded, tolerant country where religious freedom is firmly established and religious traditions like circumcision are considered an expression of religious pluralism," Guido Westerwelle told the daily Bild in an interview to be published in its Friday edition.
A court in Cologne ruled on Tuesday that involuntary religious circumcision should be illegal as it could inflict serious bodily harm on people who had not consented to it.
The ruling, which applies only to the area around the western city of Cologne but sparked fears among Muslims and Jews in particular that other German states could copy the ban, said boys can consciously decide to be circumcised later in life.
According to the court ruling, "the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighs the fundamental rights of the parents".
Westerwelle said the ruling caused "irritation" around the world after being reported in the international media.
The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet's website said Turkish European Minister Egemen Bagis had criticized the German ruling, saying that circumcision was a matter of freedom of religion and conscience.
"If German judges have a problem understanding this issue, we can send our scientific circumcisers, we can give them lessons in how to circumcise," he was quoted as saying.
"We are ready to make any contribution for a country that is a friend and ally. But it is not possible for us to accept this ruling as a fait accompli ... God willing, this verdict will be changed," Bagis said.
The Central Council of Jews in Germany called the ruling an "unprecedented and dramatic intrusion" on religious freedom and the Central Council of Muslims in Germany called it "blatant and inadmissible interference" in the rights of parents.
Germany's two main Christian churches also criticized the Cologne court ruling, the Catholic Episcopal Conference calling it "extremely disconcerting".
"To ban circumcision is a serious attack on religious freedom," said Catholic Bishop Heinrich Mussinghoff.
The Evangelical Church's Hans Ulrich Anke said: "Religious freedom and parents' right to choose how to educate their children have not been weighed against the fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity".
The United Nations' special rapporteur on religious freedom, Heiner Bielefeldt, told German radio the court's reasoning was "nonsense".
(Edited by Stephen Brown, editing by Tim Pearce)
View the Original article
Supreme Court Ruling Sets Stage for Full Rollout of Health-Care Reform Law
View the Original article
Sunday, July 1, 2012
High court ruling benefits most health care firms
View the Original article
Berlin hospital suspends circumcisions after court ruling
View the Original article
Supreme Court hands Obama 'victory' on health
View the Original article
US health industry relieved by court ruling
View the Original article
Friday, June 29, 2012
German court bans circumcision of young boys
View the Original article
German court bans circumcision of young boys
View the Original article
Thursday, June 28, 2012
German court rules religious circumcision on boys an assault
View the Original article
Saturday, June 16, 2012
HIV-positive saliva not a "deadly weapon": NY court
Explore news, videos, and much more based on what your friends are reading and watching. Publish your own activity and retain full control.
To get started, firstLogin with Facebook YOUR FRIENDS' ACTIVITY prev next HIV-positive saliva not a "deadly weapon": NY courtView the Original article
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Whistleblower Woodford to tackle Olympus in court
View the Original article
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Fate of frail patients hinges on Supreme Court
Nearly 62,000 patients with serious medical conditions would be out of luck.
They're the "uninsurables," people turned away by insurance companies because of medical problems but covered through a little-known program in the law called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan. The plan would have to shut down if the entire law is invalidated.
Cancer patient Kathy Watson is worried she'll be uninsured again without the program. The Florida small businesswoman credits the coverage for saving her life this year when she had to be hospitalized with a serious respiratory infection.
She says simply: "Without it, I would have been dead March 2."
View the Original article
Fate of some patients hinges on Supreme Court
View the Original article
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Australia takes on big tobacco firms in court
View the Original article
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Brazil court OKs abortions for brainless fetuses
Abortion is illegal in Brazil except when a pregnancy threatens the life of the mother and in cases of rape. The Supreme Federal Tribunal's 8-2 vote Thursday now decriminalizes abortions involving anencephalic fetuses.
Such fetuses develop without brains and cannot survive outside the womb for more than a few minutes. Most die before birth. Brazil has a high rate of such cases, with 10 out of every 10,000 pregnancies.
Brazil is the world's most populous Roman Catholic country and religious groups staged vigils outside the court and in other cities opposing a ruling to allow such abortions.
View the Original article
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Supreme Court misunderstanding on health overhaul?
View the Original article
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Advocates for mentally ill erred in lawsuit: court
The decision by a federal appeals court sweeps aside a trial judge's finding that the State of New York discriminated against thousands of people living in adult homes.
The case must now begin anew, possibly with the Justice Department taking the lead, the court said.
Disability Advocates Inc brought the case on behalf of people with mental illness, following a model that is common in U.S. courts for an association to file suit on behalf of its members or people who are closely related to its mission.
The appeals court said Disability Advocates could not do so here because it is not a traditional, member-based organization, nor does its "constituency" have the "indicia of membership."
For example, it is not clear that the mentally ill have the power to elect the directors of Disability Advocates, make budget decisions or direct litigation strategies, wrote Judge José Cabranes of the Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit.
The nonprofit does not have standing to sue, Cabranes wrote.
Disability Advocates called the ruling a setback and said it would continue pressing New York state officials.
"I am hopeful that the state will want to find a solution here that avoids future litigation and recognizes the rights of the residents to live in the community," said Cliff Zucker, executive director of Disability Advocates.
Zucker said he disagrees with the court's interpretation of how Disability Advocates operates. Adult-home residents with mental illness are capable of participating in the organization and the lawsuit and they have done so, he said.
No decision has been made about appealing the appellate court's ruling, either to the full 2nd Circuit or to the Supreme Court, Zucker said. His organization filed its initial complaint against the state in 2003.
The offices of New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, both Democrats, did not respond to requests for comment late on Friday.
The Justice Department, which joined the lawsuit in 2009 on the side of the mentally ill, declined to comment.
Cabranes wrote that federal government may "re-file the action and submit the same evidence at a subsequent trial," as could individual plaintiffs with standing.
"We are not unsympathetic to the concern that our disposition will delay the resolution of this controversy and impose substantial burdens and transaction costs on the parties, their counsel, and the courts," Cabranes wrote, adding that the appeals court has confidence in the trial judge to "facilitate an appropriate, efficient resolution."
District Judge Nicholas Garaufis found in 2009 that New York State violated federal disability law and discriminated against Disability Advocates' 4,300 constituents by failing to provide them with adequate housing.
The case is Disability Advocates Inc, et al, v. New York Coalition for Quality Assisted, et al, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, 10-235(L)
(Reporting by David Ingram; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)
View the Original article
Monday, March 26, 2012
US Supreme Court begins hearings on health care reform
View the Original article