The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.
~ "Looking for Common Ground on Abortion? You're Standing On It," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: "Getting beyond the political deadlock on abortion is important if for no other reason than that the political obstacles result in the denial to women of essential services," Jacobson writes in a blog post on the growing political dialogue over finding "common ground" in the abortion debate. However, she adds, "the current public discourse on 'abortion reduction' is vague, distracts us from sound policy approaches and suggests a worrisome practice of stigmatizing women who do choose abortion or trying to 'convince' them to choose otherwise." She says that "common ground" on abortion is "right under our feet, and points toward well-proven policies and interventions aimed at keeping abortion 'safe and legal'" and reducing unintended pregnancies. She goes on to explain how this approach is "different than 'abortion reduction,'" noting that abortion already has been on the decline among most groups for "some time." Jacobson continues that low-income women are the only group in which the abortion rate increased in recent years, adding that these women "rely heavily on publicly funded contraceptive services." She writes that "instead of focusing first on access to contraceptives and health services, and the contributions of poverty and violence as core determinants in the number of unintended pregnancies among women in the U.S. or even on the conditions that affect women's ability to access and use these methods, some prominent columnists have focused on 'the morality of the left' and the morality of individual behavior and choices." She also notes that "the media often portray women as irresponsible, both directly and indirectly," citing a February New York Times opinion piece by Slate commentator William Saletan. Using the abortion-reduction strategy "as the framework puts us right back in the place of stigmatizing abortion, instead of creating the conditions in which fewer unintended pregnancies occur in the first place," Jacobson writes. She continues that "common ground" on abortion is "right in front of us." Jacobson closes with a list of recommendations for the Obama administration and Congress. According to Jacobson, by "taking these steps while also increasing individual and family wellbeing, we will dramatically reduce unintended pregnancies and by extension abortions, and achieve all the gains we seek while protecting women's rights." She concludes that the rate of abortions "will continue to decline if we focus on securing women's rights, closing the gap in access to services, providing universal sexual and reproductive health education based on evidence, engaging women and men as moral actors in their choices, and removing the social and political barriers to essential services. That's not only common ground, it's solid ground and proven ground" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 3/18).
~ "Beyond Stem Cells and Global Warming: Media Ignore Bush Administration's Widespread Interference with Science," John Delicath, Huffington Post blogs: "During coverage of President Barack Obama's executive order on stem cell research and his presidential memorandum on scientific integrity," the media provided "only a cursory account" of former President George W. Bush's "interference with science, adopting a common refrain that critics have accused the Bush administration of putting politics before science on issues such as stem cells and global warming," according to Delicath, director of the Media Matters Action Network. Delicath writes, "[I]t is vital that the media help the public appreciate the significance of political interference in science," because "political interference with science in the policy-making process threatens our health, our environment, our prospects for economic renewal and our standing in the world." He continues, "Bush's history on this front cannot be forgotten, nor can we afford for it to be repeated," adding that the Union of Concerned Scientists has "spent years researching and documenting the political assault on science during the Bush presidency." Delicath notes the organization released reports and surveys that documented "specific instances in which Bush officials ignored, manipulated, distorted or suppressed scientific evidence" on several issues, including sex education and contraception. He writes that "many media outlets hailed Obama's break with Bush on stem cells but saw fit to simply ignore the history of the widespread abuse of science under Bush" and provided coverage of "Obama's executive order on stem cells without even mentioning his memorandum on scientific integrity." Delicath goes on to recap the coverage of Obama's executive order by several newspapers, including the Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times and others. He writes that "the problem" with newspaper coverage that "made passing reference to the use of science under Bush, of course, is that [the newspapers] failed to note that political interference was widespread and systematic and offered little sense of the breadth and scope of the problem." The papers also "failed to inform their readers that the charges of political interference with science under Bush are well-substantiated with credible evidence from a range of sources," Delicath says. He concludes, "If the media fail to take seriously political interference in science, and if columnists and pundits ignore the issue in the nation's largest opinion-making forums ... the issue will disappear from the public radar, and the public will not be engaged in ways that can help ensure scientists are afforded the opportunity to pursue research and speak openly and honestly about their work" (Delicath, Huffington Post blogs, 3/18).
~ "Do We Need a White House Council on Women and Girls? Yes, Dear, We Do," Rose O'Malley, Womenstake blogs: In a March 18 opinion piece published in the Washington Post -- which discusses the recently created White House Council on Women and Girls -- columnist Kathleen Parker "expresses her desire for more attention to be paid to the challenges facing men and boys, assumes that women have achieved total educational equality with men, and then, just for fun, denies that the wage gap exists in any meaningful way other than as an expression of women's childrearing choices," O'Malley writes in a blog entry. She continues that Parker is "correct when she states that women outnumber men in college and that women now make up half of law and medical school graduates." However, "this doesn't mean that women have it made, or that they have achieved educational parity with their peers," although women and men graduate from medical school at the same rate, male surgeons earn 40% more than their female counterparts. O'Malley says that contrary to the reasoning that the wage gap is "nothing more than women's choices," several studies have demonstrated that "the wage gap does still exist, including a Government Accountability Office study concluding that at least 20% of the wage gap was a result of discrimination. According to O'Malley, Parker's column "simply ignores" certain facts, including that "one in eight women is living in poverty, with single mothers, women of color and elderly women among the most vulnerable, or that women are now losing their jobs at faster rates than men and are less likely to qualify for unemployment, or that the individual health insurance market fails women on several levels." She continues, "These facts can't be pithily dismissed, so she simply does not bring them up." O'Malley asks, "How about we just all agree that addressing the challenges that women and girls face does not in any way diminish the challenges that men and boys confront?" She continues, "Social reform is not some sort of battle of the sexes where helping one 'side' hurts the other." According to O'Malley, the White House council "is just recognizing and responding to the many things that women have to deal with that men do not, like being a pregnant student or making less money for the same work, as well as recognizing that women have for too long been locked out of the highest echelons of the workplace where policies are made." She concludes, "And I, for one, applaud it" (O'Malley, Womenstake blogs, 3/18).
~ "Making the Link Between Dating Violence and Women's Reproductive Health," Kiersten Stewart, The Hill's Congress Blog: Recent reports about singer Rhianna's abuse by her boyfriend has "put the issue of dating violence front and center before the nation's teens," Stewart writes. However, she continues, the relationship between dating abuse and reproductive health is "one aspect of the issue that's largely absent from the conversation." Stewart writes that recent studies have shown "relationship or dating abuse can have reproductive health consequences, including unplanned pregnancy and exposure to sexually transmitted infections and HIV/AIDS transmission," all of which primarily affect young women. According to the Harvard School of Public Health, female domestic violence survivors are "four to six times more likely than non-abused girls to become pregnant," Stewart writes. In addition, one out of three adolescents tested for STIs and HIV "have experienced domestic violence," according to Stewart. She continues by describing the case of a young woman who contracted STIs and became pregnant while in an abusive relationship with a man who had multiple sexual partners. According to Stewart, this case "belies the old stereotype that attributes unplanned pregnancies and STIs to promiscuity or irresponsible behavior." She continues that "any serious attempt to reduce unplanned pregnancy and STI rates must help prevent" relationship and dating abuse. According to Stewart, the 2005 Violence Against Women Act "contained groundbreaking new initiatives including programs to train health care providers to assess patients for domestic violence and intervene to help those who are victims of abuse, encourage men to teach the next generation that violence is wrong and provide crisis services" for rape and sexual assault survivors. However, "Congress has not yet funded many of the new prevention programs," which "needs to change," the blog entry says. It continues that President Obama created the White House Council on Women and Girls with a mandate "to help prevent violence against women." The blog entry concludes that the council "won't succeed unless Congress funds these new VAWA health programs, and we all begin to recognize the link between violence and women's reproductive health" (Stewart, The Hill's Congress Blog, 3/19).
~ "When 'Choosing Life' Just Isn't Enough," Choice USA's Choice Words: The unintended pregnancy of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's (R) 18-year-old daughter Bristol, who gave birth in December 2008, "significantly reshaped the way Republicans were inclined to respond to teen pregnancy," a Choice USA blog entry says. It adds, "What was once a reprehensible situation became something to be praised," until news that Bristol Palin will not marry Levi Johnston, the teenage father of her child, "tossed a wrench into the gears of this perfect family values fairytale." According to the blog entry, Bristol Palin's "decision to break off the engagement adds one more challenge to her mother's brand of social conservatism" and also "sends a notably strong message to young women who may find themselves in a similar situation: Single motherhood is not only possible, but OK." The blog entry continues by describing "crisis pregnancy centers," some of which encourage unmarried pregnant women to give up their infants for adoption rather than raise their children as a single parent. According to the blog entry, the "'abortion reduction' agenda" of crisis pregnancy centers and conservatives who support these views are "a mere front for complete reproductive control." It continues, "Single motherhood is, to them, grounds for a woman to put her baby up for adoption." In addition, crisis pregnancy centers "preach that any household that doesn't fit this romanticized idea of the 'sanctity of heterosexual marriage' is unfit for children, no matter how abusive one partner may be or how little they may love one another," the blog entry says. It continues that such centers would "rather see a woman carry a fetus to term, give birth, then just let the baby go and forget it all happened, which is of course, impossible." The blog entry concludes, "I'm not sure I can take any more paternalistic 'should'ves' and 'could'ves' from these people" (Choice USA's Choice Words, 3/17).
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