In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Twelve States Attempt Ultrasound-Related Abortion Restrictions

It looks like as many as 12 states are considering putting laws on the books that would add additional restrictions to abortion procedures and access, by way of ultrasound technology.

As far as I can deduce from the descriptions provided, it looks like at least 7 of the state proposals would require doctors to specifically perform ultrasounds and at least offer to let the woman view them — or more commonly, to display them in a way that makes them clearly visible to the woman.  At least one (Indiana) would actually force the woman to view the images, and another (Connecticut) would force the doctor to supply the woman with an image copy, seemingly even if she didn’t want it.  Two others would mandate the mere offering of an ultrasound.  And the last is the proposed South Carolina law I’ve already written about, which would update a law already requiring that a woman be offered the chance to view ultrasound images, to enforce a 24 hour waiting period afterward.

According to Mother Jones, 16 states already have laws on the books that require a doctor to at least offer a woman an ultrasound prior to an abortion.  More specifically, according to the Guttmacher Institute (pdf), 12 states have laws mandating in one way or another that a woman be explicitly offered the right to view ultrasound images, with some actually requiring that an ultrasound be performed.

And though such an argument could indeed be made, not a single one of these laws or proposed laws seems to have a single thing to do with concern for the woman’s health, or how requiring an ultrasound might improve her safety throughout the abortion procedure.  (Indeed, many abortion providers already do ultrasounds on their own for such reasons.)

It all seems to be about the poor little woman who doesn’t understand what it means to be pregnant, or who will surely have a change of heart once she sees a blurry, cloudy image that I’ve never been able to personally make out.  It’s about forcing government into the decisions of doctors, trumping science with ideology, and attempting to take away the privacy of women.  Indeed, it’s about taking the focus off of women and their rights and yet again putting the fetus, this time literally, right in the front and center of the picture.

And I’m just exhausted, and wondering when it’s all going to end.  Which is, of course, exactly what the anti-choicers want.  So how do we fight the fatigue in the face of such a constant onslaught?

Why Overturning the Global Gag Rule is Not Enough

Though I’m really quite behind in posting about this article, now that we’ve had more than enough time to celebrate the overturning of the Global Gag Rule, it does seem like the perfect time to put up this post.

This AlterNet article reminds us that overturning the Global Gag Rule is not only the first in many steps that the U.S. needs to take to do our part in creating safe reproductive health care access around the world — it’s also only the first step in in ending the ban on U.S. funds going towards necessary care.

The ban on foreign aid for abortion is based on the government’s interpretation of the Helms Amendment, adopted in 1973.  The Helms Amendment states “No foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning or to motivate or coerce any person to practice abortions.”

The language of the ban is as peculiar as its implementation.  One might wonder, under what circumstances is abortion used as a “method of family planning?”  Abortion certainly isn’t family planning when a pregnancy threatens a woman’s physical or mental health or where the woman is a victim of sexual violence.  Under Helms, could USAID have a role in ensuring women’s access to safe, legal abortion under these circumstances?

In countries where abortion is legal under a broad set of conditions, the ban has meant that no U.S. assistance can help the government make services safer (for example, through training or equipment), or indeed to make safe abortion care available at all. In Nepal, where the government is working to implement the 2002 abortion law, USAID-funded training facilities and clinics dedicated to treating complications of unsafe abortion may not be used for safe abortion care. The government instead had to build new facilities or compromise quality of care by using less appropriate facilities.

U.S. administrations have applied the Helms language to effectively prohibit any use of foreign assistance funds for safe abortion care, but also to prevent dissemination of information about abortion or the purchase of equipment to treat abortion complications.  The prohibitions are applied equally to non-governmental organizations (NGOs), foreign governments and multi-lateral organizations (by contrast, the Global Gag Rule only applies to NGOs and dictates what they do with their own, non-USAID funding).

Read the whole article. Though the repeal of the Global Gag Rule was a much easier sell to the U.S. public because it doesn’t actually involve funding abortion, the Helms Amendment can be easily interpreted as just as damaging and deadly.

I’ve yet to hear of any campaigns being undertaken to attempt to repeal the Helms Amendment — or even interpret it, as the article suggests, to exclude certain more extreme cases that would actually free up a lot of funds.  Further, knowing how these things work, I personally think that we’re unlikely to see such a campaign with the Hyde Amendment also still firmly in place, domestically.  (And of course, both need to be overturned.)  But all the same, you can contact both your Representative and your Senators on your own.

Female Heart Patients Experience More Emergency Room Delays

As sad as it is that there has to be an addition to our discussion from last week regarding the gender disparities in kidney transplants, this article about disparities in emergency room care for those experiencing heart trouble does make a nice one, as far as things go.

Researchers at Tufts Medical Center in Boston examined 5,887 emergency calls about suspected cardiac symptoms in Dallas County, Tex. About half of the calls were made by women.

Ambulances arrived just as quickly for women as for men, the researchers found. Patients of both sexes spent an average of 34 minutes in the care of emergency medical workers, including about 19.9 minutes of care on the scene and 10.3 minutes spent traveling to the hospital.

But 647 patients, about 11 percent, were delayed, spending 45 minutes or longer in the care of emergency workers.

Women were 52 percent more likely than men to be among the delayed, said Thomas W. Concannon, an assistant professor of medicine at Tufts University who was lead author of the study, published this month in Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes.

It’s suggested that the delays could be due to a lower rate of professionals recognizing the signs of heart trouble in female patients.  This seems plausible to me, as the symptoms commonly described for heart attacks largely don’t apply to women.  Further, I think that heart disease is typically framed as a men’s health issue.  Just look at which heart attack survivors typically make it on talk shows, are portrayed on scripted film and television, featured in commercials for cardiovascular treatment/drugs, etc.  This is the case even though women have heart attacks at the same rate as men and are in fact more likely to die from them.

Of course, as is always the case, other factors could very, very easily be at play both instead of or in addition to the ones above.  Some of them ascribe more sinister motives to the problem, and some of them more institutional.  But just like with the kidney transplant issue, we’ve got reason to worry and demand both solutions and answers, regardless.

South Carolina Tries to Further Restrict Abortion Access

South Carolina, already home to a law that forces women to undergo ultrasounds before they have an abortion, and another one that forces them to wait an hour to have the abortion after being given literature about why they shouldn’t, is now trying to pass yet another law saying women are too stupid to know what they’re doing:

Women seeking an abortion in South Carolina would have to wait at least 24 hours after their ultrasound under a bill given initial approval Wednesday by a House subcommittee.

The measure would increase the waiting time from an hour to a day.

Proponents said it would bring South Carolina in line with other states that have waiting periods and give women time to reflect on the decision. Critics said requiring two trips creates a burden, especially for poor, rural women.

The proposal follows nearly two years of debate on whether to require women to view an ultrasound image before getting an abortion. Under a compromise passed last year, women must be asked whether they want to look at the screen during the procedure or see a printed image — and sign a form verifying they were given the option.

The compromise kept in the law a 60-minute wait already required after women are handed brochures about fetal development and abortion alternatives.

“But one hour is not enough time to think about it,” said Rep. Greg Delleney, the sponsor of last year’s law and the current proposal. “I’m trying to give the chance for a child waiting to be born to have a birthday.”

Well at least the guy, unlike many other proponents of the bill, is honest about the fact that his intent isn’t to save the poor stupid, imbecile women who don’t understand the meaning of the word “pregnancy,” but to save the poor babies from those poor stupid, imbecile women.

Read More…Read More…

Gender Discrimination in Unexpected Places

A new study shows a gender gap in kidney transplant rates. Unsurprisingly, women — or, I should say, certain women — are on the bottom end of that gap.  This is the case even though women fare just as well as or better than men of the same age.

The researchers examined data from the United States Renal Data System, including a list of 563,197 patients who developed end-stage kidney disease from 2000 to 2005, and they calculated the likelihood of getting on a transplant list, adjusting for factors that would affect the patient’s survival after surgery.

They found that women 45 and younger were as likely as men to be placed on a transplant waiting list. But as women aged, their chances of getting on the list dropped, getting worse with each decade, said the lead author, Dr. Dorry Segev, a transplant surgeon at Johns Hopkins.

By the time women were 46 to 55, they were 3 percent less likely to be put on the transplant list. They were 15 percent less likely to be placed on the list at ages 56 to 65; 29 percent less likely at 66 to 75; and 59 percent less likely to be listed by the time they were 75 or older, Dr. Segev said.

What is the cause for the gap, and the way that it progressively widens as women age?  Well, the answer to that isn’t known for certain, but Dr. Segev puts in an educated guess that sounds about right to me.  He believes that women’s families are more likely to see them as frail and unlikely to survive a transplant, and therefore don’t put them on the list at all.

Of course, the stereotype of older women as frail is a very common one.  The phrase “little old lady” rolls right off our tongues, and though it’s not unheard of, the phrase “little old man” is significantly less common.  Older women are regularly portrayed by the media as having limited mobility and therefore helpless and fragile (a form of ableism as well as ageism, I think).  Even though, as all of the research shows when it comes to the results of kidney transplants, they’re not.

That’s the thing about stereotypes.  Lots of people like to argue that they’re “harmless.”  And also, these same people tell us, they’re mostly based in reality, so it’s all okay.  Except that stereotypes of all kinds cause things like this.  I hate to get all dramatic, but it’s true, and this is only one of many examples.  Stereotypes can, and regularly do, cost lives.

That’s no reason to put aside any and all other possible explanations for the gender gap.  Off the top of my head — since women are taught to be so much less assertive than men are, and since we’re also taught from birth to not be a “burden” to our loved ones or make too much of a fuss — I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that women are statistically less likely than men to stand up to their families when these kind of decisions are made.  Or that they’re more likely to make the decision themselves in an attempt to avoid being a “burden.”  Elderly women are also at a higher risk of living in poverty than elderly men (pdf), and heart wrenching though it sounds, therefore may have more economic concerns influencing their decision.  Or, after hearing the message for so long, these women could have simply come to seen themselves as more fragile than they are.

But I’d still be surprised if Dr. Segev’s speculation was based in nothing but fantasy.  And regardless of whether or not he’s right in his speculation, my alternate explanations are more accurate, or there’s a wholly separate cause at work here, we clearly ought to be concerned.

Congressional Democrats Debate How to End Stem Cell Research Ban

Congressional Democrats, at least apparently and thankfully determined to end the ban on stem cell research, are debating how to best go about it:

Both President-elect Barack Obama and Democratic Congressional leaders have made repealing Bush administration restrictions announced in 2001 a top priority. But they have yet to determine if Mr. Obama should quickly put his stamp on the issue by way of presidential directive, or if Congress should write a permanent policy into statute.

The debate is not academic. Democrats who oppose abortion say such a legislative fight holds the potential to get the year off to a difficult beginning, even though the outcome is certain given solid majorities in both the House and the Senate for expanded embryonic stem cell research.

“It is a very divisive issue, and it is a tough way to start,” said Senator Ben Nelson, a moderate Democrat from Nebraska. “You don’t want to stumble out of the box.”

In addition, many of the Democratic gains in Congress, particularly in the House, have come in more conservative areas, with strategists estimating that up to 70 Democrats could find themselves in competitive races in 2010. Those potentially vulnerable lawmakers provide another consideration for leaders weighing whether to set an early test vote on what for some is a politically sensitive subject back home.

At the same time, officials note that increasing federal spending on stem cell research is widely popular and has been a signature issue for Congressional Democrats in the last two elections, helping them defeat Republicans opposed to the concept. Many lawmakers would like to see it through to its legislative conclusion.

All I can say is that if the Dems are currently wringing their hands over an issue that can only be considered quite peripheral to the abortion debate, and worrying about whether to take an action that is overwhelmingly favored by Americans of all stripes but especially Democrats — largely because before the term has even begun they’re already concerned about reelection — well, wow.  We’re in for a bumpy ride.

Really, the idea that we’d rather just sit back and let people die than do research on cells that that get passed by women all the damn time without them even knowing about it, the same cells that were often going to get thrown away anyway, makes me want to weep for humanity.  But still, Congressional Democrats are worried to upset the “Sanctity of Life” asshole minority?  It never ends, does it?

I guess this is what happens when the Democrats run anti-choice candidates, now isn’t it?

Message to the Guys: Donating Your Organs is Almost Like Sex

This ad promoting organ donation appeared in a Belgian men’s magazine.

The message at the bottom reads: Becoming a donor is probably your only chance to get inside her.

Nice way to objectify women to get across your “altruistic” message, suggest that women are only good for “getting inside of,” imply that women who don’t fit the above ideal of (poorly photoshopped) beauty aren’t quite as deserving of life, and portray men as so shallow that this is the only way to get them to do a good thing, all at the same time. It’s really quite impressive.

And yet, while I really do want to be pissed at this level of objectification, condescension and sexism, and on some level I am, I’m ultimately just incredibly bemused. I mean, who the hell thought this was a good idea?

Also, let’s just consider the menz for a minute, can we? Think about it. You’re some poor guy who donates your organs for the purpose of showing the world how very macho and heterosexual you are, and then you die and your organs go to — oh noes — another man! That would, like, make you totally gay, dude!

Or, um . . . something. I don’t know, I find homophobia almost as confusing as heterosexuality so insecure and compulsory that it requires comparing organ donation with a sex act.

cross-posted at The Curvature

IMPORTANT: Time To Send Your Comments To HHS Is Running Out

I have previously written about the dangerous proposed Department of Health and Human Services rule that would endanger women’s access to reproductive health care. The rule, if instated, would allow health care workers to prevent women from knowing all of their health care options, including those regarding birth control — and would call government-funded providers “discriminatory” for refusing to hire such people, thus removing their funding.

The comment period for the proposed rule closes on September 25th.

If you have not already sent in your comments in opposition to the proposed HHS rule, please do so now. And get any/all of your pro-choice friends to do the same. Time is running out!

As of September 17th, 25,000 people had submitted comments to HHS through Planned Parenthood’s form. Thousands of others have sent in comments in opposition to the rule via other organization’s websites, or the direct email address consciencecomment@hhs.gov. But more comments are desperately needed before the deadline.

Again, send yours now.

To learn more about the proposed rule, you can visit Planned Parenthood’s fact sheet, or this Op Ed by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, which appeared in yesterday’s NY Times.

Women’s Health: More Than Our Uteruses, Breastmilk, or Offspring

An interesting conversation is brewing among New York Times readers about a recent post in the paper’s “Well” blog about prescription drug sharing among women. Blogger Tara Parker-Pope wrote, “…drug-sharing rates were highest among younger women ages 18 to 44, raising special concerns about side effects and health risks of unchecked prescription drug use among women who might become pregnant,” prompting comments by many women “of child-bearing age” who expressed frustration over being considered “pre-pregnant,” and often nothing more, by the medical community. Particular sobering was comment #172, which drew a line between this type of attitude and the Bush administration’s proposal requiring health organizations receiving federal aid to hire health care providers regardless of whether they refuse to prescribe birthcontrol, emergency contraception, or perform abortions.

Although she responded defensively to women’s comments at first, Tara Parker-Pope has followed up with a podcast of an interview with Cindy Pearson from the National Women’s Health Network, in which they discuss in greater depth the implications of the medical community’s difficulty in seeing “women of childbearing age” as valuable patients in their own right. I recommend checking out the conversation if you have time.

Coincidentally, I read the “Well” column about five minutes after getting somewhat worked up about this article, titled “Vitamin D Deficiency May Lurk in Babies.” The article explores some recent findings that babies who are exclusively breastfed may be at higher risk for vitamin D deficiency and related conditions such as rickets. I’ll be honest and say that I was nervous while reading the article, afraid that it would draw the conclusion that formula is healthier than breastmilk and was relieved when they reported that vitamin D deficiency in babies can be prevented with a few vitamin drops.

“I completely support breast-feeding, and I think breast milk is the perfect food, and the healthiest way to nourish an infant,” said Dr. Catherine M. Gordon, director of the bone health program at Children’s Hospital Boston and an author of several studies on vitamin D deficiency, including Aleanie’s case.

“However,” Dr. Gordon continued, “we’re finding so many mothers are vitamin D deficient themselves that the milk is therefore deficient, so many babies can’t keep their levels up. They may start their lives vitamin D deficient, and then all they’re getting is vitamin D deficient breast milk.”

Wait a minute, mothers are vitamin D deficient themselves? That seems important, especially because, according to this very article, vitamin D deficiency can cause osteopenia (low bone mineral density), osteoporosis, diabetes, autoimmune diorders, and cancer. Surely the article addresses ways women themselves can end their vitamin D deficiencies, even if only as a means of being better breastmilk providers for their children!?!?

Sorry, no dice. As far as this article is concerned, the only thing newsworthy about women’s vitamin D deficiencies is that they are crummy vitamin D delivery systems for their children.

This article’s failure to address adult women’s health concerns reminded me of an experience I had last summer when my friend Rebecca called me in a panic one morning, asking for me to drive her to the hospital after she had unexpectedly broken her foot while walking across a parking lot. When the doctor heard that the brake hadn’t occurred during a fall or other serious impact, she recommended getting a test for vitamin D deficiency and made several suggestions about tips for building healthy bones as an adult woman.

Because osteoporosis is a potential side effect of vitamin D deficiency, here are some tips for women at different ages in their life interested in preventing the disease:

  • Up through your twenties, you build bone density; after that, you maintain what bone density you have. Keep this in mind when considering your diet, at any age. If yours is low in calcium or vitamin D, consider changing it or taking supplements.
  • Get some sun! Even though it is wise to be cautious about skin cancer, ten to thirty minutes of sunlight (depending on your skin tone and personal needs) helps decrease vitamin D deficiency.
  • If you have risk factors such as a family history of osteoporosis, consider getting a bone density test at menopause. Otherwise, consider getting one at the age of 65. Transwomen should consult with their endocrinologist about how hormone levels have affected their bone density and when to have bone density tests.
  • Do weight bearing exercise if you are able (such as dancing, jogging, or other movement where you hold your weight up), which builds bone matrix.

This is nowhere near a complete list, but is perhaps slightly more helpful than the generic “take more calcium” advice that seems to be the party line re: osteoporosis. I’m about the farthest thing from a doctor and this list is a compilation of tips I’ve heard from doctor friends of mine, internet resources, and conversations I’ve had with my own doctor. For a much more exhaustive collection of health resources for women, Our Bodies, Ourselves has gathered many women-oriented web-resources.

Regardless of the specific health issue, we all (regardless of gender) hope for access to quality medical care with providers we trust, who take our concerns seriously, and who put our needs and desires as patients first. Unfortunately, the idea that women’s health concerns are obscured when they are of “child bearing age” by the health of their children and (more insultingly) the children their doctor believes they might conceive, is another obstacle to quality medical care.

How do your experiences compare to those of the women responding to Parker-Pope’s column?

Bodily Autonomy:Jehovah’s Witness Teens and Blood Transfusions

Lately, I’ve been doing a lot of thinking about bodily autonomy. It seems to me that when feminists discuss this issue it is usually with regards to reproductive justice. However, I’ve got something different in mind right now and I’m hoping that others could give me some input on it.

As a member of disability culture, I have witnessed how those within my community are particularly susceptible to having our wishes ignored even when we are able to express ourselves quite clearly. I’m not just referring to those situations that happen during our day to day lives. It’s really aggravating to hear about how often non-disabled people feel free to just grab someone’s wheelchair and move it without even asking for permission from the person sitting in the chair. Things much worse than this occur inside of hospitals all the time. Medical professionals sometimes exhibit the same ablism I’ve witnessed in public. Given this environment, I’m loathe to say that doctors should be given permission to over-ride a patient’s stated will. However, I am beginning to think that my view may need to be reassessed.

When it comes to abortion, my feeling is that teenagers want them should be able to have them. I don’t think we need the state deciding whether or not a person should continue a pregnancy. For me, it’s really cut and dry. However, should this apply to all medical decisions that a teenager wants to make?

Read More…Read More…