Recently in Health Category

Last month I went in to see my gynocologist with one sole purpose in mind- to ask about menstrual cups. I asked her what the safety protocol was. I asked her how to insert them, how to remove them etc. But I also asked her about why she had never suggested them as an option when I had first went in to see her when I was thirteen. I have several problems with my menstrual cycle and as soon as it is legal for me to do so I will be having a hysterectomy. In the meantime I have to carefully monitor how much I menstruate every month. This was a chore with pads and tampons. I would have to weigh each individual pad or tampon before and after I had used them. A menstrual cup would have saved me countless time and trouble. She admitted to me that it hadn't even occured to her about them. It was something that she knew existed but had rarely come across someone who actually uses them. So after getting her reassurence that the cup was a good option for me I went online and ordered one.

Do Women Need Such Big Flu Shots?

According to Sabra L Klein and Phyllis Greenberger studies show that they do not. But as with much medical research, the normative is always based on the male (if the female is studied at all--I'm thinking about all we know about heart disease in men vs. the scant amount we know about women's heart disease because it never even occurred to researchers to study women for a long time).

Klein and Greenberger bring up some salient points in their NY Times Op-Ed when they suggest that the vaccine might be more available to vulnerable populations in poor countries if we weren't dosing women with more vaccine than they need! That and the medical fact that women have a stronger antibody response to the vaccines and when given a lower dose do not have as many side effects. Seems like an all-around good thing, huh!

I have had many, many diagnosis of mental illness.  In thinking about how I deal with them, I have discovered a 'hierarchy' in how willing I am to discuss each with people in my life. I am very, very willing to talk about my learning disabilities. In part, that is because my LDs are obvious.  I use a computer to take notes because my handwriting is bad due to dysgraphia.  I reverse letters and numbers due to dyslexia. My non-verbal learning disability is less obvious, but I have never been ashamed to claim it either.  However, it is not just the obviousness of my learning disabilities that make me willing to claim them.  It is that (baring one ignorant teacher) I have never been blamed for my LDs. So, I willingly explain my LDs to all that ask.  But I'm not so open with others regarding other diagnoses. 

I am semi-ashamed of my history of anxiety and depression. Too often, I was told I should just 'snap out' of it.  Too often, I felt people blaming my issues of some moral failing of mine.  But I am much more willing to admit to anxiety and depression than I am to admit to having had an eating disorder.  If depression is often seen as a moral failing, an eating disorder is all too often seen as a mortal sin, an epic failure.  Eating disorders carry unique shame- and once people know about my past with them, I never feel safe from judgment.  I know that my family still watches what I eat carefully and every time they visit me in college, they are looking at my body for signs of self-induced starvation.  They don't seek out evidence of anxiety or depression with the same fervor.

I check Feministing.com every morning.  And unfortunately, most of the posts make me angry or sad.

This evening something weird happened to me.  Not only did I have a conversation with a stranger, but a young woman like myself.  We discussed STD's and the importance of protection.

It all started out like this: I was waiting for the X80 bus on the north side of Chicago, and it was raining and very cold.  I was shivering, without a warm coat or umbrella (I know, bad choice on my part).  A woman who looked like she was 23 or 24 came up to me and said, "do you want to share my umbrella with me?" and I said, "Yes! Thank you so much." 

We stood awkwardly under her umbrella, and then she asked me how my day was going.  I told her that my best friend has swine flu, and we began talking about all the vaccines we've had and need to get.  "my boyfriend is an elementary school teacher, and he got ringworms from them, he should have gotten the vaccine" she told me.  I work with 2-5 year olds, and I too had to get vaccines to prevent diseases.  We talked about TB, the flu, and ringworms until we got to the topic of Gardisil.  I had gotten the shot a few months ago, and she said she wish she had.

She was HPV positive and had to get surgery because of some pre-cancerous cells in her body.  She told me it was very frightening and she's so glad she went to the gynocologist when she did, just for a routine check-up.  I told her I too was HPV positive but mine was so minor that my doctor told me it wasn't anything to worry about and I could get the Gardisil shot anyways.  We talked a bit more about HPV and Gardisil, and we only once made a comment about how odd it was that two strangers discussed such personal things with each other.

We boarded the bus, and each took out our books and read.  I then told her goodnight and walked home.

This may seem trivial, but it really gives me hope.  This women was OK with telling me about some really personal issues (STDs, vaccines) and I did the same to her.  I hardly told anyone I had HPV and now this random person in Chicago knows.  I hope more women find strength to talk to each other about these things and support each other within such issues.  STD's are a total tabboo in today's society, and I hope they become more acceptable to discuss as to prevent them and teach younger girls, and young women how to get treatment.

I'm writing this in response to Daliah's post Let's talk about vaginas since I realised that I had more that a comment's worth of things I want to say.  Daliah, thanks for starting this conversation.  I too looked here for resources when I was learning about this condition.  I really wish more people knew about vulvodynia because I spent years telling people that bike seats were uncomfortable and tampons were painful without anyone suggesting something might be wrong.  So I've told lots of my friends that I have this condition and almost all those exchanges have been positive.  It really helps to talk to someone and have a support group.  And now I'm going to try and very frankly tell you what my experiences with vulvodynia have been.

My History

I have probably had vulvodynia for 4 or 5 years, although I didn't realise it until I started to be sexually active 2 years ago.  Once I realised something was wrong (by confirming with a friend that it was not supposed to hurt when a guy went down on you!), I talked to my parents, who are doctors, and did a bunch of research and figured that I probably had vulvodynia.  I was referred to a gynecologist who confirmed the diagnosis.  I started making progress with him, but then got worse right before I moved cities.  Then last February I was lucky enough to take part in this Multidisciplinary Vulvodynia Program (MVP), which exposed me a bunch of different treatment options.  That program has now ended and I'm working with a physio and my family doctor.  I haven't recovered and my pain goes up and down although I am definitely further ahead than where I started two years ago.

I am a 25 year old straight female and have never had children. I am in a long-term relationship and have been using hormonal birth control for a year and a half. I took the Pill for about a year and gained weight, was moody, and have experienced quite a bit of anxiety as well. I talked to my doctor about using something non-hormonal and was sure I wanted to try the IUD. She was supportive and had me try the Ring for a few months to see if I liked that and if not, we would try the IUD. Well, I just scheduled a time to insert the IUD and now I am having second thoughts.

I am sure I really don't want any more hormonal birth control. It really screws me up and I don't think it's something I would be comfortable using long term since I am really into natural living. But I am nervous about the IUD. With a previous partner we just used condoms and I never got pregnant or had any scares. Ideally, I would go to just using condoms again but I do worry about getting pregnant.

I am really tired of obsessing about these decisions and feeling like I have no choice but to pump my bodies full of hormones or risk some of the negative side effects of IUDs. Any thoughts or experiences you all would be willing to share would be greatly appreciated!

I wish I had more time to write about this but at the moment I'm completely swamped with homework.
Anyway, unsafe abortions reportedly kill 70,000 women annually. Read on, and share your thoughts.

As a regular reader here, I know that mental illness is not a foreign topic to these boards. In fact, it comes up and is addressed with some frequency. I have encountered a great deal of diversity of thought among my feminist-identified friends when it comes to how to talk about mental illness. I have a manic disorder myself, and am a part of a community group where people with other illnesses are present as well. A few years ago, I made the decision that prescription medication was not working for me. It made me sick to my stomach. It caused such side effects that I would rather deal with the disease than the cure. My doctor tried multiple varieties, multiple dosages. Nothing helped. I eventually made the decision to begin alternative treatments, including nutrition therapy, holistic counseling, biofeedback, cognitive therapy, ect. These treatments work for me and help me manage my moods in an effective way. But the reactions I have received, even from people who profess to be feminist or progressive, have not always been good. And that begs the question... aren't patients' rights still relevant here?

I understand that the idea of an un-medicated mentally ill person is scary. I do. The news media doesn't help the situation by flooding the news stream with stories about psychotic outbursts and the like. But I still find it shocking how few people I have met and divulged the information to feel free to openly criticize or disrespect the choice that some make to not use medication as a mental treatment.

Hello... Long time reader, first time poster

I recently got married and am looking for a reliable form of birth control. Throughout our dating period we were stupid and relied of the 'pull out' method. Which looking back, is not much of a method but more luck and gross negligence. I'm technically on the pill, but miss so often I still don't feel secure. 

I was told that an IUD might be my answer. I've looked into it a little, but also heard it can be difficult to access. And of course with all the talk going on with Bayer's Yaz and Yasmin, I don't want to pick a method randomly. Any suggestions for someone who wants to be baby free?

Feminists spend a lot of time critiquing how women's bodies are treated, and talking about how we are made to feel insecure as women about our bodies. Within these discussions, exercise, diet, or fitness books usually get a pretty bad rap.

But what about those of us looking for a feminist resource on strengthening and physically shaping our bodies in the way we want to? Are there feminist fitness or exercise books out there?

The question came up for me because my mom has recently decided to start an exercise program, because she feels unhealthy and lacks energy to accomplish the things she wants to in her life. I want to encourage her in what is the most successful push I have seen her engage in to really care for herself and her body in a really long time. I thought getting her an encouraging, pro-woman fitness book would help keep her inspired would be a good idea. The problem thus far: I'm not sure I've found anything that meets my standards, and sorting through exercise books for women on Amazon and book review sites is starting to get me a little down.

So I thought I would turn to the Feministing community for help. Are there fitness or exercise guides out there that you think come from strong feminist perspective? Or ones that aren't explicitly so, but implicitly celebrate women's bodies in their approach? Do you have an exercise guide you especially like to use?

Last Friday I went to the gynecologist and had a colposcopy. I had the procedure because about a month ago I my pap smear came back with abnormal results. For those of you who have never gone through this experience I just wanted to share mine with you.

Abnormal pap results are not common, but they are not exactly uncommon either. According to the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, about 1 in every 20 pap results can be considered abnormal. Once I heard about my results and started talking to friends and relatives, I found out that many of them had had the same experience. It was comforting because, truth be told, I was very scared.

I felt so stupid, but when the doctor called me to inform me of my abnormal results I didn't even know what that meant. I knew that the results were SUPPOSED to be normal but I didn't know what abnormal pap smears could mean. Then she said cancer. I started to cry at my desk at work. How had I been so uninformed about my own body? I just went every year to get refills on birth control!

I composed myself and listened to the doctor and she said that cancer was very very unlikely. She told me that I would need to schedule an appointment for a colposcopy in the near future so they could biopsy some cervical cells to take a closer look. She said the most likely outcome was that I would need pap tests more often than once a year.

A colposcopy basically is a procedure that allows your doctor to take a closer look at your cervix in order to see things that may not be seen during a normal exam. If they see any abnormalities they biopsy them. The whole thing usually takes anywhere from 5-15 minutes.

by Dr. Patricia Yarberry Allen

I began to focus on the menopausal transition in 1991, when Gail Sheehy asked me to consult with her on her book The Silent Passage. What an incredible and unique opportunity. This month, known nationally as Menopause Awareness Month, is a good time to reflect on what the New Menopause really means. Back then, I was 42 and newly menopausal.

I traveled across the country with her to talk to groups of women just like me in this stage of life. I was deeply affected by hearing first-hand how women felt about what was happening to them. Some women experienced few symptoms. However, so many felt a loss of youth, loss of sexual vitality, loss of visibility, loss of power and loss of hope. I am not saying that this passage is easy, but there is no reason for women to experience shame, isolation, confusion and fear of the unknown.

Continue reading at Women's Voices For Change.

Apparently, Jack Black and others are promoting the Noreen Fraser Foundation, which:

'urges men to support the women in their lives with a pledge that involves healthy eating, regular exercise, self breast exams and scheduling appointments for a mammogram.'

Jack Black's awareness-raising technique was to go for a scan himself (Of course men can get breast cancer too). But he also says:

'All us guys, dudes and bromigos are getting off our lazy butts and making appointments for our beloved ladies to meet with this bad boy - the mammogram machine - or, as I like to call her, the boob saver.'

Oh, I see. Not the woman saver. The boob saver. Because we can't have those lovely breasts going to waste and depriving men of the pleasure provided by 'their' ladies. And as if a woman needs a man to make an appointment for her. This is not about saving the women from other kinds of cancer, like lung cancer which kills more women than breast cancer, but that's different because, you know, breasts are hot.

And then there's the bit about 'healthy eating and regular exercise'. It sounds at first as if this means the MEN are going to support their girlfriends by taking care of themselves, which would certainly be interesting (although of course nobody should be working out or dieting simply to please their partner rather than themselves). But when you look closer, it seems it's about men policing their girlfriend's eating and exercise habits. I'm all for men giving real support to their partners, but not the way this sounds.

(originally posted at Skinny Therese )

I recently found this article online. I was researching people who had lost 100 pounds or more and had kept it off. I want to get a sense of what that is like even before I get to the maintenance phase of my journey. I want to talk a little bit about fat shaming.

I want to lose weight because it will substantially improve my quality of life. I will not tire out as easily throughout the day. I nearly collapsed from heat exhaustion this weekend while sight seeing in DC. It was so humiliating! I had not realized how out of shape I was until that moment. When I drop this weight, I will not be at risk for obesity-related diseases as I get older. It will increase my life expectancy. It will be easier for me to get affordable health and life insurance. I will be able to wear skirts and shorts again, which are much cooler in the summertime, because I will not suffer from the very painful  “chub rub” – which is what a co-worker of mine at the ACLU used to call the rubbing together of one’s thighs underneath one’s skirt. I will save money on clothing. Plus-size clothing costs more money. Clothing is available in so-called “standard” sizes (12 and below) at thrift shops and other stores for a fraction of the cost. I will be looking for a new job in the coming months and will need to find a new interview suit soon – it is very difficult to find a well-fitting suit when you are a size 16/18 and again, alternations cost $$$$.

When I describe myself as “fat” I do not mean that in a shameful way. I mean it in a merely descriptive context. I do not associate any shame with the word. Fat is simply what I am at this point in my life. I also find that when you remove the shame, the weight loss “work” itself – the  changing of eating habits and the exercise – seems like less of a chore.

I was horrified at how Kirstie Alley described herself after she put her weight back on! She could have just said: “Hey I stopped exercising and let my portions get out of control, so I gained the weight back. I need to step back and look at where I went wrong and be more vigilant about my eating and exercise habits.” That would have been sane . Instead she said: “I was so much more disgusting than I thought!” ” [I] loathed [myself]!” Huh?

What is there to loathe ? You are a wealthy, successful actress and business woman! You got fat, you didn’t name names before a Senate committee. Like it or not, Kirstie, Melissa Joan Hart and Valerie Bertinelli inspire a lot of people. In America, we don’t have royalty. Celebrities are our “Royalty.” Even B-List ones. The way these women described their fat selves does not send a very good message to those who struggle with weight issues. Instead it tells us that we ought to be ashamed of our fat lazy selves and that we don’t deserve to live! And no feeling makes a gal want to swan dive into a pint of Ben & Jerry’s faster that that one!

I am not ashamed of my fat. I accept myself as I am, which gives me the courage and strength to do better by giving my body what it needs to be healthy. Take a lesson Kirstie.

Okay, so a Crisis Pregnancy Center (CPC) has moved into the college area of my university (San Diego State).

I found out about their presence today as I was reading our school newspaper and saw their ad promoting free pregnancy testing. However, unlike most CPC's they explictly state that they do not provide abortion services, they prefer to discourage abortion through lies about its effects e.g. abortion causes breast cancer.

So, I am posting this today asking for advice on what to do to limit their influence on my fellow female colleagues.

My friend and I have already thought of contacting the school newspaper and asking them to not run their ads or to run a counter ad or possibly an opinion piece disclosing the true nature of their clinic.

Any other suggestions? There presence near my school is not a good one. It frightens me very much that what they're doing is legal. Also, on their site they have used the SDSU campus as a backdrop...Im going to find out if they even have permission to do that. If not I guess I'll have to use my feminist forces and find out who authorized it.

Overall, I just think that misleading and deceiving young students is wrong and I want them and their agenda exposed to the student body before anyone thinks of utilizing their services.

Thanks!

So I rarely watch TV. Very rarely. But I was still surprised to see an ad today for One-a-Day Healthy Advantage for Teens. It's made of a special formula that's designed to provide teens with a healthy advantage, because growing teens need different things .

But wait, there's more!

There's a boy one and a girl one because apparently male and female bodies need different things. Like, girls need "healthy skin" and boys need "healthy muscles". And, since obviously girls don't want healthy muscles and boys don't want healthy skin (because girls don't work in construction and boys don't get terrible acne sometimes), they've been kind enough to put these things in different pills. I buy the "male and female bodies need different things" concept, because on a biological level it is a teeny-weeny bit true. But not much. boys are more prone to high cholesterol and girls to osteoperosis, but that's not till later on, after the Teen years. So really, I'm left asking, "what the fuck?".

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

This week's edition of the Weekly Pulse is shorter than usual. Our team is getting ready for the fourth annual Netroots Nation blogger conference in Pittsburgh, PA. Esther Kaplan, editor of the Nation Investigative Fund, and I are conducting an investigative reporting workshop on Saturday from 1:30-4:15 p.m. Join us and help expose the corporate roots of the Teabagger/Town hall mob movement.

Here's the latest news on the healthcare front: Republicans and their allies are pressuring Democratic healthcare reformers at townhall meetings around the country. Addie Stan has a blockbuster piece in AlterNet that exposes the network of corporate funders and lobbyists behind the mobs.

The Progressive's Ruth Conniff explains the mobs' marching orders, as spelled out in a memo by Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer for the Tea Party Patriots, an anti-reform group with ties to former Republican Rep. Dick Armey's pressure group Freedom Works. MacGuffie instructs town hall protesters to shout at lawmakers and attempt to throw them off their game as they try to make the case for health care reform. So much for reasoned discussion.

As I reported in In These Times, the teabaggers are trying to scapegoat organized labor as the instigators of confrontations at town hall meetings. On August 6, a scuffle broke out in front of a town hall meeting in St. Louis. This video clip shows the last 10 seconds of a scuffle in which a man in an SEIU t-shirt lies prostrate on the ground. A 38-year-old conservative activist claims to have been severely beaten, but the video shows him apparently uninjured, darting around to different cops and trying to convince them that he was attacked. The man's lawyer claims that he saw his client get punched in the face and kicked in the head by SEIU members.

A spokesman for the St. Louis County police told me that the police hadn't reviewed the video because nobody had submitted it to them, despite a call to the public to turn over evidence for the investigation. The fact that the videographer hasn't turned over the video kind of makes you wonder if the teabaggers really take the "evidence" as seriously as they claim.

How's this for irony? According to Talking Points Memo, the activist was asking for money to pay his hospital bills because he's uninsured.

Finally, Jodi Jacobson of RH Reality Check reports that Kansas Now is calling upon AG Eric Holder to restore the Federal Marshall security detail of prominent late-term abortion provider Dr. Leroy Carhart, a friend and colleague of the late Dr. George Tiller. Carhart was placed under protection after Tiller was shot. But the feds didn't even wait for the trial of Tiller's alleged assassin to wrap before pulling Carhart's detail. Now he's on his own, just as the alleged killer's links to a broader coalition of violent anti-choicers are coming to light.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about healthcare and is free to reprint. Visit Healthcare.newsladder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy. For the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.Newsladder.net and Immigration.Newsladder.net. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder.

Originally posted at EmpowHer

A new study released in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows women taking postmenopausal hormone therapy have a higher risk of developing ovarian cancer.

The research, conducted by a team led by Lina Steinrud Mørch, M.Sc., of Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University, Denmark, also shows that the risk remains higher up to two years after these women stop hormone therapy.

The study looked at over 900,000 Danish women who were 50 or older in 1995: the women not using hormone replacement therapy (HRT) were followed for 10 years and compared to the women who had various types of HRT.

The Senate Finance Committee is reportedly very close to finishing its healthcare legislation. But as the bill's details leak, anticipation is quickly turning to dejection in progressive healthcare circles. Early word has it that the almost finished a bill includes no public option, no employer mandate, and no insurance exchange. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly explains why the Senate Finance Committee bill is going to suck.

At TAPPED, Scott Lemieux argues that if the Senate legislation doesn't have a public option or an employer mandate, we'd be better off not passing a healthcare bill. Conventional wisdom is that even a bad bill would be better than nothing: Once we get the basic infrastructure for universal healthcare in place, it will be easier to build on that rather than starting from scratch. However, as Lemieux points out, a bill with no public option would only further entrench the insurance industry and make it easier for them to block reforms in the future.

Remember that the bill that comes out of the Finance Committee still has to be reconciled with other versions, like the version from the Health Education Labor and Pensions Committee. So, it's possible that progressive Senators will win some concessions. However, as we've discussed before, the Senate is the key to passing healthcare reform, and the Blue Dogs are the key to passing the bill in the Senate. Whatever comes out of the Finance Committee is going to carry a lot of weight with the Blue Dogs.

It's no wonder we're fighting over a bunch of lackluster options. As Isabel MacDonald observes in AlterNet, corporate-run media has virtually banished all talk of single-payer healthcare. If you're a single-payer advocate and you want to get on TV, you have two options: Be Bernie Sanders or get arrested in the Senate.

Democrats should try implementing a radical progressive agenda one of these days--they'll be accused of doing so, anyway. Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality Check notes that even though universal healthcare is more likely to cover iPods than abortions, mainstream media and the anti-reform brigade insist on discussing abortion funding as if it were a live option. Here in the real world, pro-choicers don't even have the votes in Congress to overturn the Hyde Amendment, which bans the usual sources of federal funding for abortion. According to some experts I interviewed a few weeks ago for a forthcoming article, there might be a clever legal way to set up the healthcare program so that its funding wouldn't fall under the Hyde Amendment, but no one expects the Democrats to even try.

I just turned 18 and after the years of public school and the just wonderful education policies that they take on making sure that women are completely confused about their bodies I have finally started on my journey to undue the damage that they have done to me. (My mom assumed the stance that if I had any questions my health teacher or school nurse would know how to better answer my questions than she did.)

But one of the books that I had heard mentioned again and again was Our Bodies, Ourselves. So I checked out the book from my local library and started reading it. Now I have read other books about what is really going on with my body but nothing quite as complete as Our Bodies Ourselves, not one of these books really talked about menstruation in quite as much detail. I am still reading the chapter but there are a few things that really surprise me about the whole thing.

First, why are women not given a full range of options about their menstrual cycle, period coverage, and contraception. I didn't know about the risks associated with the chemicals in tampons and pads, I didn't even think about natural sponges as an option, or know that there was such a thing as a menstrual cup. I also didn't know that there were so many different options for contraception. What I want to know is why is this information so taboo. I don't want any woman to grow up thinking her body is dirty or shameful and I don't understand what is so wrong with talking about something so natural. I think that because it is necessary for us to have babies it should be something that our society embraces. But for some reason that is just unheard of. I'd like to here from other feminists who are wiser and older than I am why our society feels the need to do these things to women.

A thing that bugs me is going to the doctor and being told you need to try to lose weight when you already are. Seriously, instead of assuming I was sitting on my butt all day eating brownies, they at least could have asked me about my physical/eating habits. If they had just asked instead of assuming, they would have learned I work out 2/hrs a day six days a week, and am a vegetarian that stays away from processed foods and eats brown grains. Suggesting I go see the nutritionist was the last straw seeing as how there is one at the place I work out that I have an appointment to see.

This really, really hurt me and could have been avoided had the person just asked about my current habits. I mean, I am really hurt and upset seeing as how I have recently lost 4lbs, but the nurse didn't know or care, to them I was just someoverweight person who needs to be told to loose weight and set up with a nutritionist. Damnit. Those four pounds are a big deal to me, and I would have loved the oppurtunity to brag about them, but whatever.

Also, I take pole fitness and love it, and get more than a bit sketched out when people hate on it, especially people who have no problems encouraging belly dancing for the purposes of sexuality. Why is it that some people are okay with one expression of sexuality through fitness, but not another? I believe it has a lot to do with the class association.

by Lisa Codispoti, Senior Counsel, 
National Women's Law Center

This morning ten women members of Congress held a news conference on "how the Democrats' health care legisaltion [sic] will hurt women and affect their day-to-day lives."

The participants were Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA.); Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN); Rep. Judy Biggert (R-IL); Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN); Rep. Mary Fallin (R-OK); Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NN); Rep. Kay Granger (R-TX); Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS); Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY); Rep. Candice Miller, (R-MI); Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL); and Rep. Jean Schmidt (R-OH).

While NWLC wasn't invited to attend the press conference, I was interested to get my hands on some of their press statements - after all, NWLC is all about women getting the health care they need. From our perspective, the status quo is untenable: overall, 18 percent of women are uninsured. As we've pointed out on this blog many times before, even women who are lucky enough to have health insurance are still more likely than men to have health coverage that has too many gaps, from large deductibles and co-pays to life-time limits, and the exclusion of needed services (like maternity, for example) altogether. Women are also more likely than men to face challenges paying for their medical bills - making them more likely to skip necessary medical care. And then there's gender rating - the insurance industry practice of charging women more than men for the exact same coverage.

Yet the challenges women deal with every day in our current health care system was most decidedly not the focus of the press conference this morning - at least as evidenced by the press release issued by Rep. Rodgers (R-Wash), available here.

I'll give the Congresswomen credit where it's due: we need more of our elected leaders to bring a women's lens to the health care reform debate. But what they apparently didn't talk about is more important than what they did talk about. They didn't talk about how the current system is failing women, and that the status quo is not an option. And it certainly doesn't seem that they discussed any real solutions to the challenges that women face with our current health system.

Of course, if they had talked about how the current system fails women and proposed solutions to meet those challenges, then they would have had to admit that HR 3200 would actually help- not hurt- women. As Marcia Greenberger, our Co-President, has said, HR 3200 "addresses many of the obstacles women face in our current health care system, such as making health care more affordable and ensuring that women have access to the comprehensive health benefits they need."

Women don't just need better health care, they want it - now. According to a poll conducted by Peter D. Hart Research Associates before the 2008 Presidential election, 84 percent of women said that it was extremely or very important for Congress and the new Administration to guarantee access to quality, affordable, comprehensive health care.

What hurts women is our current health care system. What hurts women is Members of Congress who knock health reform legislation under the guise of caring about women's health. Because women know: when it comes to health care, the status quo is not an option.

Cross-posted from NWLC's blog.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Healthcare is dominating domestic politics this week, as Congress and President Obama outline their visions for reform. The president is pushing Congress to pass a bill that keeps healthcare costs in check before the August deadline. Obama must have been disappointed when the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) announced last week that the Dem's healthcare bills won't cut spending. The president won't sign a bill that doesn't contain cost cuts, so legislators know they'll have to tweak the bill.

Obama's strenuous efforts to pass healthcare reform have invited comparisons to Franklin Roosevelt and his New Deal, which created the American social safety net. In Salon, Michael Lind argues that Obama's insistence on tying health insurance to employment actually betrays the legacy of the New Deal:

We decided that when it came to benefits our guiding principle should be a 'citizen-based social contract.' We chose this phrase, not to discriminate against non-citizens, but to express two ideas: first, that benefits like healthcare ought to be not a privilege but rather an entitlement of all citizens in our democratic republic, and second, that all benefits should be detached from employers and follow individuals through their lives. In thinking about healthcare, we rejected various options that would not move us toward a citizen-based social insurance system. Unfortunately, the health plan being promoted by Obama and Congress is based on one of those bad options.

Aides for Baucus told The Pos that the Finance chairman stopped accepting contributions from healthcare PACs after June 1 to eliminate the appearance of conflicts of interest. But he's not doing a very good job following through. On June 15, according to the Federal Election Commission, Baucus accepted $5,000 from the Schering Plough Corporate Better Government Fund.
Baucus's staff say the Schering Plough money has since been returned. No word on whether the money got sent back before or after the story hit the media.

Continue reading Weekly Pulse: The Rocky Road to Reform.

Posted by The Media Consortium - July 22, 2009, at 12:13PM | in Health

Dear Yaz,

Fuck you. Just fuck you. I used to have periods that were light, cramp-free, and over in three days. Now, thanks to you, I am a clotted, bleeding mess for a week at a time, only comfortable when my body is contorted as tightly as possible into the cannonball position. Your advertisements claim to make periods better, and you have actually somehow made mine worse. Which is ironic, actually, because it's not even a real period, it's your nasty and unnecessary interpretation of it. You cavort around in the disguise of a "natural period", wreaking havoc to my uterine walls, when everyone knows all you are is just withdrawal bleeding. You disgust me.

What's more, you've turned the rest of me into a head-case. Where once I was even-keeled, I am now subject to violent mood swings. Where once I was feisty, I go whole days in a fog of lethargy and vague depression. In short, you suck. You are only good for one thing, and that is keeping me free of fetuses. But I've had it, Yaz. It's over. Your bad qualities vastly outweigh your contraceptive ones. Consider us through.

Signed,

My Uterus

PS - My Breasts would like to add that you made them larger, and they are not cool with it.

Ahem. That was my TMI way of putting a call out there to all of you heterosexual feminists. I had the misfortune of attending a Southern Baptist high school for the sex-ed portion of my education, and as such I need y'all to fill in the gaps, if you don't mind.

I have deemed August "Contraception Month," which is to say, I am taking a month to explore all the contraceptive options and asking women about their personal experiences with it, before making my own decision on a method. Obviously, my situation is slightly biased: I managed to land myself in a long-term monogamous relationship, so I'm not that excited about using only condoms, but I've also worked up a significant ire against hormonal birth control. However, I want to hear everybody's perspective. What I'm hoping is that this can serve as kind of a feminist guide to birth control that women who are frustrated with their options might be able to get a little bit of guidance from.

So, let's talk birth control: What positive and negative experiences have you had with different types of birth control? Does hormonal birth control work for most women, or have a lot of you encountered these sorts of problems? Is IUD insertion as painful as it looks? What financial concerns have you faced in looking for a good method of birth control? Have any of you been successful in procuring sterilization at a young age, or tried and failed? Has natural family planning worked for many of you, and if so, how? What the fuck happened to the sponge? Let me know.

I realize this post smacks of heteronormativity, but I think that this is an issue worthy of some serious discussion all the same, because there is a lot to discuss: my ever-growing suspicion that hormonal birth control was invented by men to emotionally subjugate women so they could keep claiming we are unfit to hold public office; what utter bullshit it is that, as women, we bear almost the entire weight of responsibility when it comes to contraception (excepting STD protection, obviously); whether there is really a good method of birth control, or if, as I suspect, they all suck to varying degrees.

Either way, let me know what you all think. Is there any hope, beyond the ever-illusive male birth control pill?

And Also Why I Have A New Sympathy For Women Who Have Surgical Abortions...

*This contains graphic info about my cervix. Don't read if you are icked out*

Hi, I'm PamelaVee and I am 24.

This all started about a year ago. I am one of the Americans that is not insured for health so I don't see the doctor. If anything is wrong, I wait in line forever at the low cost clinic. I see the Health Dept. for pap smears and birth control at no cost because I do not make enough. I do work and I am good with $, I just don't have a lot of it. But this isn't a debate about health care/insurance.

Anyhow, the health dept called about a year ago (terrifying to get a call from them) and said I had abnormal cells. I needed to get a colposcopy. That is like a pap smear but they take a little sample, like getting your ears pierced.

FYI- Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is a cause of cervical cancer. There are over 100 strains of HPV and can cause anything from abnormal skin appearance, to warts, etc. The type I have if obviously the kind that causes abnormal cells. 3 out of 4 sexually active people have HPV.

With Nicolas Kristof's patronizing reporting of sex trafficking in non-Western countries, I should not be surprised that he would use this gender-"ized" scare tactic to draw attention to a legitimate public health risk. However, I think that the framing of the health risks is very poorly done. It reinforces a Freudian-style castration-complex kind of anxiety. It's as if this article is written solely for men and mothers of sons. If the problem is genital deformity in both sexes, then the problem is not that boys are becoming girls, which implicitly suggests that it is bad to be a girl. The problem is toxicity and its various effects on both sexes!

Not only that, but even "humans," which I assume includes "women," will beome "undervirilized."

"[Phthalates] probably are not harmful to us adults, but it is another story for children. In girls, some research suggests that phthalates may cause early onset puberty. Most vulnerable of all, it seems, are male fetuses in the first trimester of pregnancy, just as they are differentiating their sex. At that stage, scholars believe, phthalates may 'feminize' these boys.

“'Commonly used phthalates may undervirilize humans,' concluded a study by the University of Rochester. The study, which was small, based its conclusion, in part, on measurements of 'anogenital distance' — the distance between the anus and the genitals, which is typically twice as long for males as for females. Some scholars believe that shrinkage of this distance reflects 'feminization' of male anatomy."

Also, I have no idea where he gets the idea that these chemicals are not harmful to adults. Just this week, I read that a study of college students, who drank bottled water, containing BPA, found that the chemical stayed in the body eight times longer than scientists thought. I also read yesterday in Ms. Magazine that these chemicals are linked to different kinds of cancer.

This is a valid problem to raise, but framing it the way that Kristof does is unhelpful.

I got married the other day.

Yup, just like that. After an hour of mulling it over, I eloped to City Hall to marry my wonderful live-in boyfriend whom I love and have been with for a year and a half. No, I'm not pregnant (eye roll). No, my now-husband is not an illegal immigrant.

So why the shotgun wedding? One (evidently all-too-common ) reason: health insurance.

My bf is a bartender and a student whose school's insurance is exorbitant. I'm a reporter who works for a company that has a kick-ass medical plan. Without going into too much detail, a domestic partnership affadavit was standing in the way of my partner having awesome coverage and escaping $8000 worth of retroactive hospital bills. It was a no-brainer. Onto domestic partnership!

Problem is, the state of Illinois doesn't let you get domestic partnership if you're hetero . ("If they could, no one would get married!" the City Hall employee informed me smugly, as if 1. that fact was actually true and 2. rampant domestic partnerships would mean the end of the world.) Apparently you can't be a part of the "system" if you're queer, and you can't opt out of the "system" if you're straight. It started to seem so ridiculously arbitrary—and unfair! Did I really have to choose between leaving my honey vulnerable to unthinkable medical costs and a measly, $50 piece of paper?

The choice was obvious. We went ahead and got married (and fast, because my company's deadline for insurance stuff was the next day). The weird thing was, people were soooo into it! It was like I had become part of some coveted club, or even a higher-class citizen.  I understood more than ever why gay marriage was such a big deal. I also started to get why people become so wrapped up in weddings. It's your moment. All eyes are on you . Out of nowhere, long-lost friends are posting on your Facebook wall. Suddenly, everybody loves you!

It's a situation that's left me contemplating my feminism—by getting insurance-married on the fly, did I "give in" or did I give tradition the finger? Maybe a little bit of both? I have nothing against weddings (what’s better than a celebration of love?) but the government "certificate" thing has always made me a little indignant. Either way, I feel like giving my partner health and peace of mind is just as much of a gesture of feminist love as anything else.

Thoughts?

Linda Tonner was 60 years old when she felt a nagging pain in her breast. She was divorced, made very little money at her job, and didn't have health insurance.

Her daughter suggested Planned Parenthood. Linda was confused. Wasn't Planned Parenthood for young, poor women who needed birth control? Her daughter told her that Planned Parenthood was there for anyone who needed health care, so Linda made an appointment.

The Planned Parenthood health care provider examined Linda, and confirmed that there was a tiny lump in her breast. Planned Parenthood staff worked with Linda on the spot to make sure she had all of the proper paperwork completed so that she could be admitted to the hospital without insurance.

After a lumpectomy and radiation, Linda has now been in remission for nine years.

Nationwide, more than 850 Planned Parenthood health centers provide a wide range of reproductive health care to millions of women like Linda every year. The vast majority, more than 90 percent, of this health care is preventive -- and includes contraception, cancer screenings, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and immunizations.

Essential community providers like Planned Parenthood health centers are critical to making health care affordable and accessible in their communities. We must ensure that these community health care providers are included in health care reform -- to safeguard access for current patients and to ensure that newly insured women and families can access these trusted providers close to home.

Have you visited a Planned Parenthood health center recently? Sharing your story helps Planned Parenthood represent you, and ensure that women are included in health care reform. We can't do it without you! Tell us your story in the comments.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

During a strategy call with key congressional leaders last week, President Obama reportedly complained that liberal advocacy groups are attacking Democrats instead of trying to pass whatever healthcare bill the Senate happens to cough up. I'm sure he put it more charismatically, but according to the Washington Post, that was the gist.

The president was probably reacting to a spate criticism of Democrats perceived to be dragging their feet on healthcare reform. Democracy for America released a spot calling Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) a "sellout" for taking $1.6 million in campaign contributions from the healthcare industry and failing to endorse a public plan. The naming and shaming is unlikely to stop, regardless of the president's preferences. If progressives were to stop haranguing vulnerable Democrats, they'd loose their main point of leverage on healthcare reform.

Laura Flanders argues that progressives can't afford to sit back and let the healthcare industry do all the lobbying. She estimates that industry groups are spending $1.4 million a day to influence the healthcare debate:

Why are [public plan fans] pushing so hard? Well, consider what they're up against. Pulling against anything remotely public, is the biggest lobbying blitz Washington's ever seen. The Washington Post reports that private insurers, drug companies and their representatives spent more than $126 million on lobbying in the first quarter of this year.

And they've hired more than 350 former government staff members and retired members of Congress to do all that lobbying work.

Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly wonders why the Democrats are so fixated on a creating a bipartisan healthcare bill in the first place:

What are the chances, my friend asked, that Republicans would accept the importance of "bipartisanship" in shaping the policy? What are the odds that GOP leaders would make a series of concessions to Democrats, and tolerate Republican centrists who were toying with the idea of siding with the minority party?

It reminded me of a conversation I had the other day with a friend of mine about an alternate universe. Imagine, my friend said, there was a Republican president, working with large, obstructionist-proof Republican majorities in the House and Senate. The Republican president's approval rating was about 60%, and he'd just won a popular electoral mandate on a key issue, which Republicans have prioritized literally for generations.

In other health reform news, Paul Waldman argues in the Prospect that a public health insurance system is superior because, at the end of the day, private insurance companies want to take our money and deny us care. It's nothing personal, that's just their business model. Private companies have a huge profit incentive to cover as little as possible or to place bureaucratic obstacles in the way of patients to discourage them from taking advantage of the benefits they're nominally entitled to.

by Dr. Elizabeth Poynor.

The vulva refers to the external female genitalia, which includes the labia, the opening of the vagina, the clitoris, and the space between the vagina and anus. Because these areas are not sun exposed, it is not generally recognized by women that melanoma can develop in this location. Lesions such as moles and freckles, referred to as pigmented lesions, occur on the vulva of 10% to 12% of women. It is not uncommon for women to have typical moles in the vulvar region, and as with other typical moles, most of these are benign and can cause no further problems. However, it is important that women are aware that moles can exist on the vulva and some of these may have premalignant or malignant changes in them, just like other parts of the body. Women should be aware that the change in any mole such as a change in color or size should always be brought to the attention of their gynecologist and evaluated.

Other benign pigmented lesions include lentigines , also known as freckles; melanosis, the accumulation of pigment deposits; post-inflammatory hyper pigmentation, a collection of pigment in reaction to trauma and other skin conditions; seborrheic keratoses; hemangiomas, and warts.

Continue reading at Women's Voices For Change.

I love this video that Ezra Klein posted . 

Hello again!

In DC, inside that thing we call the Capitol, members of Congress are getting downright scrappy about health care reform .  

Planned Parenthood has asked for two seemingly obvious (at least to us anyway) things. One, comprehensive reproductive health care should be included in the government’s plan. And two, Planned Parenthood should be included in the “exchange,” the government’s in-network group of essential community health care providers. Seems like a no-brainer, right? Well, not necessarily … and that’s where you come in; we need your help and your voice.

Literally at this precise moment, the Republican leadership on the Senate Finance Committee is demanding health care reform language that will take away access to women's comprehensive reproductive health care. It is unbelievable that, at a time when our leaders should be focused on expanding health care coverage , they are talking about taking benefits away from women.

The Republican leadership on the Senate Finance Committee is demanding a provision that will result in a drastic change to the benefits that many of us have now; and, of course, the hundreds of thousands of women who are not covered now will still be left out in the cold.  

If you live in one of the following states, AZ, AR, DE, FL, ID, IA, KS, KY, ME, MA, MI, MT, NV, NJ, NM, NY, ND, OR, TX, UT, WA, WV, WY, please contact the Senate Finance Committee right now to let them know we won't stand for it.  

If you do not live in one of the those states, sign our health care reform petition to tell Congress Planned Parenthood speaks for you in Health Care Reform and to receive up-to-date information about Health Care Reform in your state.

As the health care reform debate moves forward, those who want to deny access to comprehensive reproductive health care will continue to target both Planned Parenthood and the health insurance coverage that meets all the health care needs of women, men, and teens.  Reproductive health care is critical and lifesaving, and everybody should have the ability to access it.  We need your help to guarantee that health care reform works for us all.

Thanks!
Kendall at Planned Parenthood Action Fund

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Progressives are demanding that Obama's healthcare reform package include a public plan, aka a government-administered health insurance option for all. A good public plan would cover more people while cutting costs and improving care. The key committees in the House drew up a bill with a public option, but the Senate is much less friendly to the idea. The real test of a healthcare reform plan is whether it can pass the Senate, as the House Dems have the votes to pass whatever health reform bill is put before them.

But not all public plans are created equal. There's a fine line between competing with insurance companies and coddling them. In The American Prospect, sociologist Paul Starr identifies potential pitfalls for a public plan. Since his days on the campaign trail, Obama scored political points by framing public health insurance an alternative to employer-based private coverage. It sounds non-threatening: If you like your coverage, keep it. If not, go public.

There's a catch, of course: Employers would get to choose to offer private health insurance as a benefit or go with a public plan.

Insurance is a boring form of legalized gambling. The whole system depends on healthy people paying into the system to cover a small minority of sick people. The higher the ratio of healthy people to sick people, the more widely the risk is spread and the cheaper the insurance will be.

Insurance companies love the employer-provided health insurance model because it's a built-in sicko filter. You're not even on their radar unless you're young and healthy enough to have a job. Employers with older, sicker employees pay more for private insurance. Starr predicts these employers will be more likely to drop their private health insurance if a public plan is available.

As a result, the sicker workers will join the unemployed and the elderly on the public plan, leaving the lucrative low-risk customers for the insurance companies. But the public plan needs a base of healthy payers in order to function as a self-sustaining insurance program.

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC Mediawire blogger

During a press conference yesterday, President Obama voiced support for government-administered health insurance for all who need it (aka the "public option"), as a key component of healthcare reform. Though Obama stopped short of threatening to veto a bill that didn't contain such an option, he said that a public option is needed to enforce market discipline. If the system is going to reform, the health insurance companies can't just keep selling the same bad coverage with bigger public subsidies for their monopolies. Essentially, Obama isn't about to force taxpayers to buy overpriced insurance from private companies.

"The public plan, I think, is an important tool to discipline insurance companies," Obama said during yesterday's White House news conference. "I think there is going to be some healthy debate about the shape that this takes." He outlined three options: Get insurance through your employer, buy insurance on your own, or buy insurance from a marketplace where public and private insurance providers compete for business.

In the Washington Monthly, Steve Benen notes the central irony of the standard insurance industry criticism of Obama's plan:

Except, of course, insurance companies and their policymaking allies know better. Which is why they're panicking.

I seem to have a hard time finding doctors who will take me seriously.  I am disabled and have a lot of different physical conditions.  I have tried to solve the problem by going to women doctors and found that I am still not being treated as anything more than someone to quickly shoo out of the office. 

In the past I tried contacting a local NOW chapter to see if there was a list of women doctors, and I found that there was not.

Does anyone know of an organization that is trying to compile a list of feminist doctors, or doctors that look at people as individuals and not paychecks?

I've had a female doctor literally put her hands on my shoulders and yell at me simply because I was asking questions about my condition.  I've been accidentally injured by doctors. The list could go on.

Many of us who have been treated poorly repeatedly are now apprehensive of going to a new doctor, and many times the new doctor will interpret that as anxiety and try to prescribe medicine for that - and completely ignore dealing with the obvious physical disability and how to treat that.

It is getting to the point where I'm either avoiding going to a doctor, or subjecting myself to being less than human if I go.  I've always had a hope that I will get better, and people in my life and the medical community keep trying to squash my hope saying that "There's no Dr. House out there who is going to have some cure."  I'm not asking for Dr. House, but I am asking for a doctor who takes a genuine interest in my condition, wants to get to the bottom of what is ailing me, is willing to research my multitude of disabling symptoms to give me an accurate diagnosis.  I need to bring in paperwork with me because there are so many symptoms, and a new doctor looks at me like I'm a hypochondriac because I've taken the time (and suffered through tremendous physical pain) to document my illness.  I'm recieving SSD, so if the federal government and several documents have confirmed that I have a disability, I get amazed that many doctors keep trying to tell me it's psychological.  I am naturally an athletic activist, so I do not enjoy not being able to do all the things that I want to do. I want to be well more than anything in the world, and I can't seem to find a doctor who is willing to help me get there.  I am in a lot of physical pain, so it is hard to even get to the doctor, let alone be treated poorly by them.

This was not a well thought out post, because I am distracted with trying to find a solution.

I just wish there was a network of caring feminist doctors that I could contact...

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Healthcare reform is back in the news, as Legislators and interest groups spar over the promised public component of Obama's healthcare plan. In very simple terms, this is a fight between groups with a vested interest in expensive healthcare and everyone else. This week, the American Medical Association warned Obama that a public plan could restrict patient choice. But for millions of Americans, getting a choice between healthcare and no healthcare wold represent a 100% increase in their healthcare options. Obama's public plan would also give people the choice of keeping their private health insurance. So, the public plan is an additional option, not a diminution of options.

The AMA is a powerful interest group, but it doesn't speak for all physicians. Several prominent groups representing doctors and medical students, including the American Association of Family Physicians, co-signed a declaration supporting Obama's push for a public plan this week.

Expect the health insurance lobby to fight the public option tooth and nail, says economist Dean Baker in AlterNet . It's smart business from their perspective. Platitudes about the free market aside, no real capitalist welcomes competition. As Baker points out, a public plan represents competition to health insurance companies. For every dollar Medicare pays to providers, it spends two cents on administration. Whereas private insurers spend about fifteen cents on the dollar in administrative costs. Baker estimates that if a public plan were available, insurance profits would drop by 20-30%, all things being equal.

Former president Bill Clinton invited about 20 progressive bloggers to his Harlem office on Monday for a seminar-style discussion about the work of the Clinton Foundation. Several staff from Media Consortium member organizations were in attendance, including yours truly. Healthcare was a major topic of conversation. Emily Douglas of RH Reality Check, who also attended the meeting, writes:

The former President observed that the country, emerging from a "post-9/11 emotional straitjacket" has become "more communitarian" -- and that President Obama has fewer budget issues, and less Republican opposition, to content with when attempting reform. But, most importantly, "everything is worse now" -- health care spending has doubled, more are uninsured, and disposable income, adjusted for inflation, is down.

If you have diarrhea, get nauseated, throw up, get fatigued and pass out from the pain of your periods, and everything else is normal--your pap smears come back normal, your periods are regular--you might have primary dysmenorrhea. It's caused by overproduction of prostaglandins--the hormones that cause your uterus to contract. They leak into the digestive system and the constriction of tissues cause the lack of oxygen and subsequent pain. They don't know why some women get it and some don't; according to my gyno, that's just the way it is for some women.

I am writing because I suffered for thirteen years before I finally got help for this. I didn't have health insurance until recently, so I didn't know there was anything that could be done. I thought I'd have to suffer until menopause. Some months I wanted to get pregnant just so I would get a nine-month break. I used to ask God why this was happening, what had I done, which only made me feel worse. I lost a temp job because I had to be out once a month and we were only given 3 sick days a year. Once, I passed out going down a flight of stairs and fell halfway down. Another time, while I was going to the bathroom to vomit, I passed out and kept walking, rounded a corner and woke up when I fell back against a door and hit the floor. One summer day, I wanted to avoid feeling anything, so I took three acetaminophen, two Advil, and a Tylenol 3 with codeine within five hours of each other and woke up in the middle of the night not able to breathe (for those of you who have been told to "stop being dramatic and just take some advil" and have experienced no comfort, I feel you). I would beg people to kill me while I was in the throes of this pain.

Crossposted at WireTap Magazine

The Kaiser Family Foundation recently released a new and extremely important study that documents the health disparities that exist between white women and women of color. Entitled, "Putting Women's Health Care Disparities on the Map: Examining Racial and Ethnic Disparities at the State Level," the report's findings show that women of color are disproportionately affected by a range of health issues including diabetes, obesity, high cholesterol, heart disease, AIDS, and cancer (PDF ). Women of color also experience high rates of inadequate health care, no health insurance and no prenatal care. National average data shows that 27.9% of women of color don't have any health coverage, compared to 12.8% of their white counterparts.

The report examines data on a state level, stressing the range of factors that affect women's health, including education, socioeconomic status, and geography. The findings are grim, to say the least. The states where disparities seem smaller are areas in which both white women and women of color are facing significant socioeconomic challenges. States that show smaller disparities in health care access still show higher disparities in specific health conditions, poor education and poverty.

A key aspect to the report is that it closely examines specific racial and ethnic groups instead of homogenizing the health experiences of all women of color. Native American and Native Alaskan women showed to have higher rates of poor health care, smoking, obesity, and overall reports of negative health compared to other racial groups. One third of the women are uninsured. The reports findings on the health conditions and challenges faced by Latinas and black women confirm some of the issues I have discussed before regarding obesity and bulimia among women of color. Across the board, white women fared better than women of color on most social and health factors, with few exceptions that include smoking, cancer mortality, and psychological distress. Geographically, it looks like Washington D.C fares worse in many areas for women of color, with the highest disparity score on 6 of 11 of the studied indicators.

In the larger conversation about overhauling U.S health care, providing adequate health care and creating preventative treatment programs for women of color in various geographic and socioeconomic communities cannot be overlooked. The report and its findings make it clear that health services and poor health are closely interconnected to issues of race and gender. Local and national governments and organizations that strive to close these disparities will need to consider the experiences of women of color in particular, in order to provide truly equal health care. For a more intimate look at the effects of health disparities on women, check out this short podcast about the Arlington Free Clinic.

I am interested in finding good feminist sites and blogs about advocacy for adequate care for people with disabilities--feminist sites interested in engaging in talk about universal health care without making cuts to Medicare and Medicaid. Are there any sites that make access to quality health care a top priority? Most articles I see in the media are about how to "reduce costs" for health care. I am looking for articles and information on advocacy groups that are looking to EXPAND coverage for disabled individuals.

I grow weary and discouraged hearing the cascade of "how are we going to pay for this?" If this is the requisite for funding, then how do we pay for everything else in the budget? Obviously, the other items are higher on the agenda of the lawmakers and lobbyists than the rights of ALL disabled Americans to eat, drink, get their medicine and necessary treatment.  Personally, I think the top priority of any country ought to be for ALL its citizens to be safe, have access to nutritious food, clean water, and necessary medical care.

When some people are fighting for the right to live in a land of plenty, there is something wrong with the system, and something needs to change. I am trying to find an alliance of individuals I can work with together to further this cause.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

The fallout from the assassination of women's healthcare provider Dr. George Tiller continues. As Zack Roth of Talking Points Memo reports, the Justice Department will investigate whether Tiller's shooter, an anti-choice zealot, violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act or any other federal statutes. But little has been said about investigating the killing as an act of terrorism, a federal crime. The Oklahoma City bombers were investigated by the FBI and tried under a 1994 federal anti-terrorism statute, and that was before the PATRIOT ACT, which presumably makes it even easier to prosecute terrorism as a federal crime today.

Tiller's murder was terrorism by any reasonable definition of the term. It was a politically-motivated act of conspicuous brutality, designed to suppress abortions through fear. The feds will probably stop short of investigating Tiller's murder as a terrorist attack. That designation would unleash vast federal powers to investigate large swathes of the radical anti-choice movement and hold accountable anyone who gives them the slightest aid and comfort. The feds are simply not prepared for the political fallout that would ensue if, say, Operation Rescue were officially designated as a terrorist organization.

But Tiller's assassination seems to be working as an intimidation tactic. On Tuesday, Dr. Tiller's family announced that his clinic , one of only three facilities of its kind in the country, will close its doors forever. Tracy Clark-Flory writes in Salon that the terrorist got exactly what he wanted:

A lesson in the effectiveness of terrorism: Dr. George Tiller's Kansas clinic is closing permanently ,according to his family's lawyers. In a statement Tuesday, the family said: "We are proud of the service and courage shown by our husband and father and know that women's healthcare needs have been met because of his dedication and service." They will continue to honor his memory "through private charitable activities" -- in other words, the type of activism that is less likely to get a person killed.

Of course, the intimidation won't stop at a single act. As his clinic notes in Mother Jones, the alleged assassin is inciting further violence from his jail cell:

The fact that the family made clear that it would not be involved "in any other similar clinic" suggests that they are traumatized and fearful--in a word, terrorized. And no wonder, since Roeder, as I detailed yesterday , has issued warnings from his jail cell of further attacks on abortion providers--an act which, coming from just about any other comparable source, would certainly be deemed terrorism, and treated accordingly.

Making explict the link between Tiller's murder and larger political goals, the Associated Press headline calls the closing a "tainted victory " for the larger anti-choice movement.

Professional anti-choicer Ross Douthat sparked controversy in an op/ed for the New York Times, insinuating that Dr. Tiller might still be alive if pro-choicers didn't make such a big deal about protecting late-term abortions. Hilzoy of the Washington Monthly tackles some Douthat's errors, starting with his misleading implication that third trimester abortions are unregulated. Without that premise, Douthat's argument falls apart, since he's arguing in effect that pro-choicers have created a free-for-all in which anyone can get a late term abortion for any reason.

Amanda Marcotte of RH Reality does a great job exposing the misogyny behind the anti-choice myth of frivolous late-term abortions. If you think that women are flighty, irrational, fundamentally unserious beings, you expect them to opt out of pregnancy on a whim after months of gestation. The imagined problem of casual late-term abortions reveals what anti-choicers really think of women, that they are lesser beings who need to be controlled by the state. Dr. Tiller's motto was the exact opposite: Trust women.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care.

Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net .

This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder .

Cross-posted at Evil Slutopia

Yes, it's true, we're still talking about The American Life League's The Pill Kills Women campaign. The actual protests were on June 6, but we're still talking about it because there was just so much wrong with it that we couldn't possibly fit it all into one blog entry. Every time we think we're almost done, we click on a new page and find a whole new bunch of stupid. We've already addressed the ridiculous claim that the pill destroys relationships and the medical flaws in their argument (particularly, how the campaign exaggerates the risks of hormonal contraception as a scare tactic). This time I thought we'd take a quick look at some of the personal stories featured on the ALL's website. Now before I start, I want to make it absolutely clear that I'm not trying to downplay the seriousness of these women's deaths or show any disrespect to their memories. It may seem like I'm using them to make my point, but the fact is the American Life League is using them to push their agenda and that's not right. Each of their deaths was a tragedy and it's wrong for the ALL to twist these incidents for their own benefit.

On March 22 of last year, 31-year-old Julie Hennessy was found dead on the floor of her living room, Ireland Independent reports. Although she was a non-smoker of healthy weight, the woman had been taking the drug Mercilon for a number of years. This resulted in her developing deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a condition in which a blood clot forms in a deep vein usually in one of the appendages. As in the case of Miss Hennessy, a DVT can break off and lodge in the lungs, causing death. After her inquest on Tuesday, Julie's father Ray, speaking on behalf of his family his wife Angela and their two daughters-drew special attention to the fact that the pill was the main factor in the death of his daughter.
[LifeSiteNews.com ]

Behind the Story:

This definitive pronouncement from the pathologist . . . who ruled out Hennessy's knee injury while skiing earlier this year and the fact she had taken about 20 flights in the previous 18 months as contributory factors in her death . . . caused panic in the media. Hennessy had been taking the oral contraceptive Mercilon for a number of years prior to her death.

[...] All women are at risk of developing blood clots, and pregnant women more so, regardless of whether they are on the pill. Five in 100,000 women will develop blood clots and this risk increases to between 20 and 30 in 100,000 women on the pill, according to Dr Shirley McQuade, medical director of the Dublin Well Woman clinic. The risk of pregnant women developing blood clots is 50 in 100,000. But the development of a blood clot by no means ensures it will travel to the lungs causing DVT, McQuade stressed. "Blood clots generally start below the knee in the calf muscle. The risk of a blood clot travelling from there to the lung is between 2-3%. And even then, the risk of it being fatal is less again. The vast majority of blood clots don't go anywhere. The woman's death highlighted at the inquest was an extremely rare and unfortunate event."

[...]this was a rare isolated incident , while sections of the media seem to be over-emphasising the implications of this tragic death.

[Tribune ] (emphasis mine)

Cross-posted on our blog EvilSlutopia.com . (We will hopefully be addressing the other issues with this campaign in the next few days as well.)

The American Life League 's newest anti-contraception campaign is called The Pill Kills Women . On Saturday, June 6, anti-choicers across the country will be protesting outside doctor's offices, pharmacies, Planned Parenthood clinics and other family planning facilities in order to "educate" American women about how the birth control pill is GOING TO KILL THEM! OMG! Yeah, whatever. (Last year's theme was The Pill Kills Babies , which was also bullshit propaganda, obviously).

I started menstruating when I was 16, and ever since I can remember, along with my periods came intense back pain and nausea. My periods were highly irregular during my teenage years, but I always attributed this to my athleticism. I swam competitively for many years and I had heard before that irregular periods can be a byproduct of getting so much physical exercise, so I didn't question this much.

My menstrual pain worsened over the years and by the time I got to college, it was excruciating and debilitating. I never experienced cramps like I'd heard other girls talk about. My pain was always focused in my lower back and hips, an intense pain that would radiate through my legs and be accompanied with unbearable nausea. I dreaded the arrival of my period every month, knowing that for two or three days I would be completely worthless. I couldn't work or go to class; I would be confined to bed or the bathtub, crying and writhing in agony until it finally, mercifully passed.

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC Mediawire Blogger

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few physicians in the country who performed second and third trimester abortions, was fatally shot in church on Sunday. It seems that Tiller was marked for death because of his work. The man charged with murdering Tiller, 51-year-old Scott Roeder , has a 20-year history of anti-choice and anti-government extremism.

Tiller's compassion for his patients was legendary. Even during his lifetime, many referred to him as a saint for risking his own life to perform abortions that few other doctors would provide, irrespective of his patients' ability to pay. The American Prospect features a moving tribute to Dr. Tiller by Michelle Goldberg , who relates a life story that's equal parts John Irving and John Grisham:

Tiller never set out to become an abortion provider, or even an ob/gyn. The son of a doctor, Tiller was working as a Navy surgeon when his father, mother, sister, and brother-in-law were killed in a plane crash. He took over his father's family practice, and soon women started asking him if he was going to do what his father did. That's how he found out his father had provided abortions in the years before Roe v. Wade. He committed himself to providing the same service.

Nation columnist Katha Pollitt attended a vigil for Dr. Tiller in New York's Union Square. Pollitt reports that, compared a similar vigil she attended in 1998, the crowd was younger, angrier, and larger. She says that, over a decade after the murder of Dr. Barnett Slepian , people are finally fed up with anti-choice terrorism:

It's about time. Time to demand federal legal protection for abortion rights. Time to demand that law enforcement take seriously the violent anti-abortion underground. Time for doctors to show some spine, defend their colleagues who perform this necessary service to women and reintegrate abortion into normal medical practice.

Going back to the Prospect, Ann Friedman argues that Tiller's murder, and the years of violence and intimidation that led up to his assassination show that the United States' current protections for abortion providers are not working:

Tiller's clinic, Women's Health Care Services, was bombed in mid-1980s. In the '90s, it was the subject of blockades, bomb threats, and a shooting attack -- Tiller sustained gunshots to both arms. Just this month, Tiller's clinic was vandalized, with security cameras and outdoor lights damaged and the downspouts plugged, causing rain to pour through the roof. Protesters routinely gathered outside Tiller's church. In 2007, two men were arrested for disrupting services to speak out against him. Tiller often had a bodyguard by his side.

While we wait for reform, Attorney General Eric Holder is doing his best to protect abortion providers in the wake of Tiller's murder. The Colorado Independent's Ernest Luning reports that Holder has ordered U.S. Marshals to step up security for a late-term abortion provider in Boulder.

A 360-degree harassment of doctors and their staff is part of a deliberate, anti-choice extremist strategy. Josh Harkinson looks back on the time he spent reporting on anti-choice activists in Wichita, the home of Dr. Tiller's clinic, for Mother Jones . The groups often targeted people at home. "People have a public identity that they like to keep separate from their private identity," one anti-abortion activist told Harkinson, "but we believe you can't separate the two when you are talking about killing babies. And people are more likely to listen to what you say and be influenced when you bring the issue home to where they work and live."

In other reproductive health news, Rachel K. Jones , a co-author of a controversial paper arguing that sex educators should present withdrawal as a legitimate method of birth control, defends her study by questioning the motives of her critics in the blogosphere:

This general view of withdrawal informs another response - sheer disbelief. In my work I've grown used to promoters of abstinence-only-until-marriage programs dismissing facts about the effectiveness of contraception. However, I'm surprised to see such disparagement of withdrawal among a crowd that is presumably younger, more diverse and more open-minded. Perhaps because most of us have been told for so long that withdrawal doesn't work, we are unable or unwilling to embrace scientific evidence that counters what we "know."

I would argue that, on the contrary, Jones' study has been criticized for its shoddy evidence. The authors admit at the outset that there's very little research on withdrawal and that the practice has not been systematically tested in clinical trials, unlike other forms of birth control. Most of what we know about the practice comes from small studies, and/or studies that weren't designed to measure the efficacy of withdrawal as it is actually used. (For more discussion of the study, see last week's Pulse .) The evidence the authors present barely supports the contention that withdrawal deserves more study. However, they go much further, suggesting that sex educators change their curricula to present withdrawal in a more favorable light. Many of Jones' critics found that suggestion irresponsible. Before lecturing her critics about their receptiveness to evidence, Jones should take a hard look at the gap between her evidence and her recommendations.

Recent events have pushed reproductive choice to the forefront of national consciousness. For the latest on healthcare controversies, big and small, stay tuned to the Weekly Pulse.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care.

Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net .

This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder .

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Yesterday, Sonia Sotomayor became the first Latina and the third woman ever nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court. She is currently a federal judge on New York's 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Born to Puerto Rican immigrant parents and raised by her mother in the housing projects of the South Bronx, Sotomayor went on to attend college at Princeton and law school at Yale. George H.W. Bush appointed her to the U.S. District Court in 1991 and Bill Clinton "promoted" her to the 2nd Circuit in 1998.

Political Scientist Scott Lemieux writes for TAPPED that, in light of her distinguished resume and inspiring biography, Sotomayor's confirmation is all but assured:

[...] Obama cited three criteria in choosing Sotomayor: 1) her intellectual capacity (as demonstrated in her sterling academic record, her success as an assistant district attorney, and her distinguished service as a federal judge); 2) her approach to judging based on her opinions, which represent a high level of craftsmanship and attention to detail; and 3) her compelling personal story, rising from poverty in the Bronx to Princeton to being an editor at the Yale Law Journal. This combination of factors will, I think, make her confirmation inevitable.

In the Nation, John Nichols says that the Sotomayor pick "reflects America" . Within hours of the announcement of Souter's resignation, conventional wisdom had pegged Sotomayor as the odds-on favorite for the nomination. There were a few bumps along the way, though. Brian Beutler of TPM reports on the anatomy of a preemptive whispering campaign starring anonymous law clerks quoted in the New Republic questioning Sotomayor's intelligence and temperament.

While Sotomayor has a reputation for being a liberal jurist, her record contains few hints about her views on abortion. Attorney and feminist writer Jill Filipovic reviews Sotomayor's record on abortion for RH Reality Check. Sotomayor has only ruled on one major abortion-related case in her time as a judge, Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush , and as Filipovic says, Sotomayor's conclusion "isn't going to warm the hearts of reproductive rights activists."

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

That was quick: It took just three days for the titans of the healthcare industry to reveal the emptiness of their pledge to the Obama administration to save $2 trillion in healthcare costs over the next 10 years. 

Last week, The New York Times proclaimed that Obama scored a "political coup" just by getting the industry groups and SEIU to the table.  But writers featured in last week 's Pulse remained skeptical that the industry would make good on its unenforceable cost-cutting promises. Skepticsm was the healthy response.

Three days after the promise was, industry groups started accusing Obama of overstating their commitment. Health Czar Nancy Ann DeParle confirmed that the president garbled the stats slightly when he said that the groups had pledged to cut the rate of growth in healthcare costs by 1.5 percentage points per year . However, the outcry over the slipup is revealing. The groups are now scrambling to reassure their members that they never promised to reduce costs by any specific amount in any given year . Of course they didn't. In order to keep that promise, they'd have to act right away--which they clearly have no intention of doing.

So, it comes as little surprise when Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly reports that Blue Cross Blue Shield is crafting a PR campaign to trash the whole idea of a public plan, a key element of Obama's healthcare reform agenda. One of the industry groups that signed off on the aforementioned $2 trillion pledge was America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). Several members of AHIP's board of directors work for Blue Cross or Blue Shield.

In The American Prospect , Paul Waldman notes that the same coalition of Republicans and big business that opposed President Clinton's healthcare reforms 15 years ago are gearing up for a rematch. These folks, who might as well be called Americans for the status quo are trying to own the word "reform" under the tutelage of GOP message master Frank Luntz, according to Waldman.

Some people oppose healthcare reform because they fear a tax increase. That's not a foregone conclusion, but healthcare is so expensive that reform could be a bargain even if we had to raise taxes to pay for it. In AlterNet , Dean Baker asks why his fellow economists are so complacent about the status quo where healthcare is twice as expensive and not quite as beneficial as it is in other developed countries. Baker argues that the extra costs are tantamount to a huge tax on the entire economy:

The excess health care spending comes to more than $1.2 trillion a year or the equivalent of more than $16,000 for a family of four. Paying too much for health care has the same economic impact as a health care tax. In effect, we have a health care waste tax that is about 10 percent larger than the projected federal revenue from the personal and corporate income tax combined. In short, this is real money.

This is a tax that Americans pay without realizing it. Money that could be going towards pay raises is going to support ever-increasing insurance premiums, for those who are lucky enough to have health coverage through their jobs. It's a tax that employers have to take into account when they decide whether to build a plant in the United States, or across the border in Canada where the government takes care of health insurance.

And last but not least, while you can't get blood from a stone, you can get plasma from an overextended American consumer. Credit Solutions of America, a credit counselling service advised clients to sell their blood plasma to make ends meet, Moe Tkacik reports in Talking Points Memo . That's especially ironic when you consider that medical bills cause over half of personal bankruptcies, according to a 2005 survey by Elizabeth Warren, a Harvard professor who went on to become Obama's the chief financial industry bailout overseer.

This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care.

Visit Healthcare.NewsLadder.net for a complete list of articles on healthcare affordability, healthcare laws, and healthcare controversy or follow us on Twitter.

And for the best progressive reporting on the Economy, and Immigration, check out Economy.NewsLadder.net and Immigration.NewsLadder.net .

This is a project of The Media Consortium , a network of 50 leading independent media outlets, and created by NewsLadder .

When the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) took place in Cairo, Egypt in 1994, I was just a schoolgirl in Bangladesh, too young to even begin to comprehend the importance of the gathering which was taking place. It is the fifteenth anniversary of Cairo this year, and it never fails to astonish me how despite having formulated a framework more than a decade ago, it seems as though we are moving farther away from the revolutionary and feminist agenda that was set forth at that UN conference.

Cairo marked a huge victory for feminists. It was when population policies shifted from being about controlling population growth and started being about empowering women. Feminists had long advocated the point that women’s fertility and empowerment went hand in hand: Unless women were in control of their reproduction, they could not really be empowered. If women had access to education and high salaried jobs, they would choose to have smaller families, and fertility rates would lower, thus slowing population growth. Population stability would occur naturally instead of through coercion. The idea was described as a real breakthrough moment in Cairo. This was a major win for feminists who had long urged policy makers to focus on the role women’s empowerment played in population growth.

Objectives were set in order to achieve universal access to reproductive health care by 2015, and donors committed to provide $18.5 billion annually by 2005. As we can all see, that has not happened. Donors have fallen so short of what was promised at Cairo that it is estimated that less than a quarter of what was set out at the ICPD is currently being spent on international family planning assistance. One also of course should factor in the massive damage committed under the Bush Administration to women’s health. Aside from the reimplementation of the Global Gag Rule (the Mexico City Policy), the de-funding of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), US assistance to international family planning programs declined approximately 40% under the past Administration according to Population Action International (PAI). In his first 100 days, Obama has made major strides to reverse many horrifying Bush era policies. But there is still tremendous work to be done and it goes beyond elaborate policies and billions of dollars.

The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies maternal mortality as a major indicator of women’s overall position in society. The Safe Motherhood Initiative articulates that maternal health is “ultimately related to whether societies invest in and realize the potential of women- not only as mothers, but as critical contributors to sustaining families and transforming nations.”

I read an interesting article in a local paper about women cutting back on or choosing alternative forms of birth control becuase of the crappy economic situation. Here's a link to the article online http://www.twincities.com/life/ci_12371307

Basically, women are cutting back because they can no longer afford their preferred method of contraceptive. I thought it was interesting that there was no discussion about MEN helping pay for contraception. I mean, having sex and babies does require two people after all. The survey was only women, maybe that is why, but the article starts with a line about COUPLES not wanting to have children and then proceeds to talk about why women cannot afford contraceptives.

Take a look at the comments on the article as well...very interesting.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

This week, the White House teamed up with healthcare industry giants for a two-day PR blitz on health reform. A coalition of industry leaders sent a letter to president Obama over the weekend, pledging to help contain healthcare costs. The signatories include PhRMA (drug makers), Advamed (device manufacturers), the AMA (doctors), the AHA (hospitals), AHIP (health insurance), and SEIU's Health Care project. The corporate signatories are the very same interest groups that have fought U.S. healthcare reform for generations. AHIP, America's Health Insurance Plans, helped torpedo the Clinton plan in the 1990s with the infamous "Harry and Louise" TV spots.

Progressive healthcare writers are divided as to whether Obama's rapprochement is a good sign. One school of thought is that the interest groups have finally seen the writing on the wall. Arguably, the industry realizes that some kind of healthcare reform is inevitable and they hope to get the best possible deal by cooperating. Another perspective, not necessarily incompatible with the first, is that this kind of "cooperation" will ultimatelyco-opt Obama's reform program.

Mike Madden summarizes the main thrust of the industry charm offensive in Salon :

Some of the organizations that have fought hardest against changing the system in the past are -- for now, at least -- saying they'll work for it this time around. To demonstrate how serious they are, they joined Obama Monday to say they'll work voluntarily to cut the growth rate of healthcare costs by 1.5 percent each year for the next decade. Unchecked, costs would increase by more than 6 percent a year, so the administration says the country -- private employers and the government combined -- would save $2 trillion from the effort. An average family of four could save $2,500 a year within five years.

The letter itself offers few details as to how the industries will actually go about saving money. More to the point, there's nothing forcing these groups to follow through on anything they've pledged to do.

Still, if you parse the platitudes, the industry is diverging slightly from Republican anti-reform rhetoric. The GOP has been crusading against comparative effectiveness research (CER) ever since the stimulus bill set aside a billion dollars to fund it. CER is just research to discover which treatments give the best outcomes for the money, but the GOP would have us believe that it's a stalking horse for rationing. Whereas, the industry coalition's letter talks about cutting costs by "aligning quality and efficiency incentives" and "adherence to evidence-based best practices"--basically, big words for "studying the evidence" and "trimming the fat"--the core of the CER agenda.

By Selene Kaye, Advocacy Coordinator, ACLU Women's Rights Project

On Tuesday, the ACLU and the Public Patent Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the U.S. government’s practice of granting patents on human genes – specifically, the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes, which are associated with breast and ovarian cancer. That’s right: the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issues patents on human genes – the segments of DNA that we all have in our cells – giving private corporations, individuals, and universities the exclusive rights to those genetic sequences, their usage, and their chemical composition. Although many people are unaware of this practice, it has been going on for roughly 20 years, and at this point 20 percent of the human genome has been patented .

This raises serious civil liberties concerns because the government is essentially giving patent holders a monopoly over the patented genes and all of the information contained within them. Patent holders have the right to prevent anyone else from testing, studying, or even looking at the genes. That means that if you or your doctor were to remove your genes from your cells in order to examine them, you would be committing patent infringement and could be sued by the patent holder.

We believe this is a gross violation of First Amendment rights : individuals’ rights to know about their own genetic makeup, doctors’ rights to provide their patients with crucial medical information, and scientists’ rights to study the human genome and develop new treatments and genetic tests. Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the ACLU, said in a statement :

Knowledge about our own bodies and the ability to make decisions about our health care are some of our most personal and fundamental rights. The government should not be granting private entities control over something as personal and basic to who we are as our genes. Moreover, granting patents that limit scientific research, learning and the free flow of information violates the First Amendment.

Our lawsuit challenges the patents on two genes in particular – the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes – which are controlled by Myriad Genetics, a private biotechnology company based in Utah. Mutations along the BRCA genes are responsible for most cases of hereditary breast and ovarian cancers. Genetic tests can detect these mutations and tell women if they are at increased risk of cancer, which in turn informs their decisions about screening, prevention and treatment options.

Myriad is aggressive in enforcing its patents against other scientists and labs who wish to conduct clinical testing and research on the BRCA genes. This has meant that researchers cannot develop new genetic tests without permission, some women cannot access testing because of the high price Myriad charges (currently over $3,000), no one can get a second opinion, and women who receive ambiguous test results have no recourse. Women of color are disproportionately likely to receive ambiguous test results. Less research has been done on their genetics in part because Myriad has the sole power to determine what to do with the data it collects from people who are tested.

The patent system was created to foster innovation by rewarding inventors for their work. But genes are naturally-occurring parts of our bodies, not inventions, and the reality is that gene patents hinder scientific advancement.

Many individuals and organizations have spoken out against the practice of gene patenting over the years, but our lawsuit – which brings together breast cancer and women's health groups, individual women, and scientific associations representing approximately 150,000 researchers, pathologists and laboratory professionals – is the first to challenge gene patents on First Amendment grounds. Because we are challenging the whole notion of gene patenting, this case could have far-reaching effects beyond the BRCA genes. Other patented genes include those associated with Alzheimer's disease, muscular dystrophy, colon cancer, and asthma.

To read the press release, complaint, plaintiff statements, and to sign a statement of support, visit www.aclu.org/brca .

Cross-posted to Daily Kos .

...they are the only two states where without an advance directive, your doctor is not legally allowed to consult anyone before they make major medical decisions for you (such as whether or not you receive chemotherapy if you've had a stroke and have cancer).

An advance directive is your power of attorney and living will combined, stating your wishes for medical care and who you designate to make decisions for you should you become incapacitated.

According to the NYC Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, 86% of New Yorkers visited a medical provider at least once in 2007. The Brooklyn based Alternatives to Marriage Project encourages everyone to know their hospital rights and take proactive steps to protect yourself in all medical decisions.

Check out their latest campaign supporting the proposed Family Health Care Decisions Act.

By Kyla Bender-Baird

By Radha Lewis, MD

Most women who choose abortion do so very early in their pregnancy (more than 90% in the first trimester ), but for a small percentage, this is not the case. I know that even some staunch supporters of abortion rights begin to have doubts about abortion in the second trimester. But as an abortion provider, I understand why some women need later procedures, and I do everything I can to support them.

I chose to be an abortion provider to prevent undue suffering for my patients, and to assist their access to safe, affordable care in a politically hostile environment. Two patients I saw this week perfectly illustrate the need for later abortions--and have reminded me why our continued efforts to ensure abortion access for all women, including those who are more than 12 weeks pregnant, is crucial.

The other day, a colleague and I cared for Rita, a 36-year-old mother of five who was nearly five and a half months pregnant. Rita had always been healthy, but was now hospitalized for more than four weeks at two different hospitals. An infection in her heart had destroyed two of Rita's heart valves, requiring open-heart surgical repair, then a second operation to install a pacemaker.

This young mother unsuccessfully requested an abortion from the dozens of doctors who treated her, but nobody was willing to provide this service until Rita's heart surgeons declared that her pregnancy threatened her life. Within 72 hours, I found myself in an operating room taking care of Rita so she could recover and return home to care for her family.

The following day, I was called to meet a young woman who had been hospitalized in the psychiatric ward after visiting a local Planned Parenthood to terminate her undesired pregnancy. Alice had confided to a clinic worker that she had considered putting a knife into her stomach. The clinic immediately referred her to our hospital's psychiatric unit for treatment, where she was admitted as suicidal and potentially unable to make her own medical decisions.

By David Eisenberg, MD

People often ask me how a former high school jock and "frat boy" becomes a women's health specialist, family planning expert, and advocate for reproductive rights. I always tell them I was born for this role.

I'm a rarity in two ways: as a male obstetrician/gynecologist, and as an undiagnosed twin. My mother's obstetrician thought her last pregnancy was just a really big baby. He had delivered her other children--and helped her obtain a safe and legal abortion in 1971 when her IUD failed--and knew the most recent baby was more than nine pounds. But everyone was caught off guard when she delivered two 6.5 pound baby boys! As the second born, I am the "undiagnosed" twin--a rare occurrence now that ultrasounds are part of routine medical care. As for my choice to become a male obstetrician/gynecologist, fewer than one in four of my colleagues are men.

By Rosanne Botha, MD

When the media covers reproductive health, they often focus on abortion. As an obstetrician/gynecologist who focuses on family planning, I know that there is so much more to reproductive health. While access to a safe legal abortion is very important, education about contraception may be even more important for women's health.

Most people think that patients are the ones who need better education about the risks and benefits of contraception, but I am constantly surprised by the huge need for better education of doctors, nurses, and other healthcare providers. I hear from young women all the time that their doctor didn't believe that an intrauterine device, or IUD, was the right choice for them because they are so young or haven't had children yet. Before I was a medical student I had my own doctor refuse to give me an IUD and tell me "no doctor in town will do this." These doctors are unaware of a growing number of studies that prove IUDs are safe and appropriate for women in many stages of their lives.

All women need to be concerned about healthcare providers' ignorance when it comes to birth control. After all, your physician decides which options to present to you as safe ways to prevent pregnancy. If your doctor is not up to date on what's safe, you might not be getting a full list of your choices. This means that you may not be getting the most effective method of contraception available on the market today because of your provider's biases.

One of the main reasons I wanted to focus my career in reproductive health is because I see a huge opportunity to improve the knowledge and use of effective contraception. Just recently, at the clinic where I work, I met a woman who had been very happy with the IUD she was using. When she had a severe outbreak of genital herpes, her doctor became worried that her IUD could cause further problems and told her she needed to have it removed. She accepted this, but didn't start her pills on time (a more common problem than doctors realize). Soon after, she was unexpectedly pregnant and came to me for an abortion. This could have been prevented had her doctor known more about IUDs and their safe use. Health professionals' biases against certain forms of birth control need to be broken down, and research into what biases exist and how best to change them is the only way through this.

Over the last decade we have seen no improvement in the rate of unintended pregnancy , despite the fact that more options for highly effective methods of contraception have become available. Recognition of the major impact that unintended pregnancy has on our country needs to start now. Knowledge of and access to all forms of contraception, especially long acting reversible methods like IUDs, needs to be a priority in the years ahead. I know we can do better, and I plan on being part of the process that gets us there.

Dr. Rosanne Botha is completing a fellowship in family planning at the Oregon Health and Sciences University. She graduated from the Robert Wood Johnson Medical School in New Brunswick, New Jersey, and completed her residency at the University of California, San Francisco. Dr. Botha is a fellow with Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health.

On May 6, 2009 Senator John Kerry introduced the Women’s Health Insurance Fairness Act. The legislation would prevent insurers in the individual market from charging more, denying or limiting coverage based on gender or pregnancy and would require maternity coverage.

The legislation was inspired by a report published by the National Women’s Law Center titled Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women. The report finds that women are often charged higher premiums than men and have difficulty finding comprehensive and affordable maternity coverage. In addition, insurance companies can reject applicants for reasons that disproportionately impact women, such as being a survivor of domestic violence or having previously undergone a C-section.

5.7 million American women are forced to buy coverage in the individual insurance market (those who receive coverage through their employer are already protected under laws that prevent charging different premiums and refusing maternity coverage). Right now these women are reliant on state regulation of the individual market, but very few states provide protections against gender-based discrimination in insurance coverage.

The new legislation would make it illegal for companies offering health insurance in the individual market to consider gender when determining an applicant’s premiums. Companies could not limit or deny coverage in any way based on a past or future pregnancy, method of delivery, or pregnancy outcome. The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) would be directed to create a minimum benefit standard for maternity care that requires coverage of all maternity services. Failure of companies to comply could result in a minimum fine of $10,000.

The new HHS Secretary, Kathleen Sebelius, has a history of fighting against gender discrimination in the individual insurance market and for mandated maternity coverage.

The Women’s Health Insurance Fairness Act would create real substantive improvements in the lives of women who do not receive health insurance through an employer. It responds to a problem that exists at the intersection of class, reproductive and gender-based oppression and therefore deserves the support of all of us in the reproductive justice movement.

This legislation is part of the growing effort to reform health care in the US. The early focus on gender discrimination and maternity care, a vital aspect of any comprehensive approach to reproductive health, is especially encouraging. As a Massachusetts voter I am especially proud of Senator Kerry today.

The legislation is currently in the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, chaired by Senator Kennedy, a long time health care advocate (and another Massachusetts senator).

You can thank Senator Kerry for standing up for women’s health by calling his DC offices at (202) 224-2742 or emailing him via this form.

Cross posted at Choice Words .

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

So far, swine flu hasn't developed into the deadly global pandemic that many feared. Was it all media hype , as Cervantes argues for AlterNet ? Or did all that quarantining and hand-washing actually help? While we'll never know what might have been, perhaps we should consider the relatively mild swine flu as a cheap lesson--a dry run, if you will.

The swine flu scare underscores the need for strong public health infrastructure , writes Amitabh Pal in the Progressive :

When the flu began taking its toll, Mexico didn’t have a single facility to test for the virus, and so samples had to be sent to the United States and Canada. Mexican health officials were slow to pick up on the initial outbreak of the disease, and, by the government’s own admission, still have not been able to reach out to the public in an effective manner.

Pal argues that Mexico's healthcare system is in disarray in part because of international pressure from to decrease the government's role in healthcare in accordance with the prevailing free-market ideology.

Laura Carlsen of New America Media also worries about the health fallout from globalization, arguing that NAFTA helped swine flu. According to Carlsen, globalization created a perfect storm for the development and spread of an epidemic flu in Mexico--a rapid shift to factory farming, the breakdown of public health infrastructure, and accelerated flow of people and goods across the border.

Americans shouldn't be smug about our own state of readiness. In the American Prospect , Harold Pollack takes "moderate" senators to to task for pinching pennies on public health:

Every year at Princeton University, the student group Princeton Against Cancer Together (PACT) holds an event called Manicure for the Cure , where they bring in beauty school students to do manicures for Princeton students in the days leading up to spring formals. Formals are this weekend, so advertising for manicure for the Cure are all over campus.

To advertise, they're using the slogan "Save Second Base." The phrase "second base," in case you don't know, refers to foreplay involving breasts, as in "I kissed Jenny under the bleachers and made it to second base." "How far did you let him go, Jenny? To second base?" If it sounds antiquated and ridiculous... that's because it is.

Anyway, "Save Second Base" is a slogan that's used nationwide by breast cancer research fundraisers. And it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. After all, curing breast cancer isn't really about saving breasts, it's about saving women's lives. So it annoys people, but there was no reaction when Manicure for the Cure they used the slogan last year on campus. I think people mostly make their peace with the slogan, figuring that at least it's raising money for a good cause.

But this year is different. This year, the organizers of the event, in an attempt to include men, are offering massages in addition to manicures. To advertise these services, they made posters that said: "Gentlemen: Save Second Base."

And that is when the proverbial poop hit the fan.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

Yesterday, Senate Republicans prioritized human life over anti-abortion grandstanding and confirmed Gov. Kathleen Sebelius as Secretary of Health and Human Services. When the world totters on the brink of a pandemic, slow-walking the future health secretary begins to look unseemly.

As Dana Goldstein reports in TAPPED :

Sebelius' confirmation has been delayed as her home state Republican legislature has forced her to deal with a series of abortion-related bills. Her latest pro-choice veto inspired a Republican backer of her nomination, Sen. Sam Brownback, to hint that he may change his mind and vote "no" on her appointment.

Any and all qualms with cooking shows aside, I find the Food Network to be surprisingly healthy when it comes to food and the relationships that the women on the network have with their bodies. Although it is mostly women doing traditional women's work (cooking), many of them also have syndicated talk shows, cooking books...they all run their own businesses and make independent decisions every day of their lives.

Even watching Paula Deen makes me happy sometimes (as long as I don't make her food - I'd have type 2 diabetes by now if I did).  She eats really unhealthy food, but she has fun with it.  So many women have such complex relationships with their bodies and food that can lead to eating disorders and that ilk.

None of the women on the Food Network, however, are ridiculously stick-thin (they have average, healthy bodies), and in a culture that mostly values women for their looks, the women on the Food Network pride themselves on the value of what they DO rather than how they look.

It's the reason cooking shows are the only thing on TV (besides Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert, of course), I really bother watching.

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire blogger

Senators Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) have set a timetable for healthcare reform by this fall--a major step on the road to passing legislation this year. The Senators' plan, set out in a letter to President Obama, calls for a bill by June, committee markups over the summer, and a final vote in the fall. (Just in time for delayed-action budget reconciliation, should the Republicans prove recalcitrant.)

As Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly notes, timetables matter , politically. Furthermore, as Ezra Klein explains at TAPPED , a pact between Baucus and Kennedy is a big step forward: these two key committee chairs NOW have a plan to avoid the turf wars that stymied reform in 1994. This time, the two Senators have pledged to work together to write similar bills, instead having their respective committees very different legislation, like they did last time.

Experts agree that successful healthcare reform must work on two fronts: Paying for care while simultaneously keeping the cost of care in check. Elsewhere on TAPPED, Klein discusses why American healthcare costs so much compared to other countries. He points to a study by the famous McKinsey consulting company showing that the extra cost is not because we're sicker, nor because we consume more healthcare:

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC Mediawire Blogger

Of all the hurdles facing healthcare reform in 2009, the U.S. Senate is arguably the most formidable. But the prospects for passing a healthcare bill this year have brightened noticeably over the past few days, thanks to a senate seat pickup in Minnesota, solidifying support for the budget reconciliation strategy, and tentative overtures towards bipartisanship from key Republicans.

A three-judge panel declared Democrat Al Franken the winner of the Minnesota senate race. We don't have a firm date for seating Franken, but Harry Reid said to be looking forward to it in the near future. Franken is an outspoken advocate for healthcare reform and favors expanding the public insurance system to cover more people.

Sen. Kristin Gillibrand , D-N.Y., spoke out in favor of passing healthcare reform through the budget reconciliation process this week, as Public News Service reports. Gilibrand is the latest in a string of Democratic legislators to support the reconciliation process, which would allow the Senate to circumvent a filibuster and pass legislation with simple majority vote.

Some Republicans might even be willing to work with the Democrats on healthcare reform. Senator Olympia Snowe , R-Maine, is hinting that she might be willing to cooperate with Democrats, Steve Benen writes in the Washington Monthly . And according to Public News Service, Sen. Chuck Grassley , R-Iowa, is expected to work closely with Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont. on healthcare reform legislation: "I think [Grassley] and Senator Max Baucus of Montana are really the champions of bi-partisanship in this whole debate. I think that in order for us to get an effective piece of legislation it's going to have to be bi-partisan," Lee Hammond, president-elect of the AARP national board, told Public News Service at a healthcare forum attended by Grassley.

by Julia Kaye, Health Policy Associate, 
National Women's Law Center 

This post is part of a series on Women and Health Reform.

When Congress returns from recess, it will likely be voting on whether or not to confirm Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 

Let's make sure that Congress votes yes.

The Secretary of HHS oversees eleven sub-agencies, many of which are responsible for services and the development of policies and positions of paramount importance to women and their families. As a result, it is critical that the individual who leads HHS makes meeting the needs of women and children a priority for the Department.  As we've told you before--Sebelius is the right person for the job.

But don't just take our word for it--let's look at her record itself.  Here are ten "Sebelius trivia" that you may not know:

10.  While at the Department of Insurance, Sebelius instituted a policy that allowed employees to set up cribs in their offices and care for babies at work.

From the Edmonton Journal:

"[The] Alberta Health and Wellness announced it would end approximately $700,000 in annual funding to cover the surgeries for about 16 people each year. . . .

The sex-change procedures cost anywhere between $18,000 and $70,000 and are largely performed in Montreal, the only place in Canada to offer them.

Alberta will continue to pay for those who had their funding approved from the 2006-07 fiscal year to March 31, 2009. That doesn't include people on the waiting list who hadn't had funding approved."

This is absolutely atrocious. I will admit that my second thought was "16 surgeries a year sure isn't many." The truth is, however, that when it comes down to individuals, numbers don't matter. 16 people a year getting sex-reassignment surgeries is still 16 individuals a year getting the opportunity to live in the body that they want to, the bodies that they should have been born into. How many people have up to $70 000 lying around? I certainly don't. The Alberta government, however, does, and has the potential to help people get a necessary medical procedure. Yes, the economy is in a recession, and yes, it's understandable that some funding cuts do need to be made. But to completely withdraw funding for a group that is already oppressed and marginalized in society is just appalling.

by Lindsay Beyerstein, TPM MediaWire Blogger

Last Thursday, the House and Senate passed budgets for fiscal year 2010. The House version of the budget includes critical language that could open the door for healthcare reform in 2009--and not a moment too soon. Unemployment is skyrocketing, increasing numbers of Americans are going without health insurance, and Democrats are looking to pass healthcare fast.

In the American Prospect , Ezra Klein explains three ways that budget reconciliation could be used to fast-track healthcare reform by bypassing a filibuster in the Senate, allowing reform to pass with a simple majority vote. The three options are: regular reconciliation, delayed-onset, and do-over. Klein thinks there's a real chance that the delayed-onset or do-over reconciliation options could work. Delayed-onset reconciliation would kick in only if the Democrats and the Republicans haven't passed a healthcare bill by a certain date. Do-over reconciliation would be based on a gentleman's agreement between the chairs of the House and the Senate budget committees to pass budget amendments if the two parties can't agree on a healthcare reform package within a certain amount of time.

Evidence continues to mount that minorities are especially burdened by our dysfunctional healthcare system. Public News Service reports that lack of health insurance is becoming an epidemic in Michigan, that 28% of Ohioans under the age of 65 were uninsured between 2007 and 2008, and that minorities are still aren't getting fair access in Massachusetts , despite attempts at reform. New America Media points to yet another alarming study from the University of Chicago on race and health disparities in Illinois:

More than half the whites in Illinois consider themselves in excellent health, compared with 42.9% of African Americans and only 28.4% of Latinos. Meanwhile, 84.7% of whites have a primary health provider, compared with 77.3% of African Americans and 62.9% of Latinos, and the percentages are almost the same when it comes to access to health insurance, reports La Raza.

A friend of mine is a teacher in Vancouver, WA.  In January, she went into labor and had her baby a month early.  I was talking to her yesterday, and she told me that she had to take a sick day to have her baby, but her husband, who is also a teacher in the same school, was given a "paternity" day - in other words, he didn't have to use personal or sick time to take the day off.  However, the woman having the baby was forced to use a sick day because no maternity days are offered to women!

This made me so mad!  Why are the fathers offered a paternity day but a woman actually giving birth is forced to use a sick or personal day?  This isn't even going into the (lack of) maternity leave debate in this country...that's for another post.

Ahh, the wonders of patriarchy.

[Crossposted from my blog]

I attended an interesting talk today at the CRT at 20 conference on the topic of medical education and cultural competency, focusing especially on women of color's experiences with gynecology.  I started thinking about a tangential topic that I think is sometimes overlooked in LGBT studies: lesbians' experience with sexual and reproductive health care services.

Later I will probably post some comments on how lesbians experience sexual and reproductive health care generally and differently from heterosexual women. Just now, though, I had a thought about the construction of the female body and how badly this jives with feminism and with lesbianism.

There has been a lot of talk among feminists about how the female sexual organs are reduced to their reproductive function, and how women's sexual pleasure can be effectively erased from a discussion about women's anatomy.  My thought is that the woman's body is sexualized, but it is sexualized only with reference to the man/the male body.  

When you think about this part of the body, it's likely that one of your first thoughts concerns the vagina.  My guess is that gynecologists and other health care professionals see the vagina in two ways: as a receptacle for the penis (focusing on sexual health, contraception, disease, etc.) or as a passageway for a child (focusing on pregnancy, fertility, etc.)  I think this is also true of the culture in general.

One problem is that the vagina is, for many women, not the site of sexual pleasure (or not the sole site), and so there is a separation between health and pleasure.  I would posit that it is difficult to celebrate and enjoy the experience of health and health care when it is separated in this way from sexual pleasure.  I think most of us experience our body in vastly different ways in the bedroom and in the doctor's office.  Another problem is that it makes the healthcare experience irrelevant for lesbian women, especially lesbian women not interested in giving birth.  Our concerns may be difficult to express because society and our health care experiences have not given us a language to express them.  I know that I find the gynecologist fairly irrelevant to me - I get an annual pap smear and I get birth control for migraines, but that's it.  My doctor is not necessarily someone I trust, nor do I associate him with my overall health.

I’m part of that marvelous special interest group that McCain pointed out as not really important because we require “airquotes.” The group that requires “Women’s Health.”

I need my annual exam.  Previous years I’ve gone to a Family Practitioner whose practice had a slightly subtle anti-choice bent.  The first time I didn’t catch it, but the second time I went, there were signs all around about how the clinic respects “the sanctity of life.” It left a bad choice in my mouth so I got my exam, paid my $50 copay and left.

This year I looked for someone else. The Walgreen’s next to my house has a walk in Clinic.  Walgreen’s is the only place in the area I’ve been able to get PlanB, so I felt comfortable going there.  Easy peasy, right? I go to find that the clinic, while it states that it offers a woman’s physical and their website says it takes my insurance, does not write prescriptions for birth control. The Family Nurse Practicioner there helps me by calling around to previous places she’s worked at including the Repro Health Clinic that is right next to my boyfriend’s where anti-choice posterholders are gathered every morning.  We find that they don't take my insurance.

I get into my car and call a few other places that she recommended to find that to use my University provided insurance this year, I need a referral from … someone.  No one knows who.  I call my insurance company and they also tell me I need to get a referral from someone, but they aren't sure who.  I go home and go online to call the University’s Health Services. The first number I call, marked “Family Planning” on their site is for the county’s FP office, but they tell me I need to call the appointment line for the UHS. So I do. I can get an appointment / referral through them, but only after I pay $82 (+lab ::eyeroll::) because they consider me “part time” even though the rest of the University considers me full time. And I need to wait more than two weeks to get the appointment.

So I call the Repro Health Clinic again. I can get in on Monday. It’s about $90 for everything. And I know I can get parking. The woman on the phone reminds me of their location, I mention that I see the poster holders there every morning. She says they’re their best advertisement. We giggle.

I think that we have an issue when I get better, faster treatment at similar prices when I DON’T use my insurance.

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

The chairs of five key congressional committees have finalized a plan for healthcare reform, and their blueprint includes a critical public option. The chairs' decision to support government-administered health insurance for everyone who wants it is sure to attract ferocious opposition from both the insurance industry and its patrons in the GOP.

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) also put single-payer healthcare on the agenda by introducing the American Health Security Act (AHSA) of 2009. John Nichols of The Nation describes the bill as an important piece of legislation. If AHSA became law, it would create a federal health insurance system administered by the states. The insurance program would give patients an unlimited choice of doctors and hospitals because their insurance would cover them everywhere. The proposed program would be financed by redirecting current healthcare spending and supplementing the total with a modest tax increase that would cost most consumers less than their current health insurance premiums.

As Ezra Klein of TAPPED explains in his public insurance primer , single payer healthcare is a step beyond the public option. Under single payer, the government is the sole supplier of health insurance, whereas, under the public option, consumers are allowed to choose public or private insurance. Public insurance will be cheaper and more comprehensive because the government will be able to use its vast bargaining power to lower prices. Also, U.S. government administered health insurance plans like Medicare and SCHIP consistently spend a smaller portion of their budgets on administrative costs than private insurers. Republican Congressional leaders are opposed to the public option because they fear that the private insurance industry won't be able to compete with government-administered insurance.

Dave Weigel, the Washington Independent 's crack conservatologist, interviewed Rick Scott, the founder and principle funder of Conservatives for Patients Rights. CPR has been running ads nationwide warning that Obama is plotting a government takeover of healthcare. Scott also resigned from Colombia/RCA, a for profit-hospital corporation, in the middle of a $1.7 billion fraud investigation. Weigel asked Scott if he was concerned that his past might color public perceptions of his current healthcare advocacy:

TWI: People can still say, “Look, this was the guy who resigned in the biggest fraud settlement in American history.” 

RICK SCOTT: But, you know, we were the biggest company. If you go back and look at the hospital industry, and the whole health care industry since the mid-1990s, it was basically constantly going through investigations. Great institutions, like ours, paid fines. It was too bad. 

With all the talk about healthcare reform, it's easy to forget that there's more to health than insurance or the medical care it can provide. Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! explored the bigger picture with Dr. Steven Bezruchka, a public health scientist who studies how inequality itself makes us sick.

I did another one of those link hopping things today. Followed a post from one place to another and finally ended up on the Atlantic Monthly's page.

There is an article from the upcoming issue about breastfeeding.

It's titled: The Case Against Breastfeeding

It made me want to throw a few things at my computer.

I decided that my computer was not to blame, and neither is the woman who wrote the article.

She actually makes several good points.

Women often face enormous amount of social pressure to do the right thing for their children, even when the 'right' thing can really be one of many things.

Women are often blamed for doing too little (Uh oh. Cold mother? Your child's autism is a reaction), too much (Clingy mother? You've made your son gay!) or things that are just plain bad (A glass of wine? Shame on you! Your child's delay is your fault!).

While I'm not advocating for being a non-responsive/overly-aggressive/drinker during pregnancy and childrearing, there's a pretty good body of evidence that women cannot and should not be blamed for the complexity that is human growth and development.

Anyway, back to my rant about the breastfeeding article.

The author, Hanna Rosin, spends most of the first page talking about the difficulties of being shackled to her baby during its breastfeeding months.

She points out that women are ostracized if they choose to bottle feed, and that scare tactics are used to keep women breastfeeding lest they create undernourished, stupid acne ridden children.

She's right about the weak evidence that links IQ or acne to breastfeeding practices.
She's right about how her baby would likely grow up to be equally intelligent, happy etc whether she bottle feeds him or not.

But she's forgetting that she's obviously living in a rather lovely bubble, vacuum cleaners and all forms of male oppression included.
She has high SES, which is the great equalizer for many other things.

Lead poisoning in your child? High SES will help ensure that their IQ remains along a normal path (not so if you're low SES).
Bottle fed or breastfed? Probably doesn't matter if you have enough money for good food, schools and ongoing parental involvement.

But she totally erases the expediences of many women, both in the US and around the world who cannot rely upon their wealth and status as the great equalizer for their children.

Maybe breastfeeding does not give your baby extra IQ points (and maybe it does! weak evidence does not mean no impact..just need more info!).

But in countries where the infant mortality rate is 7x (or even higher) that of the United States, early and exclusive breastfeeding has been found to be one of the most effective ways to save lives.

So while it's something worthy of a healthy debate among the playgroup tight jean set that Ms. Rosin so cleverly mocks, it's literally a matter of life and death for infants around the world and even in Ms. Rosin's own city.

So while I don't disagree with her characterization of breastfeeding as a personal decision (one for which women should not be shamed or ostracized no matter the outcome), it's rather upsetting that she repeatedly compares this important and life saving measure to vacuum cleaning.

I'd love to go toe to toe with her mountain of research.
I'm pretty sure my 'saves lives' research is more compelling in the argument for breastfeeding than the evidence against because it may or may not help prevent acne.

A recent study finds that women’s need for female friends is biological, and the presence of those friends can be scientifically proven to improve a woman’s health.

As a very indirect response to this recent community post , I thought you all might appreciate seeing this article titled, “UCLA study on friendship among women.”   The article itself could use a fair amount of criticism, as it has been written as a kind of flimsy, feel-good piece about women.  However, the topic of the article is kick ass.  Here I’ve chopped it up for you so that you get the good bits and the full gist:

A landmark UCLA study suggests that women respond to stress with a cascade of brain chemicals that cause us to make and maintain friendships with other women. It's a stunning find that has turned five decades of stress research — most of it on men — upside down.

Until this study was published, scientists generally believed that when people experience stress, they trigger a hormonal cascade that revs the body to either stand and fight or flee as fast as possible explains Laura Cousin Klein, Ph.D., now an Assistant Professor of Biobehavioral Health at Penn State University and one of the study's authors.

Dr.Klein says, it seems that when the hormone oxytocin is released, as part of the stress responses in a woman, it buffers the fight or flight response and encourages her to tend to children and gather with other women instead. When she actually engages in this tending or befriending, studies suggest that more oxytocin is released, which further counters stress and produces a calming effect.

This calming response does not occur in men, says Dr. Klein, because testosterone — which men produce in high levels when they're under stress — seems to reduce the effects of oxytocin. Estrogen, she adds, seems to enhance it.

Study after study has found that social ties reduce our risk of disease by lowering blood pressure, heart rate and cholesterol. There's no doubt, says Dr. Klein, that friends are helping us live longer. In one study, for example, researchers found that people who had no friends increased their risk of death over a six-month period. In another study, those who had the most friends over a nine-year period cut their risk of death by more than sixty percent. Friends are also helping us live better. The famed Nurses' Health Study from Harvard Medical School found that the more friends women had, the less likely they were to develop physical impairments as they aged, and the more likely they were to be leading a joyful life. In fact, the results were so significant, the researchers concluded, that not having close friends or confidantes was as detrimental to your health as smoking or carrying extra weight!

However the piece also somewhat blindly pointed out that women tend to ignore their need for female friends:

“Every time we get overly busy with work and family, the first thing we do is let go of friendships with other women, explains Dr. Josselson. We push them right to the back burner.”

This comment totally ignores the social expectation that women are the ones to give up any extras to compromise for the people around her.  Her children, her spouse, her family never compromise their lives in order to accommodate her.  (Think simple compromises too, not just major ones.  Sarah Haskins gives a great example in this video.)

March 25 is the Back Up Your Birth Control Campaign Day of Action dedicated to increasing awareness of emergency contraception (aka EC, the morning after pill, or the brand name Plan B). EC is a safe and effective way to prevent pregnancy after unprotected intercourse. If the condom broke, you used birth control incorrectly, had unprotected sex, or were sexually assaulted, EC may be right for you.

EC can be started up to five days (120 hours) after unprotected sex. It reduces the risk of pregnancy by 75–89 percent if taken within three days (72 hours) after unprotected sex. The sooner it is started, the better.

EC is available at Planned Parenthood health centers throughout the country, as well as at many pharmacies. Currently EC can be obtained over the counter for those 18 or older (and by prescription for those under 18), although a federal court decision released just yesterday ruled that the FDA must make Plan B available over the counter to women age 17 and older within 30 days.

EC is more effective the sooner you take it, so it’s a good idea to keep a stash in your medicine cabinet as a backup birth control method .

Help us raise awareness of EC by RSVPing to our Back Up Your Birth Control event on Facebook , and don't forget to invite your friends. Also check out the emergency contraception playlist on Planned Parenthood's YouTube channel , and take teenwire.com's Emergency Contraception 101 quiz to test your EC knowledge.

Have a happy (and safe!) Back Up Your Birth Control Day!

-Kendall at Planned Parenthood Action Fund

By Lindsay Beyerstein, TMC MediaWire Blogger

This week, the healthcare reform debate churned on behind the scenes as the economic crisis and treasury secretary Geithner's latest bank rescue plan dominated the news cycle. Meanwhile Democrats weighed various strategies to advance healthcare reform even without a filibuster-proof majority in the senate. Drug policy made headlines this week. Attorney General Eric Holder expanded upon the administration's new found tolerance towards states that permit medical marijuana. The morning after pill will soon be available over-the-counter to 17-year-olds nationwide, thanks to a ruling by a New York federal judge.

"Could an obscure Senate rule free Barack Obama from the filibuster and enable health-care reform?" asks Ezra Klein in the American Prospect. Democrats are eager to maintain momentum for their ambitious healthcare reform agenda, but the potential of a filibuster could derail the plan. It all comes down to numbers: If a healthcare reform bill were introduced in the Senate, the Democrats would not have the 60 votes they need to block a Republican filibuster.

However, as Klein explains, it's possible to pass a healthcare bill with a simple majority in the Senate:

Imagine you want to run health reform through the reconciliation process. Here's how it works: Congress includes reconciliation instructions in the budget. Those instructions direct certain committees -- say, the Finance Committee and the Health, Energy, Labor, and Pensions Committee -- to produce health-reform legislation hitting certain spending targets by a certain deadline. Once finished, the legislation is tossed back to the Budget Committee, which staples it together into an omnibus bill and sends it to the floor of the Senate for 20 hours of debate followed by an up-or-down vote.

Wednesday, April 1st, 2009 7 - 10 pm

We want health care for all women, our families and our communities!!!

Join Raising Women's Voices on April 1, in New York City for a National Women's Speak-Out for Health Care Reform . Held at the InterChurch Center located on 475 Riverside Drive, NY, NY.

The Speak-Out will be moderated by NBC News Medical Editor Nancy L. Snyderman, M.D., and will feature stories of women who have struggled to get the health care that they and their families need. Come and share your story!

Join RWV and awesome women's health leaders like:

Susan Wood, former Director of Women's Health for the FDA;

Sylvia Henriquez, Director of the National Latina Institute for Women's Health;

Marcia Gillespie, former editor of Ms. and Essence Magazines, and

Byllye Avery, founder of the National Black Women's Health Imperative and many others!!!

On April 2nd, 2009 We'll have a strategy conference at which National health policy experts will give an update on the progress of health reform in Washington and help participants identify key opportunities for collective action in the months ahead.

Please visit http://www.raisingwomensvoices.net/ to register. * NOTE: The Speak-Out is FREE, but for workshops and the Strategy Conference, be sure to register on www.raisingwomensvoices.net!

(To forestall a certain kind of argument, I'll preface this post by saying, for the folks who may not know, that there's a long and ugly history of the use of psychology and psychiatric drugs for the purposes of social control rather than healing, and that's the context of this post. If you're unfamiliar with this issue, I definitely suggest looking it up--it has relevance to sexism, racism, and classism, to say the least. At any rate, this is not a criticism of the careful, legitimate use of psychology and psychiatric drugs as a means of healing. This is a critique of their use as a form of violence against marginalized members of society.)

Now, on to the show:

About two-and-a-half years ago, when I began working at an environmental health organization, I discovered something that has changed the way I look at everything around me, especially those that go in or on my body. What I realized is something that I think I had always known but never taken seriously or really considered before. I found out that most of the things I put on my body, eat, and use contain lots of chemicals, many of which are extremely hazardous to my health and the health of the planet.

I learned through the work of the Campaign for Safe Cosmetics (my organization is a founding member) that the FDA's testing standards for personal care products are limited. Basically, if a subject uses some hand soap and doesn't break out in hives and their hands don't fall off, it's called safe. This testing doesn't account for long-term health effects, timing of exposures (are you a baby? post-menopausal?), or the fact that low-dose exposures to certain chemicals can sometimes be just as harmful as swimming in a vat of them all day. So many of the mainstream products you find at the pharmacy, grocery store or beauty supply contain toxic chemicals that, over time, can contribute to cancer, birth defects and many other serious health concerns.

I had a bit of a freak-out at first: like I was in some cheesy 50s horror film where the woman suddenly realizes that everyone around her is a zombie and the walls start to close in. I felt betrayed and fooled. I wanted to throw out everything I owned: my toothpaste, shampoo, dish soap, even my damn favorite lip balm came into question. I was mad that I had ignored this for so long, mad that these huge corporations are willing to pump their products with toxins just to save a buck and make my hair shinier, and mostly mad that my government isn't trying to protect me and my fellow citizens from this onslaught. I felt so powerless to do anything...if I went my whole life without realizing this, how difficult would be to inform an entire population of women? It seemed impossible.

I decided to take a quick NYtimes break.

I start with the US section, bounce over to International and almost always end up in health for the long haul.

Today a book review caught my eye .

A book review in the health section?
Sounds interesting.

And it is.

The book is all about periods.
The female kind, not the punctuation.
A young female writer compiled 90+ stories about how women felt the first time.
She very creatively named it "The Little Red Book" (and I'm only 1/2 mocking).

The book sounds interesting.
The reviewer,however, seriously annoyed me.

The sad thing is, she had good intentions.
She used the word menstruation without verbally flinching (it is possible) and shared some of the funnier anecdotes from the book.

She seems to like the idea.
Unfortunately, she also seems to buy into the idea that getting your period is yucky.
And that men don't want to understand.

Case in point:
"Reasoning that every lonely soul wandering through Walgreens has a story to tell, she [the author] was inspired to assemble a collection of 92 short reflections by women on the subject of their first period.

At this point, male readers may want to go outside and toss a ball around for a while. No matter how sympathetic, how curious or how deeply interested in life’s little yuck factors you are, this collection is unlikely to hold more than the mildest intellectual appeal for you ."

See what I mean?

She started so strong! And then boom..gender norming galore, and some feminine shaming thrown in for good measure.

OF COURSE men won't want to read the book if you tell them that it's unlikely to hold much appeal for them. Also, I'm not sure that some of the most important men in my life (including father, brother and boyfriend) would feel the need to regain their foothold in the world of manliness & masculinity by 'tossing around a ball.' If they didn't want to read a book about periods, they are much more likely to go read a classic or theorize about politics (brother), iron while listening to opera (dad), or throw a few bowls on the pottery wheel (boyfriend). Excuse them for not wanting to play in the yard.

And of course, can't forget that the reviewer called getting your period 'one of life's little yuck factors.'

Maybe it's yucky, or maybe it's an empowering reminder of the life cycle. I won't get all hippy chick, but really..calling it 'yucky?' Is that really necessary?

This weekend I tried to find that infamous January 1988 Cosmo article that declared heterosexual women safe from HIV/AIDS, especially when having sex in the missionary position. I found many blogs and articles that reference the piece, but the full text article, as well as any abstract, is unaccounted for in JSTOR, Lexus/Nexus and ProQuest. I'm convinced there must be some libraries in America that have the original hard copies, possibly in the form of bound periodicals, but I haven't tracked one down yet.

Has anyone out there ever seen this dangerous yet elusive Cosmo piece? I can't even find an author or article name for it!

But I did stumble upon some other heartbreaking articles about the first decade of HIV/AIDS in America, although none date before 1990.

One in particular stood out to me: "Ten New Dating Rules In The Post-Magic Johnson Era" by Hans J. Massaquoi, which ran in the February 1992 issue of Ebony.

Sometimes we just need someone to tell us we're not crazy, that whatever is making us think we might be crazy is extraneous and probably wrong.

This is one of those times for me.

For the past few months, I've been noticing how hard it is for me to catch my breath after walking up even the smallest flight of stairs.  Sometimes, I'll wake up in the middle of the night with my heart beating wildly for no apparent reason.  And just last night, I was trying to talk and walk briskly at the same time but found myself having to stop talking just to breathe. 

I've had some other health issues recently that aren't really resolved, too, including a newly-discovered heart murmer that means I'm getting an electrocardiogram next week.

My SO keeps telling me that we're just out of shape.  Considering we walk more now than we used to, and I feel more out of breath now than I used to, I don't believe it.  But hearing him say that, and having to repeatedly justify my worries in the face of his skepticism makes me second guess myself.  (And I already second guess myself on my health a lot as it is, since I'm constantly worried about whether or not insurance will cover it.)  He seems to think I'm just making things up so that I can go to the doctor (because that's so much fun?), or exaggerating normal things.

The thing is, I've been on the pill for almost 10 years straight.  I was a smoker during some of that time too.  Plus, just being tired and having to fight for breath constantly is bound to make a person paranoid.  Fighting with him over it (because that's what inevitably happens - he tries to brush it off and I get pissed that he doesn't believe me or think that I know my own body well enough to know the difference between when something is just slightly off or way off) is not really helping. 

Has anyone else had heart problems because of their birth control, or even just weird things going on with their body that other people wouldn't believe them about?  I know I can't be alone but I really need to hear from other people that I'm not.

Are you a woman living in the United States?
Are you at least 18 years old?
Would you like to help in the effort to improve health care access?

We want to hear from you!

Melissa Howell, a graduate student in the Department of Sociology at Loyola University Chicago is conducting The Women’s Health Access Project (WHAP), a survey to gather information about what you think about your health, health care access, and how you make health care decisions. The more women who participate, the more information policymakers will have, so we hope you can help!

To complete an anonymous online questionnaire and join your voice with many others, please follow this link.

Spread the word!  If you would like to invite other women to participate, please forward or post this message in its entirety.

If you have any questions, please contact the researcher, Melissa Howell at Loyola University Chicago or her faculty advisor, Dr. Anne Figert at afigert@luc.edu or (773) 508-3431.

Thank you for your help!

As an aspiring doctor, medical student, and patient, it is clear to me that conventional medical practice fails to empower the patient. In fact, the patriarchal shadow of the doctor-patient relationship undermines a woman's ability to make informed decisions about her healthcare. Too many women I know are not satisfied with the way their doctors treat them. They leave their appointments feeling as if they have just received a sentence delivered by a judge. Doctors look at us briefly, offer a diagnosis and treatment plan, neglecting to include us in the process. Women deserve the opportunity to ask questions, challenge medical opinions, and be involved in treatment selection.

The practice of naturopathic medicine is based on 7 principles. Among them is the philosophy of "Docere", or "Doctor as Teacher". The intention here is patient empowerment. Naturopathic physicians schedule longer visits with their patients, allowing adequate time for questions and education. The goal is to provide the patient with all the information they need to make the optimal choice for themself. Decisions regarding an individual's care should involve much more than the latest guidelines in the medical literature. Culture, social history, lifestyle and personal values are an integral part of an individual's healthcare. Naturopathic doctors acknowledge these factors, and simply contribute the medical perspective to guide the patient toward an informed choice.

We're stunned. We've just confirmed news reports that provisions to expand access to affordable family planning will be stripped from the economic stimulus bill. Removing this provision is a betrayal of millions of low-income women, and it will place an even greater burden on state budgets that are already strained to the breaking point.

We need you to take action now and voice your support for the Medicaid Family Planning State Option. Call the White House comment line at 202-456-1111 to speak out now - click here for more details on what to say, and to let us know you called.

We were frustrated when we saw a parade of legislators and talking heads on television this weekend spreading false information about this commonsense bill. House Minority Leader John Boehner even claimed that the provision would cost millions of dollars - when the fact is it would save the federal government $700 million over 10 years.

We were even more shocked to read today that congressional leaders have taken these false arguments seriously and will remove family planning provisions from the stimulus bill. It's time for Washington to hear from the millions of Americans who support commonsense policies that invest in health care and help ease the economic downturn.

Let us be clear. The Medicaid Family Planning State Option is a simple way to make health care affordable for millions of Americans. It would do two important things:

1. It would allow millions of women to obtain basic health care. It would extend safety-net health care coverage for millions who are losing their jobs and health insurance in the economic downturn. Studies estimate that 2.3 million low-income women would receive coverage under this provision by 2014, and 500,000 women would be able to avoid unintended pregnancies.

2. In these difficult times, this provision would save states money. State budgets are being squeezed by the economic downturn, just as millions are losing their jobs and health insurance. The Medicaid Family Planning State Option not only would help states extend their coverage, it would generate savings for states and the federal government by expanding access to preventive care.

Please, take two minutes now to help us raise a public outcry. Call the White House at 202-456-1111 - it's a quick and easy way to make a big impact. Click here for more details on what to say, and to report back to Planned Parenthood on your call. (A phone call is the best way to make your voice heard, but if you can't make the call, you can send an email here .)

Thank you so much for speaking out, and please stay tuned for more details on this critical issue.

Has anyone had the Essure procedure or any form of sterilization? I am looking for a permanent form of birth control because I know that I won't be having children and I am tired of other methods. I have used many forms of BC. I am currently using Mirena. I have some complaints. First, it's not permanent; Second, I have had some side effects that I don't care for. I have had it for over a year and while the constant cramping is gone (sooo bad at first) and I also enjoy not having periods, I have other problems. Two of these are vanity issues. I gained quit a bit of weight, my stomach looks and feels swollen, like I'm pregnant (I'm not) and I don't feel like myself.

So earlier today I got an email message from the Obama team to tell me about a new feature on Change.gov. It's called The Citizen's Briefing Book and lets us put up our issues, vote on those put up by others, and comment on them. Naturally one of the first areas I looked at was "Health Care" and was surprised not to find the Freedom of Choice Act in a high position. So I searched for it. Guess what I found?

So I'm putting a call out to all those feminists out there who I've seen discuss the importance of this act. Spread the word, go vote it up, and make your voices heard, so far, the pro-life, anti-choice folks are ruling the day. And we only have until 6pm Sunday to turn that around!

I found these yesterday and thought I should share them, since the very idea of secrets in gynecology seems so wrong.  Everyone should know everything she can about her body.

Gynecology Secrets You Need to Know

Personally, the only one I knew was the first one, though I'd like to think that I could have deduced "Secret #5" on my own.

#6 reminds me of the time I contracted bacterial vaginosis .  Though no one is sure what causes it, I'm convinced it was the 11 hour plane ride (almost all of which I was seated) in non-cotton underwear, since I left home fine and arrived in Sweden with a malodorous discharge. 

Also, I wish they would add that birth control can basically drain your body of Vitamin B - which helps you absorb nutrition from your food, helps give you energy, and keeps you happy.  I only learned this myself when I was a 20-year-old vegetarian (who rarely or never ate the various food sources of Vitamin B ) who started having panic attacks and feeling dizzy all the time.  I didn't have any idea it could be connected to my birth control but asked my doctor about the panic attacks while visiting for something else - one of the first things she said was, "You're on birth control, aren't you?".

What "secrets" would you add?

So, as I related somewhere way down in the comments to that story, my mom related a gem of a cautionary tale years ago concerning a woman she knew who, due to a miscommunication/misunderstanding she'd had with her knowledgable (male) gynocologist (this was either late 50's or early 60's), she gave herself a full strength Lysol douche-with all the imagined consequences.  Horrible, horrible.  Unimaginable.  And yet, it made me wonder just how much, fundamentally, things have changed with regards to women and the medical field. 

The medical community-male and female practitioners-are still deeply entrenched in the practice of "medical misogyny".  This is something I read about constantly, but rarely do I hear it come up in regular conversation.  Many of us are taught/conditioned to ignore the signals of our bodies, that our senses are clouded by 'hysterical' sensibilites.  That if we dare voice an opinion on the state of our own bodies, it is not only not to be taken seriously, but somehow shameful.

Case in point:  Soon after giving birth to my second son (he is now eleven), I started experiencing extreme fatigue.  Not oh-I-need-more-sleep, but to the point where I was sleeping through most of the goddamn day as well as the night.  I would literally drag myself out of bed in the morning only to feel tired to the point of nausea within a couple hours.  

I went to the doctor.  I explained  the severity of the problem.  I even mentioned my mother was hypo-thyroid, and that she'd been diagnosed around my current age.  Guess what happened?  I was gently brushed out of the office with condescending references to 'mommy syndrome' (I had quit work when I was 5 months pregnant with the second, as we had moved away from my work anyway and we were able to swing it.)  I was instead diagnosed with depression, and perscribed a high dose of anti-depressant that had three major side effects (that the physician neglected to mention-I had to research the drug myself).  Weight gain. Fatigue.  Loss of any drive, creative as well as sexual.  BTW, I'm an artist.  Just not for the years I was taking that shit. 

For the next SEVEN FUCKING YEARS, as I continued to drag myself through the days, gaining ever more weight, sick with fatigue, it was because I WAS A BORED HOUSEWIFE.  This was not with just one practitioner, mind you, nor were they all men.

It was an all too common combination of my denial of being anything but healthy, and the medical profession's mindset that most females (especially, especially a chronically lazy, bored housefrau and stay-at-home-mommy) are by nature, hypochondriacs.

By the time I grew the ovaries to finally stand up and fucking wean myself off the anti-depressants and DEMAND a blood test, I had basically lost almost a decade of productive living, gained about 65 lbs, and lost most of my self esteem in the process. 

To be clear, I don't completely lay the onus of blame on my medical practitioners, as I was most definitely in denial and chose to believe their diagnoses over my own sense of what my body was experiencing, and chose not to assert myself until very late, but I do believe there is a huge problem that still exists within the medical community that needs desperately to be examined much more agressively. 

I would also be interested in hearing of any similar reluctance on the part of a doctor, doctor/assistant, or other medical professional's reluctance to take a female patient's physical complaint/s seriously.

They say hair holds karma -- and that cutting it off means letting go of your karma and allowing yourself a fresh start. I cut eight inches off my hair recently, and while I'm not sure I gave myself a fresh start, I certainly hope I gave someone else that opportunity.

I gave my hair to the Pantene Pro-V's Beautiful Lengths Program, one of several that allows you to donate long hair to women and children in need, usually cancer patients. It was tough to choose a program. All of them represent a good cause, and many of them link with salons or organize events offering free cuts by really great stylists.

My mother donated her hair to Locks of Love a few years back when her brother was struggling with cancer. It's the most high profile organization dedicated to this cause, but while it does great work, often running large-scale campaigns at schools and on campuses, Locks of Love has also been criticized for accepting more donations than they can use. Sometimes the donated hair ends up being thrown away. Wigs for Kids only donates to children -- a worthy cause, for sure, but children don't always feel the same social pressure to wear a wig, and may not miss having a wig made with real hair. Adults do.

I chose to donate my long locks to the Beautiful Lengths Program for a variety of reasons. I liked that they donated wigs to adult women via the American Cancer Society;
they link with a salon near my office that offers free cuts by senior stylists on any day but Saturday (Mark Garrison Salon, www.markgarrisonsalon.com); and their minimum donation is only 8 inches of hair. (Other programs ask for 10 or 12 inches, but I wasn't ready for anything too drastic).

For most women, hair is part of our identity; losing it, while undergoing the difficulties of disease, treatment, and recovery, is particularly traumatic. I'd had long hair most of my life and was glad to share part of what makes me who I am with someone else. It didn't seem like a big sacrifice.

If you are interested in donating, keep in mind that hair should be untreated. It takes about six donations to make one wig, so all hair donations are dyed and treated hair soaks up color more easily.

More information on each of there programs can be found on this list compiled by the New York Times, and of course on their websites.

In the fourth grade I learned how it felt to be made fun of just because of my weight. Most of the fat people I knew were quiet, wore clothes that didn't fit them, and had no friends. Their names weren't Lisa or Joe or Mary. They went by Shamu or Willy or whatever diet company was popular at the time. From every direction- home, doctors, peers, teachers, and the media-these kids were getting the message that they were not decent people. They were disrespected and unsupported, and as a result felt like unworthy people. They were seen solely as fat kids: not smart kids, not creative kids, and not athletic kids.

Perhaps the greatest injustice large children face is the medical care they receive. Once I had to go on a diet because it was assumed that bad habits were creating my size. I was nine or ten years old! I ate what the rest of my family ate, and they weren't fat. We rarely had sweets around the house. (My mom is a health food fanatic.) We didn't eat much red meat, and did eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. My mom was always making sure we got "complete proteins" and not too much sugar or fat. We never had soda pop. Of course, the diet didn't work. Most people, including doctors, freak at the obesity rate as if it were something to be ashamed of.

Our society's definition of healthy is wrong. We are so obsessed with thinness that we worry more about losing weight than about feeding the hungry. It is as if the media has created an artificial tragedy that is distracting us from real concerns. Thinness should worry us, but, because of stereotypes about fatness, it does not. My size rarely keeps me from doing anything I want. This throws people off. How can this girl be happy, active, healthy-and fat?

I played basketball for a long time and was very good. I could do everything the others could; I wore the same tight-fitting clothes. Yes, I have a body, and it has gone away under sweatpants and baggy T-shirts. I don't play basketball anymore, but I am still a very active person.

For the past three years, I have been struggling with an eating disorder. I have always been made fun of and thought that maybe if I was thin I would be liked, but really I was already liked by the people that truly did like me and that's all that matters. But in a weird way it has helped me gain confidence in my body. I have learned that true beauty does not always emanate from the skinny, but it does always come from the truly self-content.
As a college student, my size has become less and less important to the people around me. My friends accept my appearance all the way. Other large people I know are experiencing the same kind of change. People stop teasing, just as they stop teasing the kids with glasses, braces, or orthopedic shoes.

It takes some time to adjust and be comfortable with your growing body. Almost every girl thinks that her body is funny looking: maybe it's her hair, maybe it's her nose, or maybe it's her knees. For the fat girl, it is always her size. But getting rid of fat will never make the insecurities go away. It doesn't work like Jenny Craig says. It is very important to be comfortable with yourself. For the people who aren't, the awkwardness doesn't go. It really is a choice to make: to accept yourself or not.

HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for African-American women between the ages of 25 and 44.

Take a minute and let that sink in.

In her article "This era of black women and HIV/AIDS," published yesterday on The Black Commentator, feminist scholar and activist Rev. Irene Monroe points out many disturbing facts surrounding black women and HIV/AIDS. She also makes it crystal clear that this is an issue of not only race but gender disparity.

It should get everyone hackles up. Why is the prevalence of AIDS among African-American women so well hidden in our society?

Monroe pinpoints the reasons. Failed national leadership, lack of support in the church community, homophobia(you'll have to read the article to see how that fits in), and the legacy of slavery.

It's a sobering and fascinating read that I hope will open many eyes.

I know that feministing has touched upon this slightly in a post not too long ago, but I finally saw this article posted on the internet...specifically Fox News. I was not able to find it on CNN-Fox's liberal counterpart. The article was about the gift certificates that Planned Parenthood was giving away. The headline was especially disturbing and really got my blood boiling...

"Planned Parenthood Gift Certificates Could be Used for Deadly Purposes"

Deadly Purposes!! Damn, it really makes me think that PP is funding terrorism, or mass genocide or something absolutely horrible. That headline is out of control in my opinion. These death (gift) certificates can obviously be used for many of the different services that planned parenthood offers such as STD exams, Pap Smears, and pre-natal care, but no...instead the Pro-Life crazies are worried that it is going to used for abortions. Well, so what if it is? A gift certificate is meant to be for anything one would like to buy with it.

These pro-lifers are complaining that on Christmas, woman are going to end lives when Jesus was born. I know it makes sense to people arguing about about this issue, but people have to be more understanding about the fact that NOT everyone celebrates Christmas. There are Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists (which is what I practice) and numerous other religious groups that do not believe in Jesus or what the Christian church preaches, so, these women should not be ridiculed for going to planned parenthood for whatever it may be their getting-even if it is an abortion...or at least that is what I believe...

On Yahoo News:

Health Tip: Hide or Get Rid of Excess Hair

(HealthDay News) -- In women, factors such as hormonal changes, diet, illness, or use of certain medications can trigger the growth of excess or unwanted hair.

To remove or minimize its appearance, the U.S. National Library of Medicine offers these suggestions:

* Bleach the hair so that it is less visible.
* Shave, wax, pluck or chemically remove the hair.
* Use electrolysis, a procedure in which an electric current is used to prevent hair from growing. But several treatments may be required.
* Remove hair with laser treatments.
* Lose weight. This can affect hormone levels, and in turn, reduce hair growth.

(end of article)

Tell me how this is a health tip? When I saw the headline I thought there might be some BREAKING NEWS that having excess hair was somehow unhealthy for women. After all, the title practically reads as a command.

In fact, the opposite is true. Every one of the solutions offered in this article has potentially unhealthy side effects, including chemical reactions, ingrown hairs, eating disorders, trichotillamania (sp?) and a host of conditions both minor and potentially major.

It is bad enough that marketers and beauty magazines drive home the "shave it all off" mentality, to the point that some women wax or shave every bit of hair on their body other than head hair. It is bad enough that almost nobody has full eyebrows anymore, and many women have developed hair-pulling disorders while fashion models and magazines portray even having normal eyebrows as somehow unfeminine.

This article goes a step further by adding the weight of medical science to the barrage of hairless messages bombarding women. That's downright disingenuous.

A true health tip would be to let women know that "excess" hair is merely a variation, is rarely indicative of underlying illness or imbalance, and in some cultures is believed to be a sign of greater libido. In short: there's nothing wrong with being hairy. We are, after all, mammals.

 Cecilia M. Ford, a member of WVFC's medical advisory  board, has been a psychologist in private practice in New York City since 1987; her current areas of focus are chronic illnes and depression, eating disorders and body image disorders, sexuality and relationships, and  parenthood and careers. This is the first of a series of columns on this daunting but essential topic; look here soon for Dr. Ford's thoughts on preparing and best surviving, a loved one's death, living with chronic illness and uncertain diagnoses, and other issues.

Dear Dr. Ford,

I am concerned about my sister, who lost her husband to lung cancer. Although he has been gone over 18 months, she still is deeply grieving. She keeps the calendar of the month he died on the wall, she refuses to clean out his closets, talks of him constantly, marks the date each month that he passed, and speaks of feeling his “presence.” In some ways, she is more “involved” with him now than when he was alive.   I’m worried about her, but I feel unable to talk to her about this because she feels others don’t understand her grief. She’s only 58, though, and it seems that she needs to start letting go if she is going to be able to move on.

Yesterday, the local archbishop was on page four of the newspaper, condemning euthanasia as immoral.

Of late, there has been in my country strong debate on the issue of euthanasia (currently illegal) and the low take-up rate Advance Medical Directive (currently available - signs away artificial means of support when life is no longer viable). Publicity in the press, though, seems to be directed at swinging readers away from support for euthanasia - a while back there were articles featuring five doctors morally opposed to euthanasia (as though that is representative of the entire medical community!), and this cheerful, loving gem was in the papers today.

I just got a copy of the newly-published fourth editon of "Alcoholism (The Facts)" by Ann M. Manzardo et al.  Alcoholism is often thought of as a men's issue, so you might wonder what this has to do with feminism.  In fact, millions of women in the US suffer from alcohol use disorders.  Although this demographic has been neglected in the past, the fourth edition of this book has a new chapter: "Women and Alcohol."

I first discovered this title in its earlier editions, by the late Donald W. Goodwin.  I had been trying to reconcile some of the seeming contradictions about alcoholism and addiction in the popular literature, and this book was an oasis of rationality amongst the of moral judgements, social agendas, and bad science present in most other books on the subject.  From both personal experience and my research, I came to believe that alcohol and addiction were very much women's issues, although not ones at the forefront of feminist thought.  So I was quite excited to see the authors of the new edition take these issues on, but how did they do?  In short, quite well.  The book is factual, not preachy, and it provides crucial information for anyone interested in social issues, and anyone who drinks, no longer leaving out an entire sex.

The new key points about alcohol and women include:

• Alcohol disorders are more common among men, but more severe when they occurs among women
• Alcohol disorders often co-occur with eating disorders among women
• Working mothers are less likely to develop alcohol problems
• Most cases of violence against women occur when both the man and the woman have been drinking
• Discusses both the history of social attitudes towards women and alcohol as well as the the biological differences between alcohol metabolism in men and women.

I like this book because it honestly presents the currently accepted scientific theories on alcohol and related problems, which I can vouch for from my own studies into the scientific literature.  My only complaint is that since it doesn't cite its sources, its claims are not easily verifiable, a common but unfortunate trend among popular science books.  All in all however, I think it's an excellent source of information about a condition that plays a huge role in our culture and individual lives.

I'd like to share a story with you, and at the end, I'd like your opinion on how you would have handled the situation, or how you handle similar situations. Here goes:

My boyfriend and I went down to Memphis to visit my sister and her husband for a week. One day we went to the zoo and had a wonderful time seeing all the neat animals and learning fun facts and such. I also learned that I might have CANCER.

While admiring the giraffes, my boyfriend whispered to me that a man was staring at me and talking to his wife. I disregarded this until I felt a hand on my shoulder, pointing to a small mole on the back of my exposed shoulder. "Has this mole always looked like this? Has it changed in shape or color? You may want to have it looked at."

Allow me to begin by saying that I am an introvert. I don't mind large crowds, such as the one at the zoo, but I do value my personal space and don't generally talk to strangers. Yes, i do have a slighty irregularly shaped mole on my shoulder, but I've had it biopsied in the past and my doctor checks it every year at my annual physical. My health is important to me, and I take pride in asking my doctor good questions and keeping up with my body's well being. So for someone to suggest I have skin cancer by touching me and giving me medical advice in a public place was not only extremely embarassing, but insulting as well. Bear in mind this man did not identify himself in any way.

The Bush administration's stated purpose in blocking U.S.-funded contraceptives in Africa is to reduce abortion, although, as the Guttmacher Institute points out, the effect of witholding contraception will most likely be the opposite. As a recent Guttmacher Institute - World Health Organization study found, increased access to contraceptives is linked to lower abortion rates.

The Guttmacher report directs readers seeking additional information:

on the unmet need for contraceptives in developing countries --

for facts on abortion worldwide --

on the broad benefits of investing in international family planning assistance --

Note: I did not write this article - it is crossposted from the somethingawful forums. Please feel free to crosspost this anywhere you like.

There have been a lot of debates and discussions recently, both on this forum and in other venues, about the state of healthcare. Looking at the rising costs of health insurance, and at the growing numbers of the uninsured, many are calling for government intervention, and the institution of a system where care is guaranteed to all - usually described as "universal" healthcare. It's a fascinating topic - the issues involved include humanitarian, financial and ideological ones. Unfortunately, debate on the subject is characterised by a startling phenomenon: one side is right, and the other is completely wrong.

Given the importance of medicine, I feel that it would be useful to clarify this issue. I will explain clearly, and with evidence, why it is that universal healthcare of any sort would be better than the current system in every significant way. If you find yourself disagreeing with this assertion, I ask that you read on before replying, as all conceivable objections will be addressed and resolved.

So apparently, women are paying possibly hundreds of dollars more a year than men for health insurance.  The article says that part of this is attributed to the childbearing years, but even then, some policies don't cover maternity care.  

At least we can pay for this with our equitable wages...oh wait--that doesn't exist!  perhaps if they changed the costs to 75 cents for every dollar...

Via The New York Times.

Some troubling news to come from America's clergy. 

In a study of 293 Christian church members who approached their clergy for help with a personal or family member's diagnosed mental illness, researchers found that more than 32 percent were told by their pastor that they or their loved one did not really have a mental illness. The church members were told that the problem was solely spiritual in nature, such as a personal sin, lack of faith or demonic involvement. Women were more likely than men to have their mental disorderd dismissed by the church .  

I know from previous posts that this is a sensitive issue, so I want to clarify a couple of things right up front. To say that PMS is a social construction does not mean that women don’t experience it. It does not mean that “it’s all in your head.” It does not mean that your experience doesn’t exist, or is invalid in some way. Rather, the claim is that the explanatory framework surrounding this set of experiences is faulty, and that it would be more constructive to look for and attempt to address the true causes behind this phenomenon.

So, what does it mean to say that PMS is a social construction? A social construction is any contingent phenomenon that is created by a society. Social constructs exist only because the members of a society implicitly agree to behave as if they do. Generally speaking, there are conventions around social constructs that guide our behavior regarding them. The most common example used to illustrate this is paper money. Paper money would be worthless if it weren’t for our practices and conventions.

A couple of weeks ago, I was on antibiotics for an ear infection.  It was just a standard Z-pack, two pills the first day and one pill every day after that. 

My boyfriend came to visit me for the weekend and then went back to Memphis, where he lives.  A couple of days later, I was sitting at my computer and I looked over on my desk to see the unfinished Z-pack and a sudden horrible realization came to me.

"I can't rely on my birth control while I'm on antibiotics!!!  Oh my God, I have to take EC.  We had sex without a condom more than three days ago, it might not work.  Oh my God, I can't believe I forgot that.  ShitgoddamnitfuckingA"

The response to this post was so upsetting to me that I really wanted to write my own post.

My main problem is with self-righteous radical vegans/vegetarians that won't acknowledge that many of us have extenuating life circumstances that prevent us from having a vegan/vegetarian lifestyle. My problem is an eating disorder.

I was raised to be very environmentally conscious and to care for animals. I even saved up my money and adopted manatees and dolphins when I was little, and when I was older, I'm ashamed to say, I gave to PETA.

Marie Claire: You met your husband after his POW days. To what extent is that still with you — or is it a part of history?
Cindy McCain: My husband will be the first one to tell you that that's in the past. Certainly it's a part of who he is, but he doesn't dwell on it. It's not part of a daily experience that we experience or anything like that. But it has shaped him. It has made him the leader that he is. 

MC: But no cold sweats in the middle of the night?
CM: Oh, no, no, no, no, no. My husband, he'd be the first one to tell you that he was trained to do what he was doing. The guys who had the trouble were the 18-year-olds who were drafted. He was trained, he went to the Naval Academy, he was a trained United States naval officer, and so he knew what he was doing.

You know, [the definition of "health" has] been stretched by the pro-abortion movement in America to mean almost anything. That's the extreme pro-abortion position, quote, 'health.'" John McCain at the 3rd presidential debate 10/15/08

It's a widely held belief that mental health is somehow different from physical health. Mental health is not seen as legitimate. It's seen as will power or a relative measure based on the subjective. If you have poor mental health, it's your own fault, according to much of our society. After all, two people can experience the same trauma and one person can be emotionally crippled by it while the other can become a "stronger" person. Or, a person who is stronger (by his own merit, of course) is somehow immune to mental illness, which is what I think Cindy McCain was implying in the above statement. I believe she was also implying that because our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are not draftees, then there's no way Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder can be as big a problem as people think it is for our veterans of the 21st century. This false belief about mental health is at the foundation of the conservative "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" movement. And I think Cindy McCain and the rest of those conservatives are in serious denial about the affects that the policies they support can have on the mental health of society at large.

I've read a couple of posts here about unfortunate experiences with gynecologists, making me all the more wary as I have to find one on my own for the first time.

This is my 5th year living in NYC, but four of those were during college, when I just went home to my gynecologist.  Finally got a real job (yay!) complete with health care (although really shitty birth control coverage, a whole other story).  So, I'm faced with the daunting task of picking a gynecologist here in the city.  A search limiting by zip code and looking for a female doctor still leaves me with an overwhelming list to go through...

But my friend Marisa needs your help!

What follows is her story, and her link to her Paypal site. Thanks!

I suffer from a condition known as Polycystic Ovary Syndrome or PCOS. PCOS causes cysts to form on my Ovaries which prevents me from ovulating. The results, if left untreated, can cause infertility and even cancer. About 5% of all women have PCOS, it is a common disease.

The treatment for me is simple: Get an IUD. This implant will help give my body the hormones it needs all while treating the disease. I can eventually go on to have children and live a cancer free life.

My health insurance provider, however, sees things differently. Since an IUD is birth control, they will not pay for it. The IUD costs $590, money that I cannot begin to afford. I already pay an obscene amount of money a month for my insurance since my job does not provide coverage.

Help me save my Uterus! Anything will do...get the message out!

Now with a nifty Donate button. It's right on my PayPal account!

I blogged here about my trip to the doctor to get Accutane. It's not easy, let me tell you.

(Why is the government obsessively committed to pregnancy prevention only when fetus-mutating drugs are involved?)

by Lisa Codispoti , Senior Advisor
and Brigette Courtot , Policy Analyst
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a weekly series on Women and Health Reform .

Like my own little Thank You Thursday. Except on a Tuesday.

I've always supported Planned Parenthood, either through my donations or by pimping them on my (now defunct) Save Roe Myspace. Through all that, however, I have never once needed their services. Until yesterday.

I go to college in New York, but I'm from New Jersey. Therefore, I have out of state insurance. Many doctors do not accept out of state insurance, so when I decide it's time for my first ever visit to the vag doctor, this causes a problem.

Feeling incredibly frustrated, I called Planned Parenthood and made an appointment to see them.

Good news from here in Australia. One of the states is taking abortion off the criminal books! Yay! and making it legal! Yay! And making it so that even if a health care provider won't perform an abortion they will have to make a referral to another doctor who will! Yay! But now the catholic church is wading in.

I never knew that one third of births in Victoria were in a church hospital but know I do.

What a sad indictment of our public health care system...

The NY Times yesterday had a great op-ed co-authored by Hillary Clinton and Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood.  Apparently there is a new proposed rule from the Department of Health and Human Services that would severely impact family planning and reproductive choice, and sadly, not in a good way.  Sigh.

Under the guise of "religious liberty" and "freedom of conscience" HSS aims to "protect" those health care professionals that object to providing certain medical treatment by forcing any health care entity that receives federal funding to certify in writing that none of its employees, or volunteers, are required to assist in any way with medical services they find objectionable .  That's right folks.  If passed, this new rule would require employers to certify that they won't force their employees to, you know, do their jobs.

Meanwhile, as the article points out, where's the protection for the patients, women "who look to their health care providers as an unbiased source of medical information, [and] might not even know they were being deprived of advice about their options or denied access to care[?]" 

The good news, sorta, is that there is a 30-day comment period on the proposed rule which is open to the public, but it closes on September 29 , so write in now (you can do this by e-mail!) and prevent this bullshit rule from getting passed! 

Instructions for commenting and the actual proposed rule are here.

If you want to read the awesome op-ed.

The new label informs consumers on the fact that Gardasil may also be used to prevent cancers of the vagina and vulva.

Gardasil targets four strains of HPV, the human papillomavirus. While the four are responsible for nearly all cases of cervical cancer, two of them can also lead to several vulvar and vaginal cancers, a Merck scientist said.

..."With additional one-year follow-up, we now have more rigorous data," he added, also saying that the vaccine proved to be 100% efficient in clinical trials in what vulvar and vaginal cancers concern.

Original Article

So a collective "yay!" should be in order. While they do tend to be rarer cancers, they can be devestating none-the-less.

Now lets just get some people to stop thinking that it will somehow the vaccine will make pre-teens engage in sex and it will be all good.

This letter was originally written May 29 to Elaine Tyler May who was writing a book about the development of the birth control pill. I figured I'd repost it since I have yet to contribute anything to the community here at Feministing. Enjoy!

My relationship with the birth control pill started when I was 18 and in high school. I had just started dating my first serious boyfriend and, seeing where the relationship was clearly headed, my mother took me to the doctor's office to talk about contraception. The chart in my health class textbook said that the pill was 99.9% effective at preventing pregnancy* (*when taken correctly) and since I was in a monogamous relationship with a guy I knew was clean, I chose this method. Also, my best friend had been taking it for months already, and we dutifully popped our BB sized tablets at 10pm every night. I feel I should mention that, despite the high effectiveness of the pill, my scare-tactic health teacher combined with my extremely paranoid personality meant that I didn't use the pill without some other form of contraception for close to a year. It took me a long time to trust in a pill that I could lose in the palm of my hand.

I have never felt so stupid, ignorant, and useless as I do right now.

I went to Planned Parenthood today. I should have known something was up when I called to make an appointment the first time. They didn't even ask me what days would be good, what times, etc., just told me a time and date and told me to show up. I was lucky and it didn't interfere with my work schedule.

I went in and filled out paperwork. No big deal, everything was going fine. They called me back to talk to me. I told them I had depression and thyroid problems. They asked me what kind of thyroid problems. I told them that honestly, I don't know because my current doctor won't explain anything to me. She gave me pills and told me to take them. That's all I know. They asked me about my period. I told them it was incredibly irregular and that I had just had my first period of six months. They asked me if I wanted to take a pregnancy test. I said no, I had just taken one. Well, they insisted I take one again. Even though it wasn't even a full week since my last one. I took it, and of course, it came back negative.

I told them I wanted a pap smear, and STI panel, and to discuss my options for birth control. They then told me the only STI they tested for was gonorrhea and chlamydia. That's it, I would have to go to a different doctor for the others. I was frustrated, but said okay.

Just a heads up, this post does contain some contemplation about collecting menstrual blood without diverting to references of any sort of feminine hygiene product. If that creeps you out, maybe you would be more interested in just reading the original article.

After success in healing injured mice, a team of American and Canadian researchers are hoping to begin human trials to test the affectiveness of stem cells found in menstrual blood. Full story here.

I am hoping that some smart, sensibly Feministing ladies or gents can help answer this question, because my pharmacist seems to have been trained to read printouts of drug company info over the phone and completely ignore my actual question.

I've been on Yasmin for about three years now, and this past cycle I started my new pack of pills two days early, taking only five inactive pills between packs instead of seven. (ie: I normally begin a new pack on Thurs., now I begin on Tues.) I assumed that this would make no difference in effectiveness: the active pills suppress ovulation, so it should not matter when I begin taking a new set as long as it is no more than seven days after stopping the last set. After all, it is possible to skip the inactive set entirely and have no period, and some brands even come in packs with only four inactive pills. My pharmacist, however, says that the effectiveness of the pills has been decreased because I "didn't follow the instructions."

Is she right, or is my logic sound?

Here's the dealio. I have been debating about whether or not to start BC. In fact I did start Ortho Tri Cyclen for about five days before I started to have chest pains and other weird things. I can't seem to find a reliable source or level headed friends to talk to; so naturally I am coming to the Feministing community for some good advice! With lots of personal stories and opinions thrown in of course! :)

Question time. Does being on birth control really help with the insane emotional rollercoaster I am on during my period? (seriously, it's scary) Has anyone else had bad experiences with the pill? The first time I tried was a little nerve wracking, what with the chest pains and swollen left ankle. Not to mention I got three periods in six weeks. Baaaad timing. :( Anyway, that is not an experience I would like to repeat seeing as how school is about to start up. If anyone has help/experiences they would like to share that would be great!

Denialism has posted a succinct description of the relationship between HPV (human papilloma virus) and cervical cancer.

So how can a virus like HPV lead to cancer? The short answer is simply that "HPV causes cervical cancer by screwing with two of our most powerful tumor suppressor genes." The long answer is really worth reading though, so go to!

(Cross-posted from The Feminist Underground )

I live in Maryland, but go to school in DC, which has some of the best domestic partnership benefits of any state or territory in the country, even MA or CA.  Domestic partner benefits in DC are open to same and different sex couples. 

Currently in a hetero relationship, I feel uncomfortable taking advantage of rights given to some people in America and not to others, which essentially biols down to my unease with marriage And not getting married really screws with health insurance. 

I'm insured under my school health insurance, but my partner only has emergency coverage through his non-profit.  So we figured that we could ensure him as my domestic partner. 

I just got back from Mexico City, and just haven't been feeling well since my return.  I recently moved, so I got a recommendation for a doctor from a co-worker and decided to try my luck.

I'll spare you the book about how terrible the office in general was, but wanted to share this with you:

The nurse taking my history asked if I take any medications. I said, "Yes, I take Desogen."  She asked me what that was, which is a fair question considering there are about a million drugs in this country.  I replied that it is an OCP, which if you are unfamiliar, is a standard medical abbreviation for oral contraceptive.

The nurse replied, "Oh I just don't understand you young people and your texting abbreviations!"

SERIOUSLY?!?!?

That's the question I get almost every single time I tell people I'm going to be a gynecologist. 

Why I spread (pun unintended) this along to you all is for several reasons. Although I can understand the reaction, it startles me.  When phrased thus, it does seem odd. I will knuckles deep in some birth canals every weekday until I'm 65. But, when I shake of the shackles of my societal conditioning I realize something. Vaginas. Aren't. Gross.

What really chaps my hide is that the people who, sometimes jokingly, sometimes bitterly, spit this little provocation back at me are always women. Men, though lacking the joy of vagina-owernship, seem to understand that gynecologists are needed, so my choice seems appropriate. Women, on the other hand, consider desire to poke, prod and most importantly, take care of their lady bits wholly unacceptable.

My question to you is: Why do women seem to hate their genitalia? I don't know about you, but I'm a big fan of my junk.  I keep it healthy, clean and disease free. In return I'm able to get my freak on and someday, pop out a couple crying infants (or not, gracias to my nuvaring). In my opinion it seems a pretty sweet deal.

My first guess would be lackluster gynecological care. Just from my own experience, pap smears and injections are something to be whispered about between regular bloodwork and physicals. Until I finally confessed to my doctor that I was sexually active, she gave that all-important area only a cursory glance every six months. On top of that, we get posts like ajohnson's about self-righteous clinic staff that feel the need to tell you how whorish you are before they give you the inoculation that prevents cervical cancer.

So, if anyone out there in the feministing universe cares to press the nifty little comment button and enlighten me as to what has caused us to hate that little hairy pleasure monster between our legs, please do so!

I love any day that yet another of Sarah Haskins’ hilarious “Target Women” videos are linked to on Feministing.  Last week’s video, on birth control, was no exception: fresh, funny, and incredibly insightful, as always.  But I found this video also brought forth some questions about a subject that has bothered me for a long time.

It's almost time to let the games begin, but as controversy swirls around the hot topics of performance-enhancing drug use and gender testing at the Olympics, another major issue gets less attention from the officials: eating disorders.

According to a study published last year in the Psychology of Sport and Exercise journal, almost one in five of Britain's leading female distance runners has an eating disorder or has suffered in the past. We would venture to guess that the U.S. numbers match up pretty closely. Does anyone remember Dying to Be Perfect: The Ellen Hart Pena Story (Yep, Lifetime movie)? And it's not just runners, of course. Little Girls in Pretty Boxes highlighted the struggles of figure skaters and gymnasts (Uh, yeah, Lifetime again. Although to be fair, it was a book first). Gymnast Jennifer Sey just chronicled her own experience with eating disorders and depression in Chalked Up: Inside Elite Gymnastics' Merciless Coaching, Overzealous Parents, and Elusive Olympic Dreams and American swimmer Dara Torres just inked a deal (sub required) to write her memoir, which includes a discussion of her battle with bulimia.

*Squeal!*

I am such a nerd. I love a good email Table of Contents alert.

One of the first things I did when I got accepted to medical school was access the library website and check out the journal access. EBSCO! Wheeeeee!

Well, I have been signed up to get free access articles from BioMed Central since before that. One open access journal that is one of my favorites is The International Breastfeeding Journal . This week they have several interesting articles, including:

Breastfeeding and feminism: A focus on reproductive health, rights and justice . Miriam H Labbok1, Paige Hall Smith, Emily C Taylor. 

Women's liberation and the rhetoric of "choice" in infant feeding debates , Bernice L Hausman.

When I put out a call for submissions for a new series at The Feminist Underground on feminism and parenting , I thought I had a pretty good idea of what the issues would be - maternity and paternity leave, balancing work and family, and helping kids cope with the toxic gender and racial stereotypes rampant in our society. Then my friend Maggie sent me an article that introduces an issue I’d never even considered - the difficulties many women have obtaining the type of health insurance that could make pregnancy and childbirth safe and affordable. Maggie explains how her own struggles with this issue surprised her :

OK, I confess.  When the popular press starting running headlines about Viagra's possible benefits for women earlier this week, my first reaction was that of a skeptic - I smirkingly thought, "well, this seems like a great new way to market an already immensely popular drug."  Then I read my co-blogger's very different take :

A great article came out in JAMA this week: Sildenafil Treatment of Women with Antidepressant-Associated Sexual Dysfunction by a group in New Mexico (with 3/6 female authors!). Although it is not the magic solution that men have, it seems that Viagra (Sildenafil) is successful in increasing orgasms in women on anti-depressants. That is no small feat. Anti-depressants are notorious for decreasing libido and orgasmic potential. These reasons are, in fact, a major cause of medication non-compliance. The inability to have pleasing sex is deleterious to [a relationship] in which one partner is already battling with depression... (emphasis mine)

Wow.  It is a real relief that we are finally taking women's sexuality seriously enough to acknowledge that decreased libido is a real problem for women as well as men, I thought.  While debate still rages about the the merits of the study, perhaps the simple fact that our society is beginning to acknowledge women as having legitimate sexual needs is in itself some cause for celebration.

I wrote this for feminist historian Elaine Tyler May's  BCP project , which Courtney wrote up a few months ago here on feministing.  As a longtime feministing reader but new community member, I thought I might post this here by way of an introduction - the Pill had powerful effects on my life, and I've wanted to talk about it for a long time, so I'm very grateful for this forum and the loving and supportive feministing community.

I was inspired by Akwhit's recent article to do finally put down some of my own research on the matter.

For the past two years I have studied in New Zealand, I am still amazed by the questions I didn't ask or did not know to ask. I assumed my adjustment to life here would be smoother because NZ is all and all a safe, prosperous country where English was the official language and I am very lucky that things have gone as well as they have. I will admit that I am 20 pounds heavier and 100 times happier (NZ doesn't seem to believe in diet food but their immigration medical exam is not size-friendly either...), but I will also admit that I will be relieved when my Masters' degree is over because I will finally be free of my terrible, mandatory medical insurance.

If wishes were fishes I wished I harangued my scholarship officer, my supervisor, and the International Student Support about which of the very-women-unfriendly medical policies would bring on the least financial pain.

Anti-contraception people like to talk about how pregnancy is this miracle of nature that women are designed for. Women have babies every day, and it's no big deal, so therefore, not letting nature take its course is wrong. All women should carry each pregnancy to term. That is God's way.

That's why they insist insurance companies shouldn't be covering contraceptives, and pharmacists and doctors shouldn't be forced to dispense or prescribe them. It's against God and nature to interfere, after all.

However, being in that wonderful natural state is, according to most insurance companies, a medical condition, and if you happen to be uninsured and pregnant,  good luck getting insurance any time soon!

My best friend left her well-paid job to go freelance. She has been very successful. However, she let her health insurance lapse shortly before confirming her (extremely) planned pregnancy. Not a smart move, true, but she figured she could afford the higher premiums  on an individual policy, since, like I said, her freelance business was going well.

But her insurance company disagreed! They wouldn't insure her again because she had a "preexisting medical condition." The lady she talked to at Blue Cross actually laughed at her.

So here's an idea for you, anti-contraception lobbyists. How about also insisting that insurance companies not be allowed to turn down coverage for pregnant women? Since you're so hell-bent on women fulfilling their biological destiny, and all. Why not give us all a little help?

PS My friend wound up getting insurance when her husband got a job. She would of course been SOL if she hadn't been married. But that's another blog.

There's been a lot of posts lately about you guys and your tales of horrow with pro-life doctors. It always kind of amazes me that you guys get flak for the pill and plan B and all because...I don't. Or rather, I get flak for the pill, but not for the reasons you do.

I'm not sexually active. In fact, I'm a virgin and have never even SEEN a penis or vagina in person. The reason I'm on the pill is one that makes me feel like a minority here because everyone talks about how they take it for pregnancy issues and for hormones, but no one mentions my reason: to regulate my period. Without the pill, my periods would come, maybe, once every 6 to 9 months or so, be VERY heavy and have EXTREMELY dibilitating cramps. I hate my period with a loathing only matched by my feelings of the Bush Administration.

I've been on the pill for 8 years now and every time I go in for my yearly check up, I dread it because they always ask something along the lines of "when was the last time you had sex?" I feel embarrassed when I tell them "I haven't; I'm a virgin." Then the next question is "Are you planning on having sex anytime soon?" "Um...no?" And that answer always gets me a look of "Well, then, why are you here wasting my time?"

I have ALWAYS felt like they were judging me BECAUSE I haven't had sex, that I was a virgin and that was wrong if you were there asking for the pill and were on family planning (manditory if you don't have insurance). The doctors and nurses always make me feel as if I'm wasting resources because I have no plans on ever having sex with a man, so why am I taking away pills from women who actually need them.

A different perspective on everyone's "My doctor and (his) evil pro-life/abstinence only crap" that I thought you should hear.

After reading this community post about a young woman being fed anti-woman lies about sexuality, I remembered a time when I was judged by a doctor for being sexually active.

About five years ago, I decided that I did not wish to have any more children and I went on a waiting list to get a tubal ligation.  I will start off by saying that my medical care in the hospital was excellent and they did a great job of easing my concerns and worries about having surgery.  The ugly part of my surgery experience occurred a few days later when I developed a post-operative infection.

I realize that people all over the world get judged every second and that this is a serious flaw, maybe an irreversible flaw, of humanity.  However, when talking to my gynecologist, or any doctor for that matter, I do not expect to be judged in any sense or scolded as though my gynecologist were my mother and I were a 10-year-old.

I called my gynecologist's emergency line today to ask if she thought I should take Plan B.  I hadn't had unprotected sex, but rather other acts lead to semen being ejaculated onto my stomach and thighs, and in my opinion it was dangerously close to my vaginal area.  I was also in the very beginning of my cycle, but still wanted to talk with a medical professional to see if any sort of action should be taken.

I called her and explained the situation and asked if I should take Plan B or not.  Instead of informing me of the biological aspect of things and leaving it at that, she launched into, "I thought you were going to use condoms.  We talked about this.  Why would you have sex without condoms?"  I explained that I did not have sex, but probably should have had him use a condom and was very aware of this.  Also, I told her it would not be happening like that again in the future.  I only wanted to know if I should take emergency contraception for this time.  She continued to tell me I need to call the office tomorrow and make an appointment to put me on birth control pills.

I understand her concern, but what I do not understand is the tone she used and her implication that I am not responsible enough to ensure that this does not happen again.  I feel like the gynecologist should act as a neutral and supportive person and not as someone who is lecturing you on your future actions that may never come to pass.

(Cross posted at Liberal Arts .)

A trip to the gynecologist is not a fun time. But yesterday’s was terrible. I left feeling angry and shaky, wishing I had been able to say something to him, but trying to accept that in my position it was okay to be upset and unable to respond. I still wish I had stuck up to my nurse, talked back, not just given him the smile-and-nod, waiting for it to be over. I know it wasn’t the worst thing that could have happened. I’m sure many experiences are much worse. But my nurse lied to me. I've never been particular about doctors, taking whoever's available at the office, trusting anyone that walked through the exam room door. Now I'm not so sure, because a person I trusted, who I've been taught to trust for his medical degree, deceived me.

Even though I had no response for the nurse at the time, as soon as I got home I started writing down what I could remember him saying, did some research, and went back in today. Fortunately, the problem was dealt with by my doctor, the head of the practice, quickly and well. Still, I want to share my story, as an example of how sexism and challenges to reproductive rights can come up when you least expect them.

I was going in for my second (of three) Gardasil shots. What I ended up getting was a long lecture on condoms, premarital sex, and the dangers of promiscuity, along with a hefty dose of sexism.

Carol Roye over at Womens eNews wrote a column about what would happen if the global gag rule were to get domesticated.

For anyone who needs a little background info, here is what Roye had to say about the gag rule:

It's a ban on U.S. family planning aid--including shipments of free condoms and contraceptives--to foreign nongovernmental organizations and clinics that have anything at all to do with abortion. It's called a gag rule because it not only bans U.S. aid for abortions in all but the most dire circumstances it goes so far as to silence--or "gag"-- clinicians from even talking about the option of abortion or lobbying to legalize abortion in their country.

Since many clinics have foregone U.S. aid under these conditions they have missed shipments of condoms and contraceptives, thus curbing their ability to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and HIV transmission. Whatever Dobson's Family Research Council may say, the gag rule, whether global or domestic, is anti-family because it jeopardizes the health of women and thus harms children. (emphasis mine)

Should this policy get implemented in the U.S., it will have equally dire effects. The Family Research Council, which was founded by Dr. James Dobson back in 1988, is putting a lot of pressure on Bush to domesticate the gag rule.

The Family Research Council and its allies are petitioning President Bush to "make the necessary changes to Title X regulations to prevent U.S taxpayer funds from being used to promote and facilitate abortion" and expand the international policy to restrict domestic health clinics.

Their petition says that locating family planning and abortion services in the same facilities "sends the wrong message, defies congressional intent and should not be allowed." Translation: If Title X funds are used to pay for Pap smears in one room, then abortions performed in another room are also being paid for by Title X so all funding must be withdrawn.

So basically, this is their backup plan - if they can't make abortion illegal, they'll simply make it impossible to obtain one. Something like this wouldn't decrease the number of abortions - it would decrease number of safe, legal abortions, while simultaneously increasing the number of unwanted pregnancies (and therefore increasing the number of women seeking abortions) by making it more difficult to obtain contraception and condoms. It would adversely affect low income women, who can't afford contraception and definitely not abortion without some kind of aid. It is these women who so often find themselves without insurance and forced to go to the clinics that would be affected by the domestication of the global gag rule.

It is incredibly important that we do all we can to prevent this from happening. We need to voice our opinions and make ourselves heard - both to the candidates and the voters - because not only should every woman have the right to choose, she should also have access to accurate, honest information about her choices.

This is a copy of what I wrote in February 2007 while a student in a local RN program, as I was disheartened by the clear cover-your-ass attitudes and policies of local health care providers, or even what was taught by our own school. I consider myself more of a consumer, than as a provider in health care, and thus find myself identifying with concerned patients and loved ones; than with professionals and facilities trying to stay in business or protect their reputations. (Also why I never pursued a career in business, my original degree - "The goal of the organization is to increase stakeholder benefit" = mo money, for the for profit, is not something I can stand behind. I believe in service.)

I believe what I was taught in nursing - that nurses are client advocates: we stand up for the rights and choices of the clients, even if it goes against the convenience or sensibilities of physicians or our employers (which is why I find it so disheartening to read of women being pressured by labor and delivery NURSES, even, to have unnecessary cesareans simply to speed things along). My own belief is if I make a serious error or cause someone harm as a nurse, I'd sooner GTFO and find myself another line of work, than watch my own ass.

And I mean it. Prior to my current nursing job, when hiring seemed bleak in my community and I said, screw nursing (as a career anyway), I got a job as a part-time maintenance worker (custodian) at the local big box store a block from my house, and intended to rebuild a life for myself and my family of four there (at the age of 39) for less than $16,000 a year, in a community where I've calculated it will cost at least $43,000 simply to pay bills and not save a thing. After more than three years of unemployment due mostly to full time schooling.

As I was browsing Facebook, I couldn't help but notice the Femanol advert to the side. Now, finally, with Femanol™ women can get rid of that pesky vaginal odor. And you know what that means?

Feeling fresh and clean enough to feel confident with our boyfriends "behind closed doors".  Hallelujah!

But hey, don't take it from me, just look at the success stories of the women who can finally "be intimate" and shower with their husbands and boyfriends.

I'm just so sick of being told women shouldn't smell like women and if we do men will be repulsed, never find us attractive (or shower with us, evidently) and everyone around us will somehow also smell us and disapprove accordingly.