Recently in Health Category

Amie Newman at RH Reality Check has a must-read post up about what a new administration (this was written before Obama's win) needs to focus on in terms of women's reproductive health and justice. Check it out.

A bunch of conscientious readers have sent us the link to a really depressing article in today's New York Times about economic differentials for women and men when it comes to health insurance costs--and, no, not just because we're the ones that bear the babies. It reads, "In general, insurers say, they charge women more than men of the same age because claims experience shows that women use more health care services. They are more likely to visit doctors, to get regular checkups, to take prescription medications and to have certain chronic illnesses."

Seriously? Is our health care system so broken that when women actually use it, it discriminates against them? This is deeply troubling. Health care is a human right. Every woman in this country deserves it, and deserves to be charged the same as her male peer for it. And if we're looking at it from a strictly economic stand point, preventative care of the type that these insurers claim women do more of actually saves them money over the long run!

Marcia D. Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, has it right: "The wide variation in premiums could not possibly be justified by actuarial principles. We should not tolerate women having to pay more for health insurance, just as we do not tolerate the practice of using race as a factor in setting rates."

One more reason to vote people. Check out the candidates' differing health insurance plans: Obama and McCain.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death for American women, but according to Consumer Reports many women could be in danger because of a misdiagnoses:

If you have chest pain, breathlessness or an irregular heartbeat, you'd expect your doctor to check you out for heart disease. But if you're a woman, it's possible that might not happen. Instead, you might be told your symptoms are caused by stress.

A study presented at a recent conference looked at decisions made by 230 experienced American physicians. The study showed that doctors were more likely to put these symptoms down to stress if a woman appeared anxious, or if they knew she had been through stressful events.

When the same symptoms were presented for men, the doctors didn't relate it to stress - and instead indicated that they would send the man to a cardiologist or start him on heart medication. Scary.

It seems pretty widely known that heart disease is not just a health issue that impacts men, so I'm curious as to why the participants in this study were so quick to attribute symptoms to stress. Does it have something to do with the longstanding tradition of labeling women as neurotic? (Just putting it out there...)

For more information on women and heart disease, click here, here, and here. Also check out the Go Red for Women campaign.

Thanks to Meredith for the link.

A new birth control pill, called LoSeasonique, has just been approved for sale in the US by the FDA, according to Barr Pharmaceuticals.

Under the LoSEASONIQUE(R) extended-cycle regimen, women take combination tablets containing 0.10 mg levonorgestrel/0.02 mg of ethinyl estradiol daily for 84 consecutive days, followed 0.01 mg ethinyl estradiol tablets for seven days. The regimen is designed to reduce the number of withdrawal bleeding periods from 13 to four per year.

LoSeasonique is a low-dose version of Seasonique, which also reduces the number of periods a woman has.

What do you all think about these period-reducing birth control pills? Anyone tried them?

Some good news for your mid-week: The Bureau of Prisons recently announced it has changed its policy and now bans the shackling of pregnant women during transportation, labor and delivery.

Maria Jones, who was incarcerated for violating drug laws, tells the story of having labor induced two weeks prior to her due date, but being "kept in shackles, leaving 18 inches between her ankles, and told to pace the hallway for several hours. 'It was so humiliating. My ankles were raw,' she said. 'I had shackles on up until the baby was coming out and then they took them off for me to push...It was unbelievable. Like I was going to go anywhere.'"

[...]The new policy represents a huge victory for the thousands of women incarcerated in federal prisons throughout the country -- a victory hard won by groups like The Rebecca Project for Human Rights and other organizations that have advocated for this change.

But this is only the beginning. In 47 states there is no legislation to restrict the practice of shackling pregnant women; state and local prisons are not subject to the new federal policy. And the U.S. Immigrant and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which increasingly detains immigrant women who have never committed a crime, has refused to specifically end the use of restraints on pregnant women.

So basically, it's a good start, but we need to keep advocating that state and local prisons, as well as ICE, also ban the practice of shackling pregnant women. As the ACLU notes, women are the fastest-growing segment of the prison population. This issue is not going away anytime soon.

Amnesty International has info on the situation at the state-level.

The fight to legalize homosexual sex in India has brought out homophobic sentiments in the government. The government of India is functioning under the misguided belief that the spread of HIV/AIDS in India is due to gay sex. The high court in Delhi took up the task of calling out the government.

Via Times of India.

Irritated by the government's contradictory and unscientific stand on the issue of homosexuality, the Delhi High Court on Monday told the government that the homosexual trait in a human being cannot be termed as a "disease" and objected to the contention that if legalised, homosexuality would bring "devastation" to society.

"Show us one report which says that it is a disease. A WHO paper says that it is not a disease but you are describing it as a disease. It is an accepted fact that it is a main vehicle that causes (AIDS) disease but it is not a disease in itself," a Bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah remarked in response to Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra's harping on the point that homosexuality was a disease that is responsible for the spread of AIDS in the country.

Yikes. Isn't it true that when something is legalized the potential for ensuring safety increases? If homosexuality is kept illegal in India their fear of "high risk" behaviors continue underground, only riskier because people lack access to health care needs or protection of the law if they are sexually violated.

Furthermore, it has also been proven that one of the main reasons HIV/AIDS is on the rise in India is because of infidelity on behalf of men. Why not penalize men for engaging in dangerous sexual behaviors as opposed to outlawing the ability for two consenting adults to have safe sex. Queer rights activists in India continue to fight for the decriminalization of gay sex, but it is looking like an uphill battle given homophobic attitudes on behalf of the government.

Continuing with its opposition the government described homosexuality as "a most indecent behaviour" in society, pointing out that homosexuals comprise just 0.3% of the population and the interest of rest 99.7% population "cannot be compromised" just to accommodate their rights.

"Every citizen has the right to lead a decent and moral life in society and the right would be violated if such behaviour (gay sex) is legalised in the country," Malhotra said arguing that an amendment in section 377 would mean subsequent tinkering around with marriage and divorce laws of each community as all have sodomy as a ground for divorce. The ASG claimed even section 375, which pertains to rape, would need an amendment to change definition of "consent" if homosexuality was legalised.

Apparently it is decent and moral to deny an entire segment of the population basic human rights. I am truly appalled at this archaic thinking.

Thanks to Grishma for the link.

Today is National Latino AIDS Awareness Day.

HIV/AIDS is the third leading cause of death among Hispanic men ages 35 to 44 and the fourth leading cause of death among Hispanic women in the same age group.

In honor of NLAAD, check out Ambiente, a bilingual online Latino LGBT publication.

According to Bloomberg News, Johnson & Johnson has spent at least $68.7 million to settle the hundreds of lawsuits filed by women who used the Ortho Evra birth-control patch and suffered blood clots, heart attacks or strokes.

Of 562 complaints reviewed by Bloomberg News, the vast majority of users alleged the patch caused deep-vein thrombosis, or blood clots in the legs, and pulmonary embolisms, or blood clots in the lungs. Some blamed it for heart attacks or strokes. The complaints blamed Ortho Evra for the deaths of 20 women.

One settled case involved Ashley Lewis, a 17-year-old high school junior from St. Louis who died in 2003. She developed a blood clot in her lung after wearing the patch for six months, according to Roger Denton, an attorney for Lewis's family, including her son, who was a one-year-old when she died.

Earlier this year, the NY Times found internal company documents that showed J&J hid evidence that Ortho Evra actually delivered much more estrogen than birth control pills, despite its claims otherwise. So scary. (I was actually a huge NuvaRing fan until I read about women having similar problems, like blood clots, at a higher rate than with the pill.)

Related: One woman recounts her horror story with the patch at Nerve.

White Dude Knows Best! Above: Men who want to control the bodies of women they deem unfit mothers. Louisiana state Rep. John LaBruzzo (left) and Texas state District Judge Charlie Baird (right).

It's been quite a week for government violation of the bodily integrity of poor women and women of color. First, there was the judge in Texas who set "not having children" as a condition of a woman's parole. (I just linked in the WFR on Sunday, but Cara discussed it at length. Go read her post.)

And today, via several readers, comes the news that John LaBruzzo, a state legislator from Louisiana, wants to pay low-income women $1,000 apiece to get sterilized. Everything about this is so incredibly offensive, I don't know quite where to begin. Let's start with a quote from LaBruzzo:

"We're on a train headed to the future and there's a bridge out, " LaBruzzo said of what he suspects are dangerous demographic trends. "And nobody wants to talk about it."

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Low-income women having children is a "dangerous demographic trend"?! Sounds like the recent round of racist propaganda we saw related to the "Demographic Winter" movie. (Film summary: You should be panicked because brown people are reproducing at faster rates than white people.) But LaBruzzo protests that he is not a racist -- he's a problem-solver!

LaBruzzo said other, mainstream strategies for attacking poverty, such as education reforms and programs informing people about family planning issues, have repeatedly failed to solve the problem. He said he is simply looking for new ways to address it.

"It's easy to say, 'Oh, he's a racist, ' " LaBruzzo said. "The hard part is to sit down and think of some solutions."

It's not as if this country has ever done a good job providing low-income women with the tools and information to make their own decisions. Programs that aim to do that have been consistently underfunded and poorly implemented. So no, we haven't tried all other options. And even if we had, his idea is still completely appalling.

LaBruzzo is correct that it's very easy to say he's a racist. Because, um, he's espousing a historically racist policy. What he clearly deems to be a new and creative solution has unfortunately been around a long time. Compulsory or coercive sterilizations for low-income women, disabled women, and women of color were extremely common up until the 1970s, and slightly less common but nevertheless occurring with regularity the the decades since. The paternalistic attitude that "certain women" cannot be trusted to make their own reproductive decisions is still an underlying theme of a lot of backwards legal and policy decisions. LaBruzzo and Texas judge Charlie Baird are part of this despicable tradition.

It is not effective, it is not on the market and would take millions of dollars to make legal, but some scientists in Australia have found that you can block ducts that release sperm, "zap" sperm, or interrupt its production.

Professor Derek Abbott and his team from the University of Adelaide in South Australia have invented the first remote-controlled key fob that allows men to control a valve that can switch their sperm flow on and off as required.

The size of half a rice grain, the "fertility control micro-valve" is injected by a doctor into the vas deferens, the duct that carries sperm from the testes, a process that needs only a local anaesthetic. The valve can then open and close to control sperm flow out of the body.

I think the question is, not only will it be made legal, but will men use it?

"Men want new contraceptive methods," says Elaine Lissner, director of the non-profit Male Contraception Information Project in San Francisco. "A decade ago demand wasn't there and it was assumed women wouldn't trust men to take charge of birth control anyway. That has changed."

I do think there are men that want alternative forms of birth control. I know many of my boyfriends would have preferred other methods to birth control than me using hormonal birth control that made me irritable and have a decreased sex drive. One of my boyfriends even had a vasectomy, which I thought was great, but not for everyone obviously.

I think it is interesting that it is so difficult to the find the money to support research and development of effective male birth control. Yet, there are so many different kinds of women's birth control. Why is birth control always the responsibility of women? Also, several of the side effects listed are assumed side effects to the birth control that women have been using for decades. Why is it OK for women to take on the burden of not only taking birth control, but dealing with its side effects, yet it is a red flag for men?

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want anyone taking any form of birth control or trying any method without knowing fully well what its side effects are going to be, however, I am just noting that these same considerations weren't as fully considered when it was a woman's reproductive health at stake.

Would you or your partner use remote control sperm control?

Doctor's office waiting room, uploaded by Flickr user TheConsumerist

I'll admit it: I find the debate over health care in America incredibly confusing at times. What I do know is pretty simple. I know that people don't have a right to health care in this country, which is appalling. I know that navigating our current system and getting quality care is a huge headache, even for the privileged and knowledgeable. I know that low-income people, those with nontraditional work situations, immigrants, and people of color have an even tougher time finding and paying for care.

And I know that health care is a feminist issue. Because women are more likely than men to go without needed care. Because nearly twice as many women as men access health care as a dependent -- in other words, they're not covered under their own name. Because low-income women and immigrant women and women of color have a disproportionately difficult time accessing regular care. Because women are more likely to have patchwork-style careers, dropping in and out of the workforce because of family care obligations, which makes dependence on employer-provided health care exceptionally hard. Because a larger percentage of women than men have a hard time paying their medical bills.

But sometimes I have a tough time understanding the debate about what it's gonna take to remedy this situation. When talk turns to mandates and single-payer and group plans, my eyes start glazing over. Which is why I'm grateful to Bob Herbert for breaking down this new study on the McCain/Palin proposed health care plan:

From USCIS:

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) announced today a revised list of vaccines required for applicants seeking to adjust status to become legal permanent residents. This revision follows guidance from the Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

CDC's revised Technical Instructions to Civil Surgeons for Vaccination Requirements require the following age-appropriate additional vaccinations to adjust status to legal permanent resident:

* Rotavirus
* Hepatitis A
* Meningococcal
* Human papillomavirus
* Zoster

The requirements for these new vaccines went into effect on July 1, 2008, however CDC approved a 30-day grace period for any medical exam conducted before August 1, 2008. At that time the new vaccinations, if appropriate, must be administered in order for USCIS to approve the applicant for adjustment of status.

Now this is kind of a curve ball. Jill hit on most of the important points here, about how ANOTHER barrier to citizenship status is the last thing we need, particularly when that barrier can cost upwards of $300. People tell me that this isn't particular action isn't actually a Merck ploy to get more people to get the vaccine, but rather a Bush administration immigration barrier. Like we need another one of those. Ironic, considering that conservatives were a big part of the campaign to block the vaccine mandates last year, for mostly anti-sex reasons. I guess they don't care about these things when it comes to immigrant women.

My main problem with this is that it adds another significant financial barrier for immigrant women, since the vaccine is seriously expensive and there is little funding for it. WOC PhD talks more about the history of medical abuses against women of color and her fears about the vaccine.

Thanks to Raquel for the links

Via FoxNews

Beginning in 2010, Alabama, which has the second highest obesity rate in the country, will start charging all of its employees an extra $25 per month for health insurance. (Currently, single workers pay nothing; family plans cost $180 a month.)

But there's a way to avoid the fee: Get a check-up at an in-office "wellness center," where nurses will check for diabetes and hypertension and measure blood pressure, cholesterol, glucose levels and Body Mass Index (BMI).

The idea is to encourage employees to act responsibly, lose weight and lower their health care needs. But critics say it will humiliate and stigmatize obese employees and amounts to nothing short of a "fat tax."

Thanks to reader r_bastet for the link

This one seems like a good news, sketchy news kind of situation to me.

The good news

Local researchers have found that mothers' views about premarital sex don't affect their decisions on whether their pre-teen or teenage daughters should get the vaccine against the sexually transmitted virus that causes cervical cancer.

The survey, by a team at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, appears to refute the perception that mothers who opt against their daughters receiving the vaccine for the human papillomavirus do so because they oppose sex before marriage.

The study's lead author Susan Rosenthal said, "This is a decision about parenting, vulnerability and vaccine attitudes, not sexuality...Mothers who haven't had their daughter vaccinated yet most often said they want more time to learn about the vaccine."

The perhaps-sketch news

The study was in part funded by Merck, the vaccine's manufacturer.

Thoughts?

We've written about the great film At Your Cervix before, but this time we need your help.

The film's director Amy Jo Goddard has written Feministing to let us know that they're trying to get the word out about the project and, of course, need funds in order to do so. Right now, the film is up for up for a $10,000 award on Idea Blob - they're one of eight finalists. So if you like what At Your Cervix is doing, and you want to support Goddard's work, head on over and vote!

After the Red Cross conducted a census of sex workers in an effort to curb the spread of HIV, authorities Bauchi, NIgeria identified 320 women from the study and started to arrest them.

Our correspondent says the Sharia commission seems to have been prompted to act by the perception that it was unable to enforce a ban on commercial sex workers in the state.

The Sharia commission normally liaises with the police, he says, but this time they acted directly, using their own security force to arrest the sex workers.

It is not clear how many of the women have already been arrested.

They could face flogging or prison terms.

Following the arrests, the Red Cross has halted its census.

Horrifying that an attempt to improve women's health could be turned around and used to punish them. What I want to know is how they got a hold of the census?

Thanks to Matt for the link.

According to a new report from the report from the American Psychological Association, abortion does not pose a threat to women's mental health.

Via RMJ at the Community blog.

New research out on postpartum mental illness is making it clear that there may be more serious conditions for new mothers than just postpartum depression.

Post Tramautic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is most commonly associated with combat veterans and victims of violent crime, but medical experts say it also can be brought on by a very painful or complicated labor and delivery in which a woman believes she or her baby might die. Symptoms can include anxiety, flashbacks and a numbness to daily life. Even as medical advances have resulted in many more lives saved during high-risk births, extreme medical interventions can leave a mother severely stressed -- especially if she feels powerless or mistreated by health providers (emphasis mine).

I'm happy that the piece highlights the connection to increased interventions and powerlessness during childbirth. Both of these are seeing a higher incidence as our c-section rate soars and medical interventions become the norm. This isn't just going to have an impact on the babies being born, but the mothers as well.

Cheryl Beck, a professor at the University of Connecticut School of Nursing who researches birth trauma and was an adviser on the Childbirth Connection survey, says the mothers who reported signs of PTSD in the survey appeared to have a higher rate of medical interventions and describe feeling powerless in a threatening environment.

After Janna was so awesome to blog for us from the XVII International AIDS Conference (IAC) this week, the conference comes to a close today, but not without some things to take back with us.

International Planned Parenthood, Young Positives, the UNFPA and the Global Coalition on Women and AIDS collaborated together to release a new guide in an effort to improve HIV prevention among girls and young women.

The guide, "Make It Matter," focuses not only on increasing reproductive and sexual health services for girls and women, but addresses other problems that contribute to millions of women who have HIV every year like socioeconomic status and child marriage. Download the report here.

Contributed by Janna A. Zinzi, Guttmacher Institute

The XVII International AIDS Conference (IAC) officially kicked off on Sunday as 25,000 delegates from all corners of the world descended upon Mexico City for an intensive week of learning, activism and dialogue. My Guttmacher colleague, Joerg, and I arrived a few days before the main event to participate in the aptly-named Fuerza Joven de Mexico (Youth Force of Mexico), a three-day pre-conference gathering for young advocates aimed at raising the visibility of youth HIV/AIDS issues before, during and after the IAC.

More than 300 young people, many connected to international NGOs, make up this vocal coalition promoting youth participation and youth-adult partnerships. Under this year's theme of "Rights, Respect, Responsibility, and Resources," Fuerza Joven's focus is advocating for early, comprehensive, evidence-based sex education to prevent the spread of HIV among young people who make up more than four in 10 new HIV infections. A number of sessions also focused on gender issues as well as the needs of marginalized groups, such as sex workers and gay youth.

Hanaa Rifaey doesn't sleep much. I'll let her explain why. But the next time you find yourself pissed at another policy done wrong, know that Hanaa is on it. And you can be, too. Even if it's a small step, it'll add up.

Here's Hanaa...

A new US/UK study argues that younger women are happier than younger men and older men are happier than older women:

later in life...men come closer than women to fulfilling their material goods and family life aspirations, are more satisfied with their financial situation and family life, and are the happier of the two genders.

This seems dubious to me. Most of the older women I know are really frickin' happy. They've shed their "good girl" conditioning, they don't care as much if they look perfect, and they often have this sort of second lease on life attitude where they try new careers, new places to live, even new partners.

A lot of the older men I know, on the other hand, seem to really struggle when they retire (if they're so lucky) and have to form an identity that's not work-based. I've watched my own dad struggle with this new stage of life. As much as he is enjoying laying on a hammock, reading, taking classes, learning how to cook, he's also really struggled to make meaning out of his new existence. For those who aren't lucky enough to retire, it seems like the work grind can get really, really boring after 40-odd years. In workplaces with age discrimination, these guys can feel pretty pushed out.

And I'm not sure what to make of the younger women being happier part of the argument. I see my friends as pretty equally happy and unhappy, regardless of the gender.

Your thoughts?

Sounds like a stupid question right?

Anyway, I guess I sometimes I call my period my moon (I know, how 70's of me), but I have never called the week before my period "venus week." But according to this new book, the way our hormones are before the week of our period actually has an impact on our behavior. This is a pretty duh statement for most women out there, but I do think it is interesting. Some points in the book.

Women look and feel best when they are most likely to conceive (that's the Venus Week), but it's possible to optimize Venus and other portions of their hormonal cycle.

When estrogen levels are high (during Venus Week) women are more confident, socially agile and at ease; skin and hair looks and feels better too.

Testosterone also peaks during this week, hence the stronger desire for intimacy and heightened libido during these five to seven days.

What I don't think is interesting is when social scientists use research like this to make definitive conclusions in women's behavior. So take it for what it is. Sometimes we like to have more sex before our periods, among other things and you can pretty much assume that is not true for everyone and certainly not all the time.

Other problems with this type of research that I am overlooking?

Via.

Thomas Beattie, the pregnant trans man who made headlines recently after an appearance on Oprah and an article for the advocate, just gave birth last month.

You can see the video from the Good Morning America segment here.

In the category of shameless self-promotion, check out my feature over at RH Reality Check on the myth of the elective c-section.

When the media covers the rising rate of c-section, it's often ready to lay the blame at the feet of a woman we've come to know well over the last few years -- the busy career mom scheduling her delivery between important business deals, penciling in labor and delivery the way she pencils in a client meeting. As criticism of surgical birth mounts, the idea that mother-initiated c-sections are spurring an overall increase in the practice has only become more popular.

Sitting in on the interview with creators of the Midwest Teen Sex Show. They are awesome. When asked why they started MTSS they said, "We started by doing something that was funny and entertain ourselves." It has turned into one of the most effective forms of harm reduction around young people and sex, along with educational and honest.

The moderator asks, "Why is humor so effective in trying to reach this audience?" They reply, "Sex is funny, repackaging info in a way people will listen. Not talking down to kids (and sometimes) we are making fun of them. We are building a relationship with youth through humor."

In my opinion everything should have more humor and MTSS is a great use of humor while putting out information for young people around sex and sexuality. Because of the nature of their content they have gotten negative feedback along with positive, but hey, isn't is always like that.

When asked about their favorite episode they chose this the older boyfriend.

They also gave a Feministing shout out from the stage! Thanks Nikol and Guy. We love you!

Gee, I wonder why. It's actually quite serious, the cases of melanoma - the deadliest form of skin cancer - among young white women jumped 50 percent from 1980-2004.

The researchers recommended that more studies be conducted to find out if changes among sun exposure or increased tanning bed usage have a hand in this. I'd say that's a really good idea.

You know we have a serious problem when women are sacrificing their health for the sake of attaining their beauty standard.

*Photo from People magazine.

Are we really surprised?

Planned Parenthood of Central Washington was scheduled to hold an event at a local Wal-Mart on National HIV Testing Day where their Teen Council were simply going to stand outside of the store and hand out information about HIV prevention and testing. But the American Life League got a tip on the event, and urged their supporters to call and complain to the store, after which Wal-Mart succumbed and canceled the event.

You know, because handing out preventative information that saves people's lives is just so not okay. American Life League's statement is horrific, and conveniently makes no mention of what the event was actually for:

“Planned Parenthood is now in such desperate need of customers it’s willing to do anything – even stand outside shopping centers to lure young people into its clinics,” said Marie Hahnenberg, a researcher for American Life League.

"They’re pushing pornography and contraception onto young children – beginning in kindergarten. Now parents aren’t even safe to go shopping without worrying Planned Parenthood will pressure their kids into promiscuous lifestyles that will increase their bloated birth control and abortion profits,” Hahnenberg said.

I just love it when they equate pro-choicers with pushers and pimps. (And on 5 year olds, no less. They're big money, I tell ya!) This is the kind of shit that reminds me just how fucking insane these people are. Their supporters who called Walmart - and Walmart itself - should be ashamed that they believed these horrid lies and, in Planned Parenthood's words, "put the wishes of extremists ahead of crucial community health information that empowers people to make responsible choices."

Call Walmart at 509-628-8420 and let them know just how wrong they were.

I wanted to write a post about how annoyed I am about Midol's "Reverse the Curse" commercials. (Seriously, the curse?) But I couldn't turn up any videos on the damn internets. What I did find however, was this commercial from about 10 years ago that is a damn lot more progressive than the commercials the product has now.

It also fit very nicely into one of the double standards I talk about in my book (shameless plug alert!): "He's Angry, She's PMSing." Indeed.

So, dear readers, where are the cool progressive ads about women's health? Why are we stuck with curses and fish references? Please, if you find any cool, funny ads - send them my way!

Alternet has a piece up on insomnia in women (originally printed at Ms. magazine) that I found pretty interesting. I've actually suffered from horrible insomnia since I was a kid, and it was only recently (though the miracle of Melatonin) that I started sleeping through the night. I never knew how much getting a real night's sleep could change your life.

Any one with sleep problems want to weigh in?

Via RH Reality Check and the Big Push for Midwives:

Steff Hedenkamp, Communications Coordinator for The Big Push for Midwives says, "Maternity care is a multi-billion dollar industry in the United States. So it's no surprise to see the AMA join the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in its ongoing fight to corner the market and ensure that the only midwives able to practice legally are hospital-based midwives forced to practice under physician control. I will say, though, that I'm shocked to learn that the AMA is taking this turf battle to the next level by setting the stage for outlawing home birth itself-a direct attack on those families who choose home birth, who could be subject to criminal prosecution if the AMA has its way."

Apparently Ricki Lake and her new hit documentary the Business of Being Born might be partially to blame. With the soaring costs of maternity care, the further increasing c-section rate and our not-so-great maternal mortality rate, it's no surprise that birth activists and mothers are up in arms about this.

UPDATE: You can read the text of the resolution here.

Fun facts about your clitoris:

• The clitoris rivals the penis in size.
• "The vaginal wall is, in fact, the clitoris."
• "If you lift the skin off the vagina on the side walls, you get the bulbs of the clitoris - triangular, crescental masses of erectile tissue."
• [T]he clitoris is more than just its glans - the "little hill"
• "There's nothing quite like the shape of a clitoris."
• "The glans are dense with nerve endings and receptors - all the vibration and sensation is there."
• The bulk of it is shaped like a pyramid.
• Its base forms the external genitalia or vulva; its triangular "walls" are wrapped around the urine-carrying tube known as the urethra and the vagina.
• When aroused, the whole structure becomes engorged.
• "They're designed to stimulate a much larger area."

No wonder, after reading this, Andrew Sullivan claims "clitoris envy."

Click here for an extremely educational video on the clitoris (internal and external).

The following was written by a good friend of mine about her experiences with vulvodynia, otherwise known as really bad, unexplained pain in your vagina. She wanted to write this anonymously, for obvious reasons ... like the fact that her treatment involved something called the "Ballsy Supercock." OK, seriously, this is an important women's health issue, and I urge you all to read her words. --Ann

I was always prone to yeast infections, so when the vaginal pain started, about a year and a half ago, I assumed that was what it was. The opening of my vagina was too raw for sex, and riding my bike was painful, too; any pressure made it feel like there was a sharp blade under my skin. I bought Monistat and treated it and thought nothing of it - until it didn't stop. About a month later, I finally went to my gynecologist, who told me I didn't have a yeast infection, and in fact she didn't know what I had, but I should just keep wearing cotton underpants and washing after I swam or had sex. Time passed, while I spent an inordinate amount of money on CVS yeast infection medication, but the pain never went fully away. After another six months or so, I went back to the doctor, who poked at my vulva with a Q-Tip and, when I almost jumped out of the stirrups with pain, told me I might have vulvar vestibulitis.

Vulvar vestibulitis is a form of vulvodynia, the umbrella term for "unexplained but really bad vaginal pain." It's characterized by burning pain and inflammation in the vaginal region due to a hugely increased development of nerve endings, sometimes - but not always -- traceable to an initial irritant (like, for example, over-the-counter yeast infection medication). It is very poorly understood and commonly misdiagnosed. Of the 13 million American women (that's one out of six!) who experience vulvodynia every year, it's estimated that half don't even know what they have. These numbers are particularly maddening given how debilitating the condition can be: Women with really bad vulvodynia can become unable to walk, wear pants, or sit without pain, and it can last for years or even for a lifetime. Imagine, by contrast, how the medical community would approach a disorder that made any friction unbearably painful for one in six penises.

That's right, spitting.

An HIV-positive man convicted of spitting into the eye and mouth of a Dallas police officer has been sentenced to 35 years in prison.

Because a jury found that Willie Campbell used his saliva as a deadly weapon, the 42-year-old will have to serve half his sentence before becoming eligible for parole. He was sentenced Wednesday.

Gross and assaulting? Definitely. But a deadly weapon?! Didn't we debunk the HIV-saliva thing like a millions years ago?

Thanks to Auden for the link.

The New York Times had a piece yesterday about the "Mad Pride" movement, featuring writer Liz Spikol, who discusses and writes about mental health issues and her experiences with bipolar disorder on YouTube and her blog, The Trouble with Spikol. Here's one of Spikol's videos:

Anyone have more to weigh in and/or experience with the movement?

Thanks to Lauren for the link.

Last week Public Citizen petitioned the FDA to ban Ortho Evra, the birth control patch, stating

the amount of estrogen released from the Ortho-Evra patch varies widely among individual women, and those who absorb too much were at greater risk for blood clots and and other painful side effects.

"The considerable safety concern of high-dose, variable estrogen exposure tips the balance of risks and benefits against the availability of Ortho-Evra as a contraceptive," wrote Sidney Wolfe, head of the research group.

This is just the most recent move in a long history of controversy over the patch. And looking back over the Feministing reader birth control poll, some of you out there are using it. Personally, I used the patch for 6 months when it was first released, to very mixed results.

What do you all think about the possible ban? The FDA is unlikely to do anything, they contend that the risks are well known, and properly disclosed. Is banning Ortho Evra the right move?

Judy Norsigian is co-founder of the Boston Women's Health Book Collective and co-author of the ground breaking Our Bodies, Ourselves published in 1970. Since its publication, women's groups around the world have developed cultural adaptations of, or other publications inspired by, Our Bodies, Ourselves. Most recently, women's groups in Albania, Russia, South Korea, and Tibet have produced new publications in book and other formats. Judy is also the co-author of Our Bodies, Ourselves: Menopause and most recently, Our Bodies, Ourselves: Pregnancy and Birth. Check out the Our Bodies, Ourselves blog when you can: http://ourbodiesourblog.org/

Judy speaks and writes frequently on a wide range of women's health concerns, including abortion and contraception, sexually transmitted infections, genetics and reproductive technologies, tobacco and women, women and health care reform, and midwifery advocacy.

Here's Judy...