revision – the news network

National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) Renews Call for End to Product Liability Shield for Vaccine Manufacturers During 2016 Vaccine Awareness Week
WASHINGTON–(BUSINESS WIRE)–On the 30th Anniversary of the enactment of the National Childhood Injury Act and during the Seventh Annual Vaccine Awareness Week Nov. 13-20, 2016, the non-profit National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) is renewing its call for an end to the 1986 product liability shield Congress gave vaccine manufacturers for injuries and deaths caused by government licensed and mandated vaccines.
In the 1986 tort reform legislation that created a federal vaccine injury compensation program alternative to product liability and malpractice lawsuits, NVIC co-founders secured vaccine safety informing, recording and reporting provisions that have not been enforced. In 2011, the US Supreme Court banned design defect lawsuits when there was evidence a drug company could have made a vaccine less reactive. Between 2011 and 2016, medical trade associations and special interest groups funded by pharmaceutical companies and government have lobbied state legislatures to remove non-medical and severely restrict medical vaccine exemptions.
“Drug companies should be liable in civil court for vaccine injuries and deaths and so should anyone giving vaccines to people being denied the human right to informed consent to medical risk taking,” said NVIC co-founder and president Barbara Loe Fisher. “There is an urgent need to hold vaccine manufacturers and doctors accountable in civil court for the safety of vaccines and how they are being given.”
The federal vaccine injury compensation program (VICP) has paid $3.5 billion to victims of vaccine injury and death, but two out of three claims are denied. Today, most of the VICP awards go to adults injured by flu vaccine and not to children injured by vaccines required to attend school.

The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986
The law preserved the right for vaccine injured persons to bring a lawsuit in the court system if federal compensation is denied or is not sufficient. By 2012, the U.S. Court of Claims had awarded over $3 billion dollars to vaccine victims for their catastrophic vaccine injuries, although two out of three applicants have been denied compensation. Below are links to the National Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 broken down into specific sections, as listed by the US Government Publishing Office. The law may also be viewed in its entirety on the US House of Representatives Office of the Law and Revision Council here.

Spain grapples with abortion revision

A headline-grabbing protest in the Spanish parliament has brought women’s rights centre-stage in recession-hit Spain.

The disturbance last month, orchestrated by the feminist group Femen, graphically illustrated the anger felt by some over planned reforms to abortion law.

The centre-right government aims to reverse legislation introduced by its Socialist predecessor in 2010 – effectively limiting the circumstances in which abortion can be carried out.

It is a controversial proposal in a country where 120,000 terminations are performed annually, the highest rate in Europe.

A poll carried out by leading newspaper El Pais shows a big majority against the idea.

Isabel Serrano speaks for a campaign, “Decidir Nos Hace Libres”,that brings together some 250 groups opposed to changing the law.

“The way it is in the country, with the law as it is, simply the problems have been minimised. Women can have abortions in way that’s safer for their health and more fairly, because in each of the autonomous regions the state will pay for terminations. There hasn’t been a great rise in abortions – only a small increase. When something works well we can’t see any legal, health or social reasons to change reason to change the law,” she says.

The current law allows abortion on demand up to 14 weeks, and up to 22 weeks if the foetus appears seriously deformed., or if the mother’s physical or mental health are at risk.

The majority of terminations are carried out in private clinics and paid for by the state.

Under the government’s plans, the procedure could only be performed in cases of rape or where the mother’s health is seriously at risk, and up to a limit of 14 weeks.

For this private practitioner it is a backward step.

“For the first time in years the woman will have to abide by the decisions of others – a doctor, a judge, who have no regard for her personal convictions, or her intimate feelings. This bill will completely obliterate the free will of the woman.

Inevitably, this will create two different situations. The woman who has the economic means will go abroad where she’ll have an abortion with all legal and health guarantees. The woman who doesn’t have these means will be condemned to an illegal abortion, without legal or health guarantees,” says Dr. Diego Fernandez Alvarez.

Olga deals with patient relations at this private clinic. She herself had a termination in the 1980s, not long after it was legalised in Spain in cases of rape, deformation of the foetus, and physical or psychological risks to the health of the mother.

“With the information I had at the time I had lots of doubts. Will there be complications? What should I do? Will I be arrested? Will the whole world know? Will they see it in my face? After I’d had the operation, all I felt was huge relief,” she says.

Today’s law has tackled the legal uncertainties and social taboos, but fear of stigma still exists.

In another clinic a 15 year old girl and her mother have agreed to talk to us, their identities concealed.

Minors under 16 need the approval of parents or legal guardians to have an abortion.

But this girl tells us her mind is clear on the issue.

“I’m too young to have a child. It’s not always an easy decision, but for me it’s not a problem,” she says.

“It’s very hard for me to watch my daughter go for an abortion. But she’s at an age where she can’t, she doesn’t want to be a mother. So, I would have supported her whatever decision she took,” says her mother.

A woman’s rights over her own body is not a convincing argument for this couple who belong to an anti-abortion group and who have seven children themselves.

“We kept an echography of a baby that Esperanza lost at two and half months. We told our kids, it was a little brother or sister, that – we didn’t know if it was a boy or girl, but that it was in heaven now, with God. We keep it with the other kids’ photos,” says lawyer Luis Gutierrez de Cabiedes.

For Luis and his wife no arguments – legal, health, financial – can justify abortion, For them the government’s proposed reforms do not go far enough.

“In Spain abortion must be an offence, and should not be decriminalised. The mother always needs help; even more when she’s pregnant! Because she’s carrying a human being. And if they really don’t want the baby they can give it up for adoption. But really she can’t think of killing her baby!” says Luis’s wife.

“With abortion we put in process the extermination of our own civilisation. It’s one of the greatest mistakes our society makes,” insists Luis.