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.)

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."

7 Questions with NWLC's Julia Kaye

by Jessica Lauredan, Outreach Intern
National Women’s Law Center

This post is part of a weekly series profiling our blog authors.

Julia Kaye is a Policy Associate for the Health and Reproductive Rights team at NWLC.

Q: Twenty million unmarried women did not vote in the 2004 election. As a young woman, what do you think caused this lack of participation?
Julia: Whatever the reasons were then, unmarried women have been voting en masse during this primary season — I’ve actually read several articles on the pivotal role that experts believe unmarried women will play in determining the results of the November elections — and I think it’s a trend that’s not going away. The stakes are high right now.  The results of this election will largely determine the role that America will play in fighting global warming, the future of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, possibly two new Supreme Court Justices (and the security of Roe v. Wade) … the list goes on. I think that women both understand the gravity of these issues and have come to recognize that they are a significant demographic with a lot of electoral power, and that they have the power to influence policy on these crucial issues — if they get out and vote.

Q: Could pro-choicers and anti-choicers ever agree that it’s important to work toward preventing unintended pregnancies by increasing access to contraceptives and emergency contraception, thus reducing the need for abortions?
Julia: I sincerely hope so!

Q: What do you say to people who claim that giving women over-the-counter access to emergency contraception increases the rates of STI’s?
Julia: I’d say that the people making those claims are trying to imply that emergency contraception/Plan B is significantly different from “regular” birth control pills, and needs to be judged and critiqued using a significantly different set of criteria. In fact, both are advertised and endorsed as products that help prevent against unintended pregnancy, and both packages inform users that the product does not protect against sexually transmitted infections. Debating EC’s potential to increase STI rates distracts from its proven efficacy in preventing unintended pregnancy. I would also say that women who are informed enough about their sexual health to seek out EC after experiencing a contraceptive failure or having unprotected sex are probably informed enough to recognize that unintended pregnancy is not the only potential consequence of unprotected sex.

But Why 'Only'? Why 'Only'!?!?

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

On Wednesday, the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform put on their Sherlock Holmes hats and unleashed the hound-dogs—well, they called a hearing, at least—in search of the truth about federally funded abstinence-only-until-marriage programs.  In his introductory statement, Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) proclaimed, “Abstinence-only curricula contain lots of statistics on the failure rates of condoms. It’s time we faced the facts of the failure rates of abstinence-only education.” 

The vast majority of the witnesses, including Rep. Lois Capps (D-Ca.) and four experts from the IOM, APHA, AAP and Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, did exactly that. Additionally, an HIV positive “alumni” of abstinence-only education and a virginity pledger-turned-advocate-for-comprehensive-sex-ed offered moving testimony on the harm done by abstinence-only programs.

Each year, 750,000 adolescent females in the U.S. become pregnant—82 percent of the time it’s  unintended—and 15-24 year olds report more than 9 million cases of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Yet federally funded abstinence-only programs are specifically required to exclude from their curricula information about contraceptives—a critical part of any public health effort to prevent teen pregnancy and STIs—save for their failure rates.  Furthermore, over 80 percent of abstinence-only curricula provide information about contraception and other reproductive health services that is medically inaccurate, exaggerated, and misleading, such as grossly exaggerated failure rates for condoms, false information about the risks of abortion, and subjective, moral judgments treated as scientific fact. The ab-only curriculum, Me, My World, My Future (1998), used by eight federal grantees, refers to a 43 day-old fetus as a “thinking person.”  Why kNOw (2002), a curriculum used by seven grantees, asks rhetorically “could condoms be just another stupid idea?”

Seventeen and Counting…

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

Iowa Governor Chet Culver announced last week that the state will join the likes of Virginia, Arizona and Montana in rejecting federal funding for abstinence-only programs (last year Iowa received $320,000). Credit is due to FutureNet, Iowa’s statewide network of individuals and organizations collaborating on issues relating to adolescent pregnancy prevention, parenting, and sexual health; the group is said to have convinced the governor to reject the funds. 

Iowa is now number 17 on the list of states that have explicitly rejected or are not expected to apply for Title V funding. The number “17” is also, fittingly, the median age of sexual initiation. Considering that the average age of marriage is 25.8 for women and 27.4 for men, we are reminded again that abstinence-only-until-marriage programs are sorely out of touch with reality and out of step with the American people, the majority of whom support comprehensive sex-education.

Familiar Language in the State of the Union

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

Monday night’s State of the Union address felt strangely familiar. A president’s final year in office is typically a series of last-minute attempts to implement controversial policies, secure an attractive legacy and ensure the long-standing impact of his (or her) ideological agenda. As if the new make-up of the Supreme Court doesn’t already – ominously – promise that President Bush’s influence will last long past next January, his speech Monday night made it clear that this year will not, in fact, be the year in which the tradition of final-year partisan appointments and contentious regulations is broken.

The President’s address deserves a comprehensive analysis, though I will only touch upon the content here.  He began with an appeal to the Senate to avoid “the temptation…to load up the [stimulus] bill...which would only delay or derail it.” Yes – far be it for the Senate to “derail” the bill by adding in effective and just provisions targeted at the women and low- and moderate-income individuals and families who need them most, such as expanded unemployment benefits, increased food stamp benefits and a restoration of the funding cut from child support enforcement. The President went on to promise that the budget he will put forth next week “terminates or substantially reduces 151 wasteful or bloated programs, totaling more than $18 billion” – much like, presumably, the administration’s 2008 budget, which also helped relieve “bloated” programs…and in doing so, decreased access to health care, family planning services, child care and education, child support enforcement services, food assistance and education and training opportunities for low-income women and families.  Once again, he urged Congress to extend tax cuts that mostly benefit the very wealthy – and will cost the nation over $4 trillion over the next 10 years (stay tuned for an analysis of the 2009 budget!).

Reflections on Juno

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
and Taryn Wilgus Null, MARGARET Fund Fellow
National Women’s Law Center

Over the holidays, several of us from the Center took a field trip to see Juno. We laughed, we cried, we debated its implications for minors’ access to contraception– it was a roller-coaster of emotions. For those of you who have not made it to a theater recently, Juno tells the story of a sixteen-year-old girl named Juno who gets pregnant and decides to give up her baby for adoption to an adorable but seriously flawed yuppie couple. The breakout indie film deals with a number of issues that NWLC holds dear; nevertheless, we’ve had more conversations about it than can probably be justified. And after all the talk, we are, in conclusion…ambivalent. 

On the one hand, we were dismayed by the disdainful and inaccurate portrayal of the abortion clinic, with its inappropriate and apathetic receptionist and all-female waiting room (Arthur Shostak from RHReality Check wrote an insightful—and scathing—blog post on these two points). We also fear that this movie might mistakenly convince young women that all abortion clinics are as unpleasant and sleazy as the one Juno encounters (they are most decidedly not). On the other hand, anyone who has seen the film would surely agree that Juno’s decision to continue the pregnancy and put the baby up for adoption was anything but political. It was personal, as the decision to have or not have an abortion should always be.

Beyond the abortion scene, there were two elements of the movie that directly spoke to our work at the Center: minors’ access to contraception (and comprehensive and accurate information about contraception) and Title IX protections of pregnant students.

"Opting-Out" of the New Jersey Fan Club (... Just This Once)

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
National Women’s Law Center

I am always proud to report that New Jersey is leading the way on a progressive health or human rights issue–and in the past year and a half the state certainly has been. Protecting women’s access to prescription birth control, repealing the death penalty, legalizing civil unions and partnering with local health insurance companies to ensure that low-income families can afford health insurance for their children are some of the reasons I’m proud to be a Jersey girl. That and Bon Jovi.

It would seem, then, that I should be thrilled by the latest news out of Trenton that New Jersey is “at the forefront of the national fight against HIV transmission to babies”— but I’m not sure I am. Last week, Acting Gov. Richard J. Codey signed a measure into law requiring that HIV testing be included in the package of routine prenatal care for pregnant women, and that certain “at-risk” newborns be tested as well. The law is being portrayed as a move from “opt-in” testing to “opt-out,” but let’s be clear: This law is a testing mandate on pregnant women, and it has some troubling implications that may counter-balance the good that could result from it.

Virginia is for Lovers…

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
National Women's Law Center

… And thankfully, governors who feel that it is important to base state health policies on, y’know, facts. As a result of recent studies confirming that abstinence-only programs do not positively influence teen’s sexual behaviors, while — who would have guessed it!? — teaching students about condoms and birth control does prevent sexually transmitted infections and unintended pregnancies, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine has cut off state funding for abstinence-only programs. According to Kaine’s communications director, “The governor supports abstinence-based education, but the governor wants to see us funding programs that are evidence-based.” We agree — evidence is a good thing. Way to go, Governor Kaine!

Virginia is now the 14th state to decline federal matching funds for Title V abstinence-only programs. To receive Title V funds, states must require teachers to tell students that sex within marriage is “the expected standard of sexual activity” — which is both utterly unrealistic and, until gay marriage is a reality, casually denies all same-sex couples the right to have sex — and must bar teachers from discussing contraception except to mention its failure rates, thereby denying young women the knowledge and resources they need to protect themselves when they do decide to become sexually active.

Also of note: a vast majority of Americans support comprehensive sex education. A national opinion survey sponsored by the National Women’s Law Center and Planned Parenthood Federation of America found that 76 percent of voters wanted to see U.S. public schools teaching comprehensive sex education — including 83 percent of Democrats, 66 percent of Republicans, 76 percent of Independents, 78 percent of Catholics and 60 percent of evangelical Christians.

Luckily, Governor Kaine understands that inaccurate, irresponsible and discriminatory health education is not the right policy for his state. After all — Virginia is for lovers!

The Side-Effects of Sensational Studies

by Julia Kaye, Program Assistant
National Women's Law Center

A new study out of Belgium finds that women who are on the birth control pill for long periods of time might have an increased risk of atherosclerosis, the medical term for plaque buildup in the arteries. For years, women taking the pill — especially smokers — have been informed that it has potential side effects of blood clotting and high blood pressure, both of which can, like plaque buildup, result in heart attacks or stroke. But while a woman’s risk of blood clots will gradually disappear once she goes off the pill, plaque will continue to build up for decades after a woman stops taking the pill, says researcher Ernst Rietzschel, MD, of Ghent University in Ghent, Belgium.

For an analysis of the science of this study (and what it actually means for women on the pill), scroll a few paragraphs down. In brief: Do not worry! Even the researchers say that this study is no cause for “panic” or “alarm.”

No, it’s not the science that makes this study so scary…