The following summarizes recent women's health-related blog entries.
~ "The Senate Discovers Women," Nicholas Kristof, New York Times' "On the Ground" blog: "The U.S. Senate is taking a welcome step: empowering a subcommittee specifically charged with global women's issues," columnist Kristof writes in a blog entry, adding, "It's the first time a subcommittee has had that mandate, and it will be led by" Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), "who will surely use her voice and spotlight to do some good on these issues." According to Kristof, issues such as "trafficking and maternal mortality and sexual violence finally seem to be getting some traction." He adds that "Eve Ensler has helped put a relentless spotlight on mass rape in the Congo, aid groups like CARE, Women for Women International and Vital Voices have been doing an outstanding job emphasizing the role that women can play in economic development, the 'Elders' group is talking about taking on some of these issues and there's discussion of a major international initiative against obstetric fistula." Kristof writes that he hopes first lady Michelle Obama "grabs that issue. The new Senate subcommittee reflects all this progress and presumably under Sen. Boxer will accelerate it" (Kristof, New York Times' "On the Ground,"? 2/5).
~ "Women Opting for Younger Motherhood?" Lynn Harris, Salon's Broadsheet: "Maybe it's just me, but whenever I see a headline announcing that 'women' are 'opting' to do, or not do, or put off, or quit doing, whatever it is on any given day, I 'opt' to be suspicious," Harris writes in response to Sue Shellenbarger's Wall Street Journal column and accompanying blog post about a decline in the average age at which women are giving birth for the first time. Shellenbarger's column and blog post discussed recent data from the National Center for Health Statistics that showed that women's average age at first childbirth declined from 25.2 years in 2005 to 25.0 years in 2006. Harris says that Shellenbarger "correctly" noted that a one-year change does not "constitute a trend" but then "goes on to write a trend piece." Although Shellenbarger wrote that the study "'lends weight to anecdotal evidence' that young women ... 'are tuning in more closely to their biological clocks' and having children earlier rather than delaying motherhood in favor of their careers," there is in fact "nothing in [the study] about the ol' tick-tock," according to Harris. She adds, "Or, for that matter, about the other people often involved in this calculus: men." Harris writes that if women's attitudes about motherhood and careers are in fact shifting, then "that's a story." She concludes, "But it's not one these numbers are telling" (Harris, Salon's Broadsheet, 2/4).
~ "Can Pro-Choice People Support the Pregnant Women Support Act?" Cristina Page, Birth Control Watch: When abortion-rights opponent Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.) introduced the Pregnant Women Support Act (S. 270) on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, he described it "as a common ground bill," Page writes. She writes that the bill "proposes to provide support to low-income women who want to bring a pregnancy to term," which is an idea that many abortion-rights supporters can endorse. However, the bill includes many "problematic" provisions that the abortion-rights community would need to address before supporting the bill, she says. According to Page, the act would create a pilot program for "Life Support Centers," which "appears to be a way, among other things, to funnel money into crisis pregnancy centers" that "mislead women about the options available to them, offering up inaccurate information intended to scare women about abortion." Page suggests that the bill require any Life Support Center that receives federal funds "to provide medically accurate information to all it counsels and also disclose that its mission is to convince women not to have an abortion." She also identifies the bill's goal of promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion as problematic. She says there is a "real need to update America's understanding of adoption as an option for unwanted pregnancy;" however, "it should not be in the context of disparaging other choices." According to Page, the "last sticking point" for the bill is that "it seeks to codify the regulation" that extends coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to low-income pregnant women and fetuses. She writes, "As long as pregnant women are extended prenatal care coverage through Medicaid, this is a superfluous section and a back-door attempt to create independent rights in law for a fetus." Page continues that this provision "would not prevent one abortion or make it any easier for women to bring a pregnancy to term," adding that is also "defies the 'common ground' spirit the bill was intended to cultivate." According to Page, if lawmakers amend the legislation to reflect these changes, "none of which jeopardize the true intent of the bill," then abortion-rights supporters "are a more likely constituency of support." She concludes, "But if these proposals remain, common ground will not be achieved and pregnant women won't get the support they deserve" (Page, Birth Control Watch, 2/5).
~ "The Politicization of Sex and Reproduction," Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Huffington Post blogs: "After eight years of the Bush administration's disastrous health care policies," it is "outrageous that one of the first big fights of the 111th Congress is over family planning," DeGette writes in a blog entry, adding that a provision that was removed from the House-passed version of the economic stimulus bill that would have allowed states to "provide basic reproductive health care to poor women would save $4 for every $1 spent." According to DeGette, "[r]ight-wing Republicans continually use sex as a weapon when they don't have an effective argument to stand on" by "attack[ing] common-sense policies that not only save taxpayers money, but also promote public health." DeGette adds that instead of promoting policies that are based on "extreme ideology," politicians should "start a new dialogue about reproductive and sexual health that is based on sound, science-based public policies," concluding that "it's high time we put science above politics" (DeGette, Huffington Post blogs, 2/4).
~ "Guidelines for Transferring Embryos," Judith Graham, Chicago Tribune "Triage" blog: "The field of assisted reproduction is largely self-regulated, driven by market forces and the professional conscience of its members," Graham writes in a blog entry, adding that no "federal agency provides comprehensive oversight, although the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is required by law to publish yearly fertility clinic success rates." According to Graham, major fertility groups 10 years ago published the first "voluntary guidelines for embryo transfer during in vitro fertilization" out of a concern that the "number of multiples (twins, triplets and more) born through IVF was increasing rapidly even as research confirmed heightened medical risks to infants and moms." The most recent set of revised guidelines was published in November 2008, Graham writes, adding, "If clinics don't abide by these standards, they can lose membership" in the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine -- a "precondition for coverage from many private insurers." She concludes, "But it's not clear how vigorously SART and ASRM monitor fertility providers, who constitute the core of their membership" (Graham, Chicago Tribune's "Triage," 2/5).
~ "New Connections Will Pave the Road to Economic Recovery," Sara Gould, Huffington Post blogs: Although President Obama said the U.S. is "united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make," he "violated his own pledge" when he "conceded" a provision of the economic stimulus bill that "would have made it easier for states to extend Medicaid coverage for family planning services to low-income families," Gould, president and CEO of the Ms. Foundation for Women, writes in a blog entry. According to Gould, Obama "violated" his pledge partly because U.S. economic policy "repeatedly ignore[s] the real-life connection between women's reproductive health and their economic security" and does not "consider women's economic participation vital to our nation's economic advancement." Gould writes that Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) did not "make the connection that women's health is fundamental to our country's economic health" when they discussed the family planning provision. She adds that if the U.S. does not "work quickly to ensure the economic security of women, particularly low-income women and women of color -- by increasing their access to contraception, decent-paying jobs with benefits, and quality and affordable child care -- our nation will forgo the full benefit of their economic contributions now and in the future," concluding, "Surely we can agree that this would be an enormous step backward in our quest for economic 'recovery'" (Gould, Huffington Post blogs, 2/3).
Antiabortion-Rights Blogs?
~ "Organizations Call Upon Senate Judiciary Committee for 'Meaningful Review' of President Obama's Nominees," National Right to Life blog: "A letter signed by 30 pro-life leaders and representatives of pro-life organizations ... has been sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, imploring its members not to merely 'rubber stamp nominations' that come before the committee," according to the anti-abortion blog. The letter, delivered Feb. 2, "referenced three of pro-abortion President Barack Obama's nominations and was sent to" committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), ranking member Arlen Spector (R-Pa.) and the remaining members on the committee, according to the blog. It adds that the three nominees targeted in the letter are Dawn Johnsen, former legal director of NARAL Pro-Choice America; David Ogden, who argued for abortion rights in Casey v. Planned Parenthood; and Thomas Perrelli, who represented Terri Schiavo's husband. According to the blog, the letter concludes, "Millions of Americans reasonably expect their elected representatives in the Senate to provide meaningful review of the President's nominees, particularly when they could dramatically change national policy. We urge the committee to provide ample time for meaningful review to take place, and we urge members to ask probative questions of these nominees and demand serious answers so that the American people can continue to play a part in defining the cultural fabric of our nation" (National Right to Life blog, 2/4).
~ "Abortion No Stimulus for Economy," Randall O'Bannon, National Right to Life blog: The argument made by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) -- in reference to the removal of family planning provision from the economic stimulus bill -- that "family planning services reduce costs" to the government "ignores a number of important economic details," O'Bannon writes in an anti-abortion blog post. "Every time a child is aborted, the only 'stimulus' the economy receives is through the abortionist's pocket," according to O'Bannon, who adds that government programs like Social Security and Medicare are "already starting to experience the effects of a shrinking or stagnant tax base." He continues, "Lawmakers can raise taxes or cut benefits, but they cannot make up for economic impact of 50 million lives lost to abortion since 1973." Advocates of the provision "have forgotten that, in the end, there is nothing more valuable, more precious, than human life," O'Bannon writes, concluding, "Sound economic thinking says that in the end if you want to save money, save lives" (O'Bannon, National Right to Life blog, 2/3).
Reprinted with kind permission from nationalpartnership. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.
© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий