by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

As election day draws near, there is one political hot potato that is getting limited attention.  That is, what this election could mean for the fate of Roe v. Wade, which established a woman's legal right to choose back in 1973.  President Obama has indicated that he supports Roe v. Wade and Governor Romney has indicated that he would essentially reverse Roe v. Wade.  But if Governor Romney is elected President what is the likelihood of such reversal?   

The President appoints, subject to approval, Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court as needed.  The U.S. Supreme Court is comprised of nine Justices, four of which are over the age of 70.  Currently the Court is split 5-4 in  favor of Roe v. Wade.  If one or more Justices retire or take ill, then the president would have the opportunity to appoint a  replacement.  If that was to happen under Romney, he would undoubtedly appoint someone that shares his pro life ideology.  Therefore, depending on the ideology of the outgoing Justice, the current delicate pro choice balance within the Court could easily shift.  Accordingly, the majority of attention is focused on the oldest Justice, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.  Justice Ginsburg turns 80 years old in March 2013, is a two time cancer survivor and staunch pro choice and womens' rights supporter.  If Justice Ginsburg was to retire for whatever reason, there is a very reasonable chance that Roe v. Wade could in fact be reversed.

Perhaps noteworthy, is that in 1994 when Romney ran against Ed Kennedy for Senator in Massachussetts, he subscribed to a much different position on this issue.  In order to underscore his now extinct support of Roe v. Wade, he referenced a young woman who was a close relative, who had died years before as a relut of complications from an illegal abortion.  In our pre Roe v. Wade American history, women of means would simply travel to a state where abortion was legal to contend with an unwanted pregnancy.  Women who lacked resources, would either be compelled to endure an unwanted or risky pregnacy, utilize dangerous self abortion techniques or turn to illegal and potentially unsafe providers.  This all resulted in an alarming compromise to womens' health, privacy and equality.

Clearly this issue is one of personal opinion.  Recently in the news, Indiana Republican Senate candidate Richard Mourdock stood up for his opinion in the matter.  He did so by not backing down from his statement, that he believed that a pregnancy resultant from rape is something "that God intended to happen".   President Obama found Mourdock's comment "outrageous and demeaning to women".  Governor Romney responded by distancing himself from Mourdock, yet maintaining his endorsement for Mourdock and continuing to appear in commercials supporting Mourdock that are airing in Indiana. 

While the purpose of this blog is not to sway people one way or the other, it is to underscore one of the many important issues at stake in the upcoming election.  The right of each and every American to vote, is one that carries a lot of responsibility.  It is not to be taken lightly and should not be discarded.  However you may vote on Election Day, get out and cast your vote with pride and make sure that you are counted.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq. 

 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

As a follow up to our last blog, there is a relatively new "car comfort" iPhone device that is now available for the sale price of $19.99.  The device is called the Strap Caddy and attaches to your car's seat belt shoulder harness in front of your chest.  The Strap Caddy allows you to place your iPhone into the holder resting comfortably on your chest, so that you can make and receive calls in hands free fashion while driving.  

While this new product certainly has a measure of convenience, many question the real price for this convenience.  Case and point is found in the May issue of the Environmental Health Trust's newsletter, which discusses a female patient who developed multi-focal breast cancer.  This particular young lady did not have any predisposing risk factors for cancer, but had the habit of tucking her cell phone into her bra.  

Two cancer specialists, Robert Nagourney and John West, came to the conclusion that the radiation from her cell phone was the likely cause of the cancer.  "We connected the dots," the patient said.  As it turns out the "dots", quite literally the pattern of cancer and the distribution of the cancer cells found, lined up perfectly with the shape of the patient's cell phone.  While the doctors can't prove that the cell phone caused the cancer, this should serve as fair warning to all women and men alike that position an active cell phone anywhere on their person.  When it comes to purchasing any product, we should always be mindful of the legal maxim Caveat Emptor, which is latin for let the buyer beware.

   

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In a landamark ruling, the Italian Supreme Court concluded that cell phone radiation can cause brain cancer.  The court found causation between a man's heavy work related cell phone use and a brain tumor he developed.  As a result of the court's finding, it was determined that the man was entitled to receive worker's compensation benefits.  This decision potentially opens the door of success, for world wide lawsuits regarding this previously hotly contested issue.  

In 2011, the World Health Organization's International Agency on Research for Cancer classified cell phone radiation as "possibly carcinogenic" to humans.  This classification came after the Interphone study found that using cell phones for only 30 minutes or more per day, resulted in a 40% increased risk for a glioma brain tumor and a 96% increased risk if the phone is used predominantly on the side of the head.  

On June 15, 2012, the Federal Communications Commision (FCC) submitted a proposal to reevaluate cell phone radiation emission standards.  The last time cell phone radiation emission standards were evaluated was in 1996 and are therfore considered outdated to say the least.  Perhaps the new evaluation will finally acknowledge that technology often wields a double edged sword. 

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

A Federal Court recently ruled in favor of the Obama Administration, effectively reinstating the detention provision of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).  The provision gives the president the authority to indefinitely detain anyone (including American citizens), based on a suspicion of involvement with a terrorist group.  This ruling overturns the lower District Court decision striking down the provision, as overly broad and violative of equal protection and due process rights. 

The recent ruling was made by a U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit, comprised of three judges appointed by President Obama.  Co-sponsor Senator Carl Levin (D) explained in a December 2011 speech, that;

"The language which precluded the application... to American citizens was in the bill that we originally approved... and the administration asked us to remove the language which says U.S. citizens and lawful residents would not be subject to this section. ... It was the administration which asked us to remove the very language the absence of which is now objected to."

Many opponents to the NDAA provision, including groups such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), argue that it violates due process, equal protection and flies in the face of the very Constitution upon which our country is based.  Many people question whether or not the age of terrorism in which we are compelled to live in, justifies the effective personification of "Big Brother".  Ironically, the USCA ruling characterized the lower District Court's decision as unconstitutional.  

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In what is being hailed by many as a historic decision, Monsanto has been found liable for the chemical poisoning of a farmer by a French court.  In 2004 a 47 year old farmer sued Monsanto for chemical poisoning, that he claimed to have received after cleaning his sprayer tank equipment.  The farmer used Monsanto's Lasso weedkiller formula, which contained the active ingredient Alachlor.   It was alleged that the Alachlor caused the farmer lifelong nerve damage, persistent memory loss, chronic headaches, a speech impediment and rendered him permanently occupationally disabled.  

The court found Monsanto negligent in failing to provide proper and adequate warning of exposure dangers on the Lasso packaging.  The farmer's lawyer maintains that this is the first time that a pesticide manufacturer has been found liable for such type of poisoning.  According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to Alachlor may cause damage to the liver, kidneys, spleen and eyes and may even cause anemia and cancer.  In fact, the EPA apparently determined Alachlor to be so hazardous that it set the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) at zero, in order to "prevent potential health problems".  

In 2007, France officially banned Lasso in accordance with a European Union (EU) directive enacted in 2006, prohibiting the chemical from being used on crops.  Despite the EU prohibition and all of the known potential dangers from Lasso, the chemical is still being used on conventional crops throughout the United States to this very day.  The court has yet to determine the amount of compensation Monsanto will be required to pay the farmer.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq. 

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

One of the  many reasons for the high cost of healthcare in the U.S., is the widespread problem with Medicare fraud.  Case and point is the recent sweep in which almost 91 people including doctors, nurses and other medical professionals, were criminally charged with fraud.  The government raid uncovered fraud in the amount of $430 million in seven cities across the country, including Brooklyn, NY.

Medicare is a $590 billion dollar program that serves almost 50 million people, and is a siren for fraud.  The three year long investigation is part of the Obama Administration's efforts to find savings in healthcare, which was a main focus of the first presidential debate.  Although this was one of the biggest fraud busts in years, it barely makes a dent in the estimated $80 billion in Medicare fraud every year.  

Until such time that healthcare fraud can be brought under control, the high cost of healthcare will likely remain out of reach.  There once was a time when professionals in this country championed values such as ethics and pride in service.  Americans now have a need to re-examine such values, as we come to the realization that we just may be our own worst enemy.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

by Long Island Attorney Paul A. Lauto, Esq.

In March 2013, Mayor Bloomberg's newly passed NYC soda ban law will go into effect.  The new law prohibits the municipal sale of soda and sugar laden drinks larger than 16 ounces.  The  general purpose behind the law is to combat obesity.  But will the new law truly serve the purpose behind the law?  

In the "super size" society of today, excessive food and drink portions have become the new normal.  It used to be that a 12 ounce can of soda would be considered a full size drink.  But today, it seems that what society considers to be a full size soda, is closer to 24 ounces than it is to 12 ounces.  So will the new law actually stop people from drinking more than 16 ounces of soda with their meals?

For those people who will be too embarrassed or cost conscious to buy a second soda, the answer is yes.  But for the likely majority of people who won't hesitate to simply buy a second soda upon completing their first, the answer is a  resounding no.  Perhaps this explains why restaurant owners did not appear to put up a strong fight against the proposed legislation.  If for example people buy two 16 ounce sodas instead of one 24 ounce soda, the result is an increased profit margin.  The days of "free refills" may soon be over.  It would appear that the newly passed legislation is a law with limited teeth.  

The new law also begs the perhaps more important question of what's next?  Will government regulate the size of our hamburgers or how many bags of potato chips we are allowed to purchase?  Although the general purpose behind the law is admirable, it appears to treat adults as if they were little children.  Accordingly,  the effectiveness of the new law is likely to be limited.

Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.