Most Popular Women's Rights Posts
Senate Begins Debate on Health Care: Eschews Stupak, Funds Abstinence
Published November 21, 2009 @ 10:20AM PT
Debate on the Senate version of the Health Care bill opened yesterday with a mixed bag for those concerned about reproductive health.
On the plus side, the Senate Bill avoids Stupak language, instead offering private insurance a separate means by which it can set aside monies that could be used in case of abortion that do not interfere with government spending.
RH Reality Check reports that this approach closely mirrors the Capps language originally included in the House and Senate Finance Committee bills, with an additional provision tacked on obligating the Health and Human Services Secretary to ensure that no federal funds are used for abortion. Additionally, the Secretary of HHS would ensure that in each State Exchange, where the uninsured will go to buy their insurance, at least one plan does provide coverage of abortions beyond those permitted by Hyde and at least one plan does not.
For Health or Money: The Motivation Behind New Mammogram Guidelines
Published November 20, 2009 @ 01:40PM PT
Women and health care professionals are confused and outraged by the mammogram guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) on Monday, denouncing the task force for prioritizing economy over health.
Regular mammogram screenings have accounted for a 15 percent decrease in the rate of breast cancer. The new guidelines suggest that women start going for regular mammograms at 50 -- ten years later than previously recommended -- and get checked every other year, instead of annually, unless they are at high risk. Critics, such as the American Cancer Society, worry that fewer mammograms will mean a rise in undetected breast cancer, potentially costing women their lives.
Opponents are also concerned that insurance companies will use this as an excuse to refuse to cover mammograms for women under 50. The National Committee for Quality Assurance, a non-profit that grades insurance companies, has already altered its evaluations to reflect the change.
The task force claims that the issue at stake is unnecessary screening and treatment. Women in their forties are 60 percent more likely than older women to have false-positive mammograms; according to Dr. Diana Petitti, vice-chair, this leads to needless medical procedures, such as biopsies, accompanied by high stress. The USPSTF says that the relatively small number of women whose cancer is detected -- only one cancer death is prevented for every 1,904 women screened from age 40 to 49 -- is not worth the anxiety of all those false-positives.
Servicewomen Need Access to Plan B: Focus on That, Elaine Donnelly
Published November 20, 2009 @ 07:25AM PT
Groups like the self-proclaimed experts at the Center for Military Readiness, headed by Elaine Donnelly (yes, that Elaine Donnelly), would have you believe that the possibility of unplanned pregnancies is a good reason to exclude women from combat roles and submarine service. I have another idea for Ms. Donnelly and her ilk to help them focus their concerns: Fight like hell to get Plan B included in the TRICARE Formulary (the standard list of drugs that must be stocked) and make it available in all Military Treatment Facilities (MTF).
Right now, a servicewoman cannot walk into an MTF after a sexual assault or a birth control failure and be guaranteed that she will be able to obtain Plan B. Even though it is legal and available over the counter. Even though a military dependent using an MTF can obtain it relatively easily because she is allowed to get over the counter medication there. Even though a dependent who is 17 can walk right into her doctor's office and ask for it. Unfortunately, the decision that made Plan B accessible left enough of a loophole to exclude it from the Formulary, and a victory for most civilian women created a hurdle for servicewomen.
Women-Only Travel Company Violates Men's Rights
Published November 19, 2009 @ 03:22PM PT
At best, women-only policies strike me as band-aid solutions. I see little merit in single-sex gyms, and am downright appalled by the idea of Mexico's women-only taxis -- bubble-gum pink cabs equipped with makeup mirrors -- as a real solution to sexual violence. We can't end sexual harassment and assault simply by carving out spaces where men don't exist. Poof! They're gone! No more worries! Except that eventually you have to leave the gym or get out of the taxi.
So I was automatically skeptical when I heard about the proposal for a women-only travel company, Travel Sisters, geared toward helping women escape men who are only interested in "sexual conquests and partying." But then the story took an unexpected twist.
Founder Erin Maitland applied to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal to have Travel Sisters exempted from Australia's Equal Opportunity Act, but was denied on the grounds that she was unfairly stereotyping men and could not prove it was necessary to deny them their human rights.
Wait, what? Human rights? Since when is taking a cheesy Australian packaged tour and flirting with women over piña coladas a basic human right? I would understand using the logic of discrimination, making the case that if this company were allowed an exemption perhaps other proposals for race, age, or gender-based exemptions might emerge. Sure. But the argument that touring is a human right and men will somehow be disadvantaged by not participating in Travel Sisters tours seems farcical.
UN Operations In Congo: A Dangerous Strategy
Published November 19, 2009 @ 12:06PM PT
Compared with the energy and awareness surrounding the genocide in Darfur, the crisis in Congo is often known as the "forgotten conflict" -- despite the fact that over five million people have been killed since the war began 1998.
After a brief flurry of headlines last year, the crisis has received little media attention. Meanwhile, the situation in Congo has only grown worse, especially for women and girls, who are the victims of mass rapes and mutilation.
This December, the United Nations will be renewing its mandate of the peacekeeping force in Congo -- a joint Rwandan and Congolese military operation -- with the aim of disarming the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) rebel militia by force. A 6,000-strong armed group, the FDLR has been a key ingredient of instability in the Kivu provinces ever since its founders fled Rwanda in the wake of the 1994 genocide. Some 30 percent of the FDLR's forces are now Congolese.
Unfortunately, efforts by the joint force (known by its French acronym, MONUC) are reportedly doing more harm than good. Not only are the rebels attacking civilians, the poorly disciplined Congolese army is looting villages and raping women.
Newsweek's "Sexist" Cover Photo Stirs Up False Controversy
Published November 18, 2009 @ 04:50PM PT
The internet has been growling a lot today. And most of the disgruntled tweets and blog posts are over Newsweek's cover, featuring none other than former Alaska governor, Sarah Palin. To coincide with the release of Palin's book, Going Rogue, Newsweek's editors decided to print two essays about the former vice presidential candidate and a photo from a shoot she participated in for Runner's World magazine.
The most common critique is that Newsweek has committed the crime of sexism in order to sell magazines. In defense of the image, Newsweek's Editor Jon Meacham said the image chosen was "the most interesting image available to us to illustrate the theme of the cover, which is what we always try to do." He went onto say: "We apply the same test to photographs of any public figure, male or female: does the image convey what we are saying? That is a gender-neutral standard."
I wouldn't say this is entirely gender neutral, not to mention Meacham's response is rather misleading (you did this for marketing, not editorial, duh), but I don't actually think Newsweek is being sexist with this photo.
Will You Have To Ask Your Employer For The "Abortion Rider"?
Published November 17, 2009 @ 03:30PM PT
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) held a press conference yesterday with several of New York City's top women leaders to speak out against the House health care bill's anti-choice Stupak-Pitts amendment.
Powerful women such as Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Gloria Steinem, Speaker of the NY City Council Christine Quinn, President of Planned Parenthood Cecile Richards, President of NARAL Pro-Choice NY Kelli Conlin, and many others spoke against the Stupak measure, which is one of the greatest attempts to roll back women's reproductive rights since Roe v. Wade was decided in 1973.
For those who are unclear on what the Stupak-Pitts amendment means, basically the measure would prohibit the proposed government-run insurance plan from covering abortions except in cases of rape or incest, or to save the woman's life. It also bars any health plan receiving federal subsidies in a new insurance marketplace from offering abortion coverage; if women wanted to purchase abortion coverage through such plans, they'd have to buy it separately, as a so-called "rider" on their policy.
While this "abortion rider" is being touted as a solution to the prohibitive measures, Sen. Gillibrand said that the rider "is not only discriminatory, but ridiculous. It would require women to essentially plan for an event that occurs in the most unplanned and sometimes emergency situations."
