The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.
~ "Q&A with Carole Joffe," Katha Pollitt, The Nation's "And Another Thing": Pollitt interviewed Carole Joffe -- a sociologist and author of "Dispatches from the Abortion Wars: The Costs of Fanaticism to Doctors, Patients and the Rest of Us" -- about the health reform law's potential effects on reproductive rights and health. According to Joffe, the consequences of health reform include the "good, the bad and the ugly." The "unequivocal good is that 30 million people" will gain insurance coverage, and "[r]egular access to primary care will mean healthier women overall," Joffe said. She continued, "The bad news is the Nelson abortion restrictions ... will prove so cumbersome that ultimately it will not be in [insurance] companies' interest to cover abortions. The ugly part is the marginalization of abortion all through the process." Joffe said the erosion of abortion coverage will have an especially strong impact on "women who require abortions late in their pregnancies because of lethal or serious fetal anomalies or a change in their own health," such as a cancer diagnosis that requires chemotherapy, because late abortion services can cost thousands of dollars. Going forward, the abortion-rights movement should continue to focus on "[k]eeping providers safe," Joffe said, adding that "[e]lecting more pro-choice Democrats" also "is a huge priority." She continued, "But the most important thing that needs to be done is the hardest: we need to destigmatize abortion. We need to create the conditions where it is not toxic for politicians who support us to actually say the 'a-word' and not rely on the euphemism 'right to choose'" (Pollitt, "And Another Thing," The Nation, 3/26).
~ "The Maternal Mortality Crisis Does Exist," Nan Strauss, Salon's "Broadsheet": In the post, Strauss -- a maternal health researcher at Amnesty International -- defends the group's recent report, "Deadly Delivery: The Maternal Health Care Crisis in the USA." Specifically, Straus addresses Amy Tuteur's recent blog post, "Is there really a 'maternal mortality crisis'?" Strauss writes, "To quibble over whether there is an increase in maternal deaths is to ignore the key and undisputed fact: Women in the United States face a greater risk of death from pregnancy-related causes than women in 40 other countries, despite the fact that we spend the most of any country on health care." She continues, "While changes in data reporting have contributed to the increase in reported maternal deaths, the most recent analysis indicates that improvements in data collection only account for a fraction of the increase in deaths." Although rising caesarean section rates "undoubtedly do not account for the entire increase in deaths, ... the World Health Organization has found that when the c-section rate exceeds 15%, unnecessary surgeries put women and babies at risk," Strauss writes, noting that the U.S. c-section rate is twice the level that WHO recommends. Strauss adds, "Regardless of whether the death toll is rising, or whether improved reporting is shining a new light on existing high rates of maternal deaths, these shocking figures reveal a health system in crisis." She concludes, "It is incumbent on President Obama and [HHS Secretary] Kathleen Sebelius to make improving maternal health a top priority" (Strauss, "Broadsheet," Salon, 3/26).
~ "Health Care Reform Extremists Take a Page From an Ugly Anti-Choice Playbook," Sarah Lipton-Lubet, The Hill's "Congress Blog": Lipton-Lubet, legislative policy counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, writes, "Many Americans are shocked that a debate over expanding health care access has spiraled into death threats and vandalism." She adds, "Unfortunately, the pro-choice community is all too familiar with these tactics as a response to the provision of basic health care." Lipton-Lubet continues that after the murder of abortion provider George Tiller in 2009, CRR released a report "documenting the harassment, intimidation, discrimination and violence perpetrated against the brave men and women who provide abortions, or counsel women about their options, or check them in at reception desks." She continues, "Not content with their victories in legislatures or at the voting booth, anti-choice extremists have long resorted to murder, bombings, arsons and assaults." According to Lipton-Lubet, "Whatever side you're on regarding either the debate over health care or abortion rights, enough is enough." She writes, "It is time for threats and harassment to end, and for responsible leaders to recognize that access to health care -- including reproductive health care -- is a fundamental right and not a cause for mayhem" (Lipton-Lubet, "Congress Blog," The Hill, 3/29).
~ "Conservative Cartoonist Uses Rape and Racism in Depicting Health Reform," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Jacobson describes abortion-rights supporters' reaction to a "drawing by a conservative cartoonist using a blatantly racist rape meme to ramp up their hysteria over health reform." According to Jacobson, the cartoon depicts "President Obama as having raped the Statue of Liberty." Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon notes that the cartoon also depicts the president as "promis[ing] to come back to gang rape her with immigration reform, amongst other things." Marcotte writes, "The callousness to actual rape victims on display here is simply a more explicit version of a rhetorical trope that's been in play since Obama took office and has really escalated as the favorite metaphor used by conservatives to describe health care reform." Marcotte continues, "When it comes to actual rapes, the right-wing position is that the problem of rape is way overblown, and that most rapes -- most anything that gets called a date or acquaintance rape -- aren't a matter of men forcing themselves on women because they enjoy raping, but just bad sex that sluts regret later and therefore 'cry rape.'" Jacobson also provides links to posts by Jeff Fecke and Lawyers, Guns and Money about the cartoon (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 3/27).
~ "No Health Care for Wanted Pregnancies, No Abortions for Unwanted Ones," Alex DiBranco, Change.org's "Women's Rights": "In Nebraska, if you don't want to be pregnant, anti-choice lawmakers will do their best to force you to act as an incubator," but "if you do want to give birth, then they couldn't care less if your newborn baby dies due to their laws," DiBranco writes. DiBranco criticizes Gov. Dave Heineman's (R) opposition to proposed legislation that "would have continued the state's longstanding practice of providing prenatal care for low-income women" because of his objections to allowing undocumented immigrants to receive state-funded services. Heineman's stance ultimately harms the "U.S. citizen baby who will eventually be born," according to DiBranco. DiBranco also discusses a bill (LB 594) that "would require proof that women seeking an abortion are physically and mentally sound enough to [receive] an abortion." According to DiBranco, "We don't go around requiring women to prove they're physically and mentally stable enough to bring a new life into this world, but we're going to impose unconstitutionally vague, impossible to comply with extra restrictions if they don't want that responsibility?" Taken together, the Nebraska issues "show again that, for the anti-choice camp, [the] only 'babies' that matter are the unborn," DiBranco says, adding, "Seems a lot more like controlling a woman's body than being 'pro-life'" (DiBranco, "Women's Rights," Change.org, 3/29).
~ "Anti-Choice Lawmakers Post-Health Care Reform Track," Nancy Keenan, Huffington Post blogs: While the House debated health care reform legislation, several antiabortion-rights members "suddenly claimed the belief that Americans' health care decisions should be private -- despite their own long, stubborn history of attempts to deny women the very same right," NARAL Pro-Choice America President Keenan writes. Keenan's entry includes several quotes from a "comprehensive list" of lawmakers who cited privacy concerns in statements opposing the health reform legislation and notes the number of times they have previously voted against protecting privacy in opposing abortion-related legislation. For example, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.) said the health reform law "places control in the hands of government bureaucrats, rather than letting Americans decide for themselves what is best for their families." Keenan notes that Ros-Lehtinen "has cast 148 votes opposing reproductive freedom and privacy during her congressional career." Keenan says that "[p]erhaps in the future they will bring these newfound views to debates about reproductive health ... but I won't hold my breath" (Keenan, Huffington Post blogs, 3/29).
~ "The New Health Reform Law: Pros and Cons for Reproductive Health," Adam Sonfield, RH Reality Check: "For the nation's consumers and providers of reproductive health care, and for advocates of reproductive health and rights, the health care reform legislation just enacted is something of a mixed bag," Sonfield writes. The bill's abortion provisions are "onerous" and "restrictive," and they "militate heavily against the likelihood that many such plans will be purchased -- or even offered," according to Sonfield. The legislation contains $75 million annually for five years to fund a new "personal responsibility education program" to educate teens about both abstinence and contraception, but the law also includes funding for abstinence-until-marriage programs. By expanding Medicaid eligibility, more U.S. residents will gain access to "the program's guarantee of family planning services without cost sharing, along with coverage for its comprehensive package of reproductive health services beyond family planning," Sonfield writes. Plans included in the new insurance exchanges will be required to offer certain services, including maternity care and potentially "coverage of a broad package of reproductive health services, including contraceptive services and supplies," Sonfield adds. In addition, the law includes "$1.5 billion over five years to support maternal, infant and early childhood home visiting programs, with a focus on high-risk families," Sonfield writes (Sonfield, RH Reality Check, 3/30).
