Midwifery is one of the most important professions in the medical community, and rather than marginalize them by revoking their insurance, they should be embraced by insurance companies as providing cost-effective, safe birthing alternatives.
KentOnline| News | Midwives go medieval to show profession's plight:
Fears that independent midwives may not be able to get insurance led to one getting a 'ducking'.
Virginia Howes, who runs the Kent Midwifery Practice, waded into the River Stour in Canterbury to draw attention to the Save Independent Midwifery Campaign.
She was watched by midwives from across the county and some of their clients at the Weavers Restaurant, while an effigy was placed in the historic ducking stool that hangs off the side of the restaurant above the river.
The ducking stunt echoed the tradition of the fate of witches and midwives who were often treated with suspicion and fear in Medieval times.
A lack of insurance means hundreds of independent midwives up and down the country could be forced to stop work in the face of government guidelines by the end of next year.
Partner at the Ashford-based Kent Midwifery Practice, Kay Hardie, said: “No one will insure us.
“We are a high risk group and the pot is small for any coverage because we work outside the NHS.
“We offer invaluable one-to-one care for pregnant women and many more are choosing alternative methods to give birth.
“We hope that the Primary Care Trusts will buy our services in the same way they do for GP services.
“In that way we would have insurance coverage.”
Thanks to the Concurring Opinions gang for inviting me back for another visit!
I will leave it to the likes of the incredible Rick Hasen and SCOTUSBlog’s Lyle Deniston — among many, many others — to talk about the important election law elements of Monday’s Supreme Court decision on voter identification in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board. But if you are a hammer everything is a nail, and if you are a privacy scholar every newspaper story is about privacy. And the privacy implications here are rather clear.
Quite appropriately, the case was briefed, argued, and decided on the basis of the burden that Indiana’s identification requirements placed (or didn’t place) on the right to vote. The seminal cases were Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections, which held the poll tax unconstitutional, and its progeny. Other key sources cited in the opinions included the Carter-Baker Commission report and two recent federal electoral reform statutes, the motor voter law and the Help America Vote Act. The burdens considered by both the lead opinion and the dissents were pragmatic ones, largely monetary cost and inconvenience.
What about privacy burdens?
Election law doctrine does not leave much room for their consideration. In other contexts, identification requirements are viewed as potential privacy intrusions. The continuing controversy and the backlash in state legislatures against the federal Real ID Act (see, e.g., here and here) is one such area. Likewise, the 2004 decision in Hiibel, though it upheld state “stop-and-identify” laws allowing police officers to demand that a suspect disclose his or her name, was also analyzed primarily as a privacy issue.
But in Crawford, there is no mention of the privacy impact of turning voting into yet another important activity that you cannot accomplish without “showing your papers.” And since it is now basically impossible to board an aircraft, enter a federal building, or cash a check without showing ID, voter ID requirements become just another event in an accelerating trend toward an ID society.
I’m not necessarily saying that Crawford was wrongly decided. But it is remarkable that “ID creep” has played such a small role in both the legal argument and the news coverage related to this controversial case. Indeed, I suspect that crabwise movement toward a de facto ID requirement, through individual rules that necessitate ID in more and more settings, is worse than a straightforward debate on a national ID card. Great Britain is going through that debate now (see, e.g., here and here); if the end result is a true national ID then at least all the arguments for and against will be fully aired. Just a thought.
[Cross-posted at Concurring Opinions.]
It worries me how widespread this crap could be. It worries me that we are raising a society of uneducated people who will pass the same garbage along to their children.
]]>The COFEE, which stands for Computer Online Forensic Evidence Extractor, is a USB "thumb drive" that was quietly distributed to a handful of law-enforcement agencies last June. Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith described its use to the 350 law-enforcement experts attending a company conference Monday.
The device contains 150 commands that can dramatically cut the time it takes to gather digital evidence, which is becoming more important in real-world crime, as well as cybercrime. It can decrypt passwords and analyze a computer's Internet activity, as well as data stored in the computer.
It also eliminates the need to seize a computer itself, which typically involves disconnecting from a network, turning off the power and potentially losing data. Instead, the investigator can scan for evidence on site.
More than 2,000 officers in 15 countries, including Poland, the Philippines, Germany, New Zealand and the United States, are using the device, which Microsoft provides free.
]]>More at the BBC News
]]>