Womenstake

It Should Shock You

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

This post is part of a daily series for National Women's Health Week.

I’ve noticed that the phrase “particularly women of color” shows up in a lot of our health-related fact sheets and reports. It seems that almost every time we write about women’s ongoing battles with the health care system, women of color have it worse. Our Report Card on Women’s Health pointed out that lack of health insurance is a problem for many women, but all the more so for women of color — for example, while 18 percent of all women in the United States are uninsured, nearly 38 percent of Hispanic women are without insurance. Women disproportionately suffer the consequences of unprotected sexual activity, such as unintended pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections — but Black women are at especially high risk for both, especially HIV/AIDS. Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender women of color, at the intersection of two minority communities, suffer from particularly severe health disparities.

The fact that women of color are disproportionately affected by the failures of the U.S. health care system has become so “obvious” that I fear it has lost its shock factor — and sometime it takes a little shock to move us out of complicity and into action. In honor of National Women’s Health Week, let’s remind ourselves that these realities need not be inevitabilities — so long as we take pointed action to identify the scope of the health disparities among women and their many underlying causes, and then develop and implement both short- and long-term health reform strategies to eradicate them.

TODAY at 1pm, the Kaiser Family Foundation is broadcasting a live webcast on State Initiatives to Reduce Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities. (The webcast will be permanently available here if you miss the live broadcast.)

It's a No-Brainer – Healthy Women Need Contraception

by Jen Swedish, Health Law Fellow 
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a daily series for National Women's Health Week. 

As we celebrate National Women’s Health Week, we’d be remiss if we didn’t emphasize the importance of women’s reproductive health to their overall well-being.

Access to reproductive health services is essential for healthy women. Yesterday’s blog post encouraged women to get regular check-ups, and experts recommend routine pelvic exams, Pap tests, and screening for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). In addition to routine gynecological care, reproductive health care includes family planning services, abortion, sterilization, and infertility treatment – that is, services related to women’s ability to have children.

A woman who wants only two children must use contraceptives for roughly three decades of her life. Yet, at a time when one in five women age 15 to 44 is uninsured and many more are underinsured, many women simply cannot afford to pay for contraceptives on their own. According to the Guttmacher Institute, approximately 17 million women are in need of publicly-subsidized contraceptive services and supplies, and this number is likely to increase even more as a result as of the growing population of uninsured Americans and the recent rise in the cost of birth control.

Sexual Harassment in Schools is No Laughing Matter

by Jill Morrison, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

When sexual harassment in elementary schools makes headlines, typically it is some version of this:
“For Little Children, Grown-Up Labels As Sexual Harassers.” The usual spin is that schools are going too far in labeling children “sexual harassers.” Fortunately, NWLC’s education group is on the case, and is quick to point out that while some schools are a tad overaggressive in doling out labels, such cases must not overshadow schools’ legal duty to address the very real and all too common problem of sexual harassment.

In further support of NWLC’s vigilant reminder that sexual harassment is no joke, a recent study shows that sexual harassment causes serious harm to its victims’ health. As compared to those who are bullied at school, students subjected to sexual harassment suffer more negative physical and mental health effects. The most important thing to remember about this new study for anyone who cares about children (I’m guessing that includes you) is its conclusion: the distinct health harms caused by sexual harassment mean that it shouldn’t be addressed as just as another form of bullying, but something separate and distinct.

Check Out a Check-Up

by Brigette Courtot, Policy Analyst
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a daily series for National Women's Health Week. 

Today is National Women’s Health Check-Up Day, which kicks off National Women's Health Week (NWHW). According to the official website, this week-long observance of women’s health "empowers women across the country to get healthy by taking action."

It’s certainly important for a woman to see a health care provider regularly (providers usually suggest a yearly visit) so that she can be screened for conditions such as breast, cervical or colorectal cancer, diabetes, high blood pressure or cholesterol, and osteoporosis. Screening tests may help find these conditions early, when they are easier and less costly to treat. Getting to a health care provider for a check-up could save a woman’s life (the National Cancer Institute reports that as many as 35 percent of premature cancer deaths could have been avoided through screening) or prevent more serious health problems and disability in the future.

So, ladies, get a health check-up! Make sure that the women that you love get their health check-up!

Having said that, let’s put a twist on NWHW: it is not enough to encourage women to take action to protect and improve their health — we must also make sure that our federal and state policies protect and improve women’s health!

Weekly Round-Up

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that women who quit smoking reduce their risk of early death and cardiovascular disease just five years after they quit.

Thomas at Feminste posts about food as a feminist issue: “Women are roughly 50% of the world’s population, do two thirds of the work, but earn 10% of the income and control just 1% of the world’s wealth.”

The report from a five-month Title IX investigation into the athletics program at Scotts Valley High School in California was released last week. 

The Michigan state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that local governments and state universities can’t offer health insurance to workers’ same-sex partners (via Think Girl).

Ellen Bravo writes about what she thinks women really need for Mother’s Day.

Jessica at Jezebel writes about the issues faced by elderly women living in poverty. 

The New York Times Magazine featured a piece about the increasing number of girls participating in sports, as well as the increasing number of injuries.

Since When is Health Insurance that Covers Pregnancy or Cancer Considered "Cadillac" Health Care????

by Lisa Codispoti, Senior Advisor
National Women’s Law Center

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

There is a very dangerous concept being sold out there that “something is better than nothing” when it comes to health insurance. That is, for the uninsured, having inexpensive bare-bones coverage is better than having no coverage at all.  It’s this notion that for people who can’t afford health insurance, we’ll just strip it down, cut out all those “extras” and poof! It’s affordable health coverage! This dangerous notion has most recently popped up in Florida, as the legislature there just passed legislation to allow insurers to sell bare-bones health coverage.  Governor Crist said that while he realized it wasn’t “Cadillac” health care, he called it "a model for the rest of the nation” and said that it would “provide a ‘golden opportunity’ for uninsured Floridians.” This sounds more like fool’s gold to me, because bare-bones coverage could only be a golden opportunity if you never get sick; the only golden opportunity here is for the insurance industry.

While it is good that plans would cover preventative care, insurers would sell supplemental plans that cover health services for pregnancy or cancer; basically, if you want this coverage, you have to choose it and pay more. But what’s not made clear is that if you buy one of these bare-bones plans and then you actually need more extensive coverage because you get sick, all too often you can’t get it, because insurers may exclude coverage for pre-existing medical conditions. Furthermore, people who have decent health insurance could lose what they have if their small employer switches to one of these bare-bones plans.

Washington Women Seeking EC Not Helped by 9th Circuit

by Gretchen Borchelt, Senior Counsel
National Women’s Law Center

Late last week, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued against a rule passed by the Washington state board of pharmacy. The rule ensures patient access to medication, but was challenged in court by Washington pharmacists and a pharmacy who do not want to give women emergency contraception. As we reported, last November a lower court issued a preliminary injunction that halts the rule as it applies to Plan B emergency contraception.

The Ninth Circuit decision came from a divided panel that illustrates the importance of who our judges are. In the majority were Judge Thomas G. Nelson, who was appointed by the first President Bush, and Judge Jay Bybee, appointed by the current President Bush. Their decision means that while the case is pending, Washington women who want access to EC may face a refusing pharmacist and delay in accessing the time-sensitive medication.

Judge A. Wallace Tashima, who was appointed by President Clinton, wrote a strong dissent. It not only explains the problems with this panel’s decision but also points out the errors of the lower court in issuing the injunction in the first place. Judge Tashima recognizes that rules like Washington’s do not violate pharmacists’ right to free exercise of religion; they help ensure that women are not delayed in their efforts to prevent unintended pregnancies. Hopefully, when the case reaches the merits, Judge Tashima’s logic will carry the day. 

Weekly Round-Up

by Mary Robbins, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

A poll released Thursday by the Kaiser Family Foundation reveals that 7 percent of Americans say they or someone in their household married in the last year in order to receive health care benefits from their spouse. 

At least 54 women have joined a class-action lawsuit against Bloomberg L.P., accusing the company of discriminating against pregnant employees (via Think Girl).

Columnist Ellen Goodman wrote about the tale of Lilly Ledbetter, calling her “the star of a long-running drama about how hard we have to run to keep from slipping backward.” 

Melissa of Shakesville reflected on the Western Oregon University softball player who was injured after she hit a home run during a game - and wound up getting some unusual support by members of the opposing team.   

Thursday was International Labor Day, or May Day, a day celebrated by workers around the world to send a message that they “want to live in a world where people live in peace and prosperity.” 

The Malaysian government has proposed a requirement for women to obtain written consent from their families or employers before traveling outside the country. Women’s groups in the country “reacted with outrage.” 

WashingtonPost.com launched an interactive series on the Global Food Crisis, which is having a major impact on women and families around the world.

Go Kansas!

by Sarah Bellows-Blakely, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

As a born and bred Kansan, I want to say a big thank you to Gov. Kathleen Sebelius and the 14 state senators who stood up for women’s health. Last week, Gov. Sebelius vetoed a state bill that would have allowed significant government intrusion into a woman’s most private medical decisions regarding the termination of a pregnancy. On Wednesday, fourteen senators voted to uphold her veto, defeating the two-thirds majority needed to overturn it by only two votes. This is the second time in less than a month (after the Kansas Jayhawks’ awesome victory in the men’s finals of the NCAA basketball championship) that I can proudly yell, GO KANSAS!

If the senate had successfully overridden Gov. Sebelius’s veto, the law would have:

• Allowed public officials, spouses, siblings, parents, and grandparents of women seeking a
  post-viability abortion to file for an injunction to stop the procedure, even when it could
  be necessary to save her life.
• Forced doctors to offer to show women an ultrasound or ask them to listen to the heartbeat of the fetus at least thirty minutes before the beginning of the procedure.
• Provided the attorney general and district and county prosecutors with the jurisdiction to go after doctors who perform post-viability abortions.
• Mandated that the State Government have more access to women’s medical records.   
• And that’s not all—these are only some of the burdensome restrictions in the legislation.

Tell Us How You REALLY Feel...

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

On Tuesday, the Missouri Senate accidentally deemed the substance used in medical abortions, mifepristone (aka RU-486), a “restricted” substance on par with heroin. The legislation, which requires pharmacies to keep an electronic log of their sales of controlled substances and certain over-the-counter medications (including cold medicine), also contained a House provision that included mifepristone in the “restricted” category, along with heroin and marijuana. Thirty minutes after the legislation passed, its sponsor, anti-choice Sen. Norma Champion (R-Springfield), noticed the ain’t-that-ironic clerical error and drew the other legislators’ attention to it.  Whoops! They rescinded the first vote, removed the provision and approved it again. Sen. Champion stated that she did not want senators who support abortion rights "to think [she] was trying to sneak something in" the measure—"It simply was an error."