Recently in Health care Category

Courtney mentioned in yesterday's What We Missed that the Senate HCR bill does not have the same vicious right-wing vitriol of the Stupak-Coathanger Amendment. mcjoan at DailyKos has a full break down of some of the key provisions in the Capp Amendment which is replacing the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Tracy-Flora Clark at Broadsheet tells us,

The key details of the Senate bill are as follows: Both public and private plans are allowed to offer abortion coverage. It empowers consumers to use government subsidies to purchase insurance that covers abortion, but requires that their premiums (and not federal funds) pay for the actual procedures. The Health and Human Services Secretary is charged with evaluating plans to ensure that taxpayers do not pay for abortions. And, while the bill requires at least one plan in each state to cover abortion, it also includes a conscience clause stating that healthcare providers cannot "be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness ... to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions."

This move is a much better option, although as mcjoan mentions it feels hard to celebrate the continuation of the Hyde Amendment, but it is not as aggressive as the Stupak-Pitt Amendment. Our reproductive rights will be used as bargaining chips and some are saying it is unlikely that Stupak will be in the final version of the Bill.

But to prepare for any impending disaster, There will be a National Day of Action on December 2nd in D.C., along with a November 21st Rally in PA, November 23rd in DC and December 4th through NOW-NY to stand up against the Stupak-Pitt Amendment.

Leave any actions near you in comments.

Related:

Study: Stupak will end abortion coverage "for all women"
From Hyde to Stupak, over 30 years of limiting access to abortion
Beyond Stupak: The next phase of the abortion debate
Whose health care victory?

Yes, I'm aware that rotary phones are largely a thing of the past, but I still have affinity for them after growing up with one that looks just like this (but was a horribly awesome beige color).

Today and Thursday evening from 6 to 9 PM EST, NARAL Pro-Choice New York is holding phone banks to call in Senators in battle ground states and ensure the Stupak amendment won't be in the Senate bill or the final health care reform bill.

The great thing is that you do NOT have to be in New York to join the phone banks - all you need is internet and a phone and the folks over at NARAL Pro-Choice New York will guide you through it.

Email their awesome Community Organizer Lalena Howard to sign up.

In a letter to the editor of The Washington Post last week, Bart Stupak and Joe Pitts bit back at the critics of their anti-choice amendment:

We are not looking to restrict access to abortion, only to preserve the right of conscience for the more than 70 percent of Americans who believe that no federal funds should subsidize abortions or plans that include abortion.

The deal is, Pitts and Stupak (and those who voted for their amendment) are singly-handedly undermining the precedents and policies that abortion rights stands on. No one's human rights should be determined by a roll-call vote or be at the mercy of the latest public-opinion poll.

It is high time that Americans have a real conversation about abortion rights that goes beyond endangering a mother's life, incest and rape. I am confident that feminists would be able to move the barometer of the public's resolve on abortion legality to economic grounds, resulting in no woman being forced to give birth to a child she cannot afford -- and further protecting the right to privacy. This strategy would enable us to call attention to the infamous TRAP laws that lead to clinics being slapped with regulations that make it financially prohibitive to provide abortion services. It would also allow us to make progress in the overall conversation and even restore economic policies that make it difficult for women to parent the children they already have.

It is true that this strategy would not get at, in its entirety, the fundamental reason why abortion rights have been a cornerstone of the feminist movement: that women have a fundamental right to decide what is best for their bodies, regardless of their reasoning. But mark my words: Economic justice will be the path to protecting women's rights in the next phase of the debate.

This afternoon, I participated in a conference call with Loretta Ross, National Coordinator of SisterSong Reproductive Health Collective on the notorious Stupak Amendment. I have known her for years and she has mentored me from fledgling feminist thought to where I am today. I hopped on the call while my head was still reeling from the auctioning of women's rights on Saturday. But hearing the voice of Loretta, a woman who once regaled me with stories about her days tracking extremist hate groups in the South, made everything all right. She is that elder feminist that puts her hand on your shoulder and makes you feel like the impossible is in reach.

What I admire most about Loretta Ross is that preserving and restoring women's human rights is central to her analysis. "Health care," she said "is not an option, not a privilege -- but a human right." She described Stupak's amendment as "a loss and injury to the human rights of women" and referred all members on the call to The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was adopted by the U.S. government in 1948. Articles 12, 16 and 18 discuss privacy, the right to find a family and the right to "manifest faith" as one sees fit -- all tenets that Stupak ignored. This isn't just a document that has shaped America's Bill of Rights. In it lies the ethics that encompass what Obama has referred to as the character of our country. "This frame of human rights," Loretta argues, "has potential for feminists to situate women at the center of the debate allowing us to call attention to our rights to our body and control over our money."

But it wouldn't have been a feminist call without a few words on the opposition's framing. First, it was the Christian Right's seemingly contradictory statements about the $1.1 trillion for health care as excessive while stressing the value of human life. Loretta summed up the ironic logic of abortion rights opponents, "You can't put a price on a human life, but you can put a price on a human right?" Then she anguished over some lawmakers calling the bill "a benefit to all Americans." She asked, "Aren't women Americans, too?"

In the end, she had no negative sentiment towards Obama, who in recent days has voiced dissatisfaction with the Stupak Amendment. But she maintains that this has got to be an approach from the bottom-up. "Sending an e-mail," she said, "may not establish a long-term relationship that will allow us to advance the agenda for women's rights." Of the hundreds of protesters affiliated with SisterSong who banded together on Saturday in DC to oppose the bill, "70 percent made advocacy visits," she said. The callers agreed that a reenactment of 2004's March for Women's Lives may very well be on the table.

I have been thinking a lot about what it takes to sensitize non-feminist folk to issues that have broad implications for women. I attend school in Michigan, where Dave Camp, Vernon Ehlers, Fred Upton, Bart Stupak, Candice Miller, Thaddeus MCotter, Dale Kilder and Peter Hoekstra all voted to write women out of affordable health care this week.

How do you talk to gender skeptics about feminism? Is abortion the place to start? Is there a feminist warm-up issue that is domestic in nature that the general public would agree is a clear manifestation of sexism? Is conversion the ultimate goal? How do you talk about these issues while also acknowledging that even though you are a feminist, you may not have the full truth on feminism, and that your feminism grows, evolves and even adapts?

I wrote the following column on the health care debate as a starting point to appeal to students, faculty and residents in the broader Michigan area:

*** *** ***

If you have been even halfway plugged to the healthcare debate this week, chances are you have caught wind that many women and their allies are not happy about the recent bill. H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed with a vote of 220-215 this past Saturday night. It is an achievement insofar as policymaking occurs at the speed of molasses and we finally have a health reform bill -- that includes a public option, ends pre-existing condition discrimination and extends healthcare to 36 million Americans -- that has been punted to the Senate. But one small step for healthcare reform has meant one giant leap back for womankind.

I've already ranted against the Stupak amendment, but now I'm going to take a deep breath and look at some of the positive things included in the House health reform bill. The bill:

• Expands Medicaid "to reach a wider range of poor households up to 150% of the federal poverty level. 36M additional Americans will now be eligible for Medicaid."
• Bars discrimination in health care on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation.
• Acknowledges LGBTQ Americans are a population likely to "experience significant gaps in disease, health outcomes, or access to health care." This will hopefully ensure that LGBTQ people are included in future data collection, and that grant programs will focus on their specific health needs.
• Ends the "unfair practice of taxing employer-provided domestic partner health benefits, allowing thousands upon thousands of LGBT people to obtain domestic partner health benefits for their partners and families without having to pay a tax penalty through the nose."
• Allows states to cover early HIV treatment under their Medicaid programs. (Currently, states are only allowed to use Medicaid money for patients with full-blown AIDS.)
• Funds comprehensive sex-ed programs.

I'm sure you've heard by now that, last night, the House passed a health-care reform bill. I got this lovely email from Barack Obama telling me what a victory this is:

This evening, at 11:15 p.m., the House of Representatives voted to pass their health insurance reform bill. Despite countless attempts over nearly a century, no chamber of Congress has ever before passed comprehensive health reform. This is history.

But you and millions of your fellow Organizing for America supporters didn't just witness history tonight -- you helped make it. ... You stood up. You spoke up. And you were heard.

Actually, I wasn't heard. Because I think I made pretty damn clear (as did Obama, in several speeches during the campaign) that reproductive health care is essential health care.

So what the FUCK is this Stupak amendment doing attached to the health-reform bill? You know, that amendment that takes away women's access to health care? It reads:

The amendment will prohibit federal funds for abortion services in the public option. It also prohibits individuals who receive affordability credits from purchasing a plan that provides elective abortions. However, it allows individuals, both who receive affordability credits and who do not, to separately purchase with their own funds plans that cover elective abortions. It also clarifies that private plans may still offer elective abortions.

THIS IS FUCKED. [Update: A few more details at LGM.] NARAL for has more, as does Amanda.

As Sarah Jaffe put it, "Bart Stupak thinks he knows what I can do with my body. And Congress is voting to let him make that choice." A full 64 Democrats voted to take away your right to medical care. Shocker of shockers, they're all the vast majority are dudes. A couple of them are even men who have claimed to be pro-choice.

Writes Pilgrim Soul,

Charmingly I expect that in the next few days all your liberal dude friends will be trying to explain to you that this is really no big deal, look, they had to get the Republicans/"Democrats" onboard SOMEHOW, this is just a battle but we won the war, etc etc.

Actually, they'll be explaining that it's not a big deal because the Stupak amendment can be stripped out by the conference committee (which I very much hope it will, but am not holding my breath) and because there are potential loopholes (though I have yet to hear a convincing one).

On some level, I don't care about the nitty-gritty details of this amendment. This isn't just about how the money is allocated or what workarounds exist. This has me so incredibly infuriated because it further segregates abortion as something different, off the menu of regular health care. It is a huge backward step in the battle to convey -- not just politically, but to women in their everyday lives -- that reproductive health care is normal and necessary, and must be there if (or, more accurately, when) you need it.

This also sets apart women's rights from the Democratic/progressive/whatever agenda. As something expendable. But fundamental rights for women are not peripheral. They are core. And not just because of so-called "progressive" values. In a political sense, too: Seeing as how the Democratic party relies on women voters to win elections, you would think they would have come around to this no-brainer by now.

It's pretty fucking cramped underneath this bus, what with 50% of Americans down here.

And now, lest we get too depressed, a few next steps:

• Obama is probably asking you for money, too. Send a check to a pro-choice group instead. (Perhaps a check to Planned Parenthood, in Bart Stupak's name?


• Work on overturning the Hyde Amendment


• Ask a pro-choice woman to run for office

Other suggestions?

UPDATE: Go read Shark-Fu.

UPDATE II: The Washington Post reports,

But abortion-rights supporters are vowing to strip the amendment out, as the focus turns to the Senate and the conference committee that would resolve differences between the two bills.

Although House liberals voted for the bill with the amendment to keep the process moving forward, Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.) said she has collected more than 40 signatures from House Democrats vowing to oppose any final bill that includes the amendment -- enough to block passage.

"There's going to be a firestorm here," DeGette said. "Women are going to realize that a Democratic-controlled House has passed legislation that would prohibit women paying for abortions with their own funds. . . . We're not going to let this into law."

On Saturdays, I am Professor Foxy, but the rest of the week I do federal level advocacy focused on improving the health of LGBT people. This Saturday, the House of Representatives has a historic opportunity to do just that by passing its reform bill, the Affordable Health Care for America Act (H.R. 3962), TOMORROW, November 7. We have never come this far before - this is our chance to help make history!

It is crucial for the LGBT community that this bill passes with a strong majority. The House bill includes numerous provisions that are key to the health and well-being of our community, including:

• a strong public option that greatly expands coverage


• data collection that includes sexual orientation and gender identity


• strict prohibitions on discrimination in health care and insurance coverage

Our community is the under- and uninsured. We are seniors and youth, women, people of color, immigrants, people living with HIV and AIDS, and transgender people. We are too often discriminated against by insurance companies and health care providers and denied the care that we need. The status quo harms our community and our families, and we deserve better.

Tell your Representatives to pass LGBT-inclusive health care reform NOW. CALL Your Representatives using the toll-free number 1-877-264-HCAN (1-877-264-4226) and ask them to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act. You can also email them through the House's web site. Speak up today for LGBT-inclusive health care reform. Let's fulfill the promise of real reform by making our voices heard about the future of health care in America.

Champions of Sexual Literacy Honorees: Richard Garcia, Cecile Richards and Rose Afriyie

Last week, I got the chance to be honored at the National Sexuality Resource Center's (NSRC) Champions of Sexual Literacy Dinner following in the footsteps of my amazing mentor Samhita. This year, the main honoree was powerhouse sexuality-rights advocate Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PP). From afar, she had this elegance to her that was really alluring. When I first arrived, she was knee deep in a conversation with an ambassador. It seemed that the entire room occasionally glanced at her, the woman at the helm of perhaps the only woman's rights organization left that is a household name no matter one's race, class, or gender.

In her acceptance speech, she recognized the efforts of young women and young educators. She described the award as "a reflection of the thousands of teen sex educators across the country." She identified them as crucial to political gains and referenced the 3,000 young people that advocated through PP in their community for sex education this September. Her closing was the most interesting to me. She spoke about an African American male who was a prominent sexual health educator in Anacostia in Washington, DC. She recognized his courage as he educated in a community with high incidence rates of HIV and chlamydia amidst financial hardships during the Bush years. She ended by mourning the possibility of what this man could have done with just a drop of abstinence-only money. While drawing attention to young people's political action is something that I am gladly starting to see more of in woman's rights circles, it is all too rare. Somehow, this woman's rights organization that centers it's mission on delivering medical services, administering education, and advocating for public policy still finds a way to prioritize women while highlighting the efforts of men of color in reproductive equality.This is progress in a world where many feminist organizations struggle to include young people, men, and people of color in a way that is meaningful.

Later, I had the chance to sit down with Cecile to talk about the health care debate and women's reproductive health care generally. For ten minutes we gabbed about the role of Planned Parenthood in the health care debate, the current status of abortion in negotiations, staying encouraged despite gender discrimination and what's next on the agenda after health care reform. It was as revealing as it was encouraging. So here's the recap:

Peggy Robertson was denied insurance coverage because she previously had a c-section. But her super kind and thoughtful insurance company told her that if she got sterilized, they would give her coverage. Seriously.

Another video about Robertson's story after the jump.

Breastcancer.org performed polling on more than 3,000 young women between 8 and 18 from Philadelphia, Atlanta, Baltimore, and Los Angeles, to determine fears of breast cancer among pre-mammogram-age women.

The survey found that 31% of these young women mistook a sign of normal breast development as a symptom of breast cancer - even though breast cancer in young women is exceedingly rare. The survey also indicated that 67% of these young women had a relative or close acquaintance with breast cancer.

In fact, this correlates to a change in women's health care that I have experienced: some medical practices now recommend that young patients cease self-examination for breast cancer, because of the false positives and ensuing fear.

Meanwhile, the National Breast Cancer Foundation maintains:

"Nearly 70% of all breast cancers are found through self-exams and with early detection the 5-year survival rate is 98%. If you find a lump, schedule an appointment with your doctor, but don't panic--8 out of 10 lumps are not cancerous. For additional peace of mind, call your doctor whenever you have concerns."

The exception appears to apply to young women. Have you had any experience with this change of message?

With Olympia Snowe's surprise vote this week during the passing of the Senate Finance Committee's health care reform legislation, conservative pundits are taking any sexist shots they can at a woman with power who, like, uses it. Media Matters has a good round up, which are pretty ridiculous:

Savage dubs Snowe "Jezebel." After airing a clip of Snowe discussing her vote, Savage played a portion of the song "Jezebel" by Frankie Laine that included the lyrics, "If ever the devil was born without a pair of horns, it was you. Jezebel, it was you." Savage added, "Jezebel is Olympia Snowe. Of course she has thrown over with the turncoats who have stabbed America in the back, dragging us into a socialized medical system against the will of the majority of the American people." [Talk Radio Network's The Savage Nation, 10/13/09]

Limbaugh: The "voice of the new castrati, those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage" applaud Snowe for health care reform support. Anticipating that Snowe was "going to vote yes" on the Finance Committee's health care reform bill, Limbaugh attacked Snowe by praising the "bipartisanship" of the bill using "the voice of the new castrati." Limbaugh described the "new castrati" as "those who have lost all manhood, gonads, guts, and courage throughout our culture and our political system." Limbaugh has previously described the "new castrati" as supporters of Hillary Clinton. [Premiere Radio Networks' The Rush Limbaugh Show, 10/13/09]

Not to mention Jim Quinn dedicated the Garbage song, "Stupid Girl" to Snowe and Limbaugh referred to Snowe and Sen. Susan Collins by saying, "'Women, damn it.'"

And I doubt this is the end of it. Misogynists, damn it.

Just when you think that insurance companies can't get any lower than scum on this whole pre-existing condition mess, think again. As we've posted before, several states allow for domestic violence to be listed as a pre-existing condition. Some recent data (also in the link) reports:

An informal survey by the House Judiciary Committee in 1994 found that half of the 16 largest insurers in the country considered domestic violence in deciding whether to approve health coverage. The Pennsylvania insurance Department reported a year or so later that nearly one out of four insurance companies factored in domestic violence when deciding whether to issue or renew policies.

Ryan Grim at Huff Po has updates on the measures that some state reps have taken to stamp out this kind of discrimination. He also sums the issue up here:

Under the cold logic of the insurance industry, it makes perfect sense: If you are in a marriage with someone who has beaten you in the past, you're more likely to get beaten again than the average person and are therefore more expensive to insure.

In human terms, it's a second punishment for a victim of domestic violence.

I wonder what else we don't know that counts against us as women. Talk about a double disadvantage. The good news? Democrats have vowed to ban on the practice in the health care reform legislation.

I wrote about this group when they first got started, but I continue to be impressed by what the Young Invincibles are doing to send the message that folks of our generation (18 to 34 year olds) care about health care reform, and have a lot at stake in the debate.

Michelle's story is one of the many the Young Invincibles are bringing to the conversation.

They are organizing events all around the country for folks of our generation to push the health care conversation. There is a lobby day in DC next week on Tuesday October 13, and there are more events and ideas for getting involved here.

From the Lake Powell Chronicle:

Joy Szabo, 32, said she is upset with Page Hospital's general ruling in June prohibiting vaginal births after cesareans (VBAC). The mother of three children, she has given birth to all of her children at Page Hospital, the only hospital in the immediate area. A placenta eruption caused her to have an emergency cesarean delivering her second child, but the hospital allowed her third child to be delivered naturally two years ago.

Now pregnant with her fourth child, she is being forced to have a cesarean due to lack of hospital staffing.

The International Cesarean Awareness Network reports that over 31% of US births are now by cesarean section, although a 5% to 10% rate is best for mothers and babies. The extra cost is well over $2.5 billion per year.

Szabo has argued for her point-of-view--that the method of delivery is a birthing woman's right to choose--at a board of directors meeting and has met twice with Chief Executive Officer Sandy Haryasz, who claims that the choice is strictly economic (not enough physicians). So far, there's no progress.

Szabo's husband, Jeff, put it in big picture perspective: "My wife's plight is indicative of the health-care system in the U.S. They make money off of people's suffering. Consequently, medical care is dictated by cost and insurance companies and not by what's best for the patient." I system, I would add, that often hinders women from birthing babies in a way that feels right, dignified, personal to them. Not to mention honoring reproductive justice as a fundamental human right, in general.

Thanks to rissa523 for the heads up.

Campus Progress, those clever kids, have launched a campaign to get young activists to send an e-card to their grandparents about health care reform. You get to be a good citizen and a good grandchild in one fell swoop.

Go here to participate.

As you may have noticed, right now there's some major political wrangling going on over health reform. Not only has the public option been jettisoned, but news broke today that anti-choice Democrats are really upset at the prospect of low- and moderate-income women receiving federal subsidies to access insurance plans that cover abortion.

Rather than declare his support reproductive health coverage, Obama is basically telling congressional Democrats, "Hey, work it out amongst yourselves."

Meanwhile,

Abortion-rights supporters say such a restriction would all but eliminate from the marketplace private plans that cover the procedure, pushing women who have such coverage to give it up. Nearly half of those with employer-sponsored health plans now have policies that cover abortion, according to a study by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

Needless to say, this would be a really bad scene.

NARAL and Planned Parenthood have action alerts to keep Congress from using health reform to decrease women's reproductive health access.

For more on why abortion rights are important in health reform, read my colleague Dana Goldstein.

Kate Marsh, 27, is the Public Liaison Officer for Children by Choice, a pro-choice organization in Queensland, Australia. Children by Choice is a small organization that, in addition to advocating for reproductive rights, also offers pregnancy counseling.

In the last few months, Queensland's abortion laws have been thrust into the spotlight, thanks in large part to the case of Tegan Leach, a 19-year-old Queensland woman who is being charged for self-inducing a medical abortion using drugs bought overseas. Her boyfriend, who helped her procure the drugs, is also being charged.

The case has brought much-needed attention to the fact that despite the relatively common occurrence of abortion in Australia (in 2002, 25.2% of Australian pregnancies ended in abortion, which is comparable to the US's 24.5% in 2001), there are in fact very few circumstances under which abortion is legal in Australia. And as Marsh notes, the Leach case has led to a decrease in access as doctors around the country, fearing, criminal prosecution, have ceased to provide some forms of abortion.

As an Australian who has always understood the abortion debate in my homeland to be barely-existent, and Australian women's rights to be secure, the case has been eye-opening and upsetting. However, it was a pleasure to interview Ms. Marsh, who has been an outspoken advocate for legislative change on these issues. You'll notice that throughout the interview, I've had to engage in a small amount of cultural translation in order to make Marsh understood to Feministing's mostly American audience. Also, you may also notice that I've stubbornly used Australian spelling for this interview - just this one - in Ms. Marsh's honour.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Kate Marsh.

Via Wonkroom's Twitterfeed, a quote from the health care reform hearings and mark-up:

[US Senator John] Kyl: "I don't need maternity care" in my benefits package. [US Senator Debbie] Stabenow fires back: "I think your mom probably did."

For serious.

Video after the jump.

Sometimes you need a little humor and sarcasm during this health care debacle.

Via the Nation

If you are under 21 today, you have a 50% chance of losing your health care coverage in the next decade.

Health care coverage matters. It matters to the country, to progressives, to feminists, but especially to young people. We're the least likely to be covered, and the most likely to end up changing the course of our lives because of health care related debt. This is serious folks.

We need to do something, because our chance at real health care reform that could free our generation from the chains of shitty health care coverage we can only get at certain places of employment is quickly slipping away.

Now is the time Feministing. Now is the time.

I was pretty halfheartedly watching the health care speech last night while dreaming of Canadian health care, but there were definitely some poignant discussion points including the distracting shout-out by Joe Wilson calling Obama a "liar." The Huffington Post has a full transcript.

Thoughts?

Additional Links:

Op-Ed News on the Racial Context of Joe Wilson's Outburst.
Amanda on the right-wing reaction.
Crooks and Liars on Boustany's rebuttal (haha!).
From the Prospect Dana on Immigration and Health Care reform and Tim Fernholz on the success of his speech.

Welcome to the Feministing Five for another week. This week, I put our five tough questions (OK, four tough questions and one fun one) to Cristina Page. Page, a seriously impressive woman, is the author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America, and is moderator of the RH Reality Check series On Common Ground. She also writes the blog Birth Control Watch where she recently interviewed Congressman Tim Ryan (D-OH) on his unique position as a pro-life and pro-contraception political leader.

Page is particularly interested in the population of which Ryan is the most prominent member: the overlap between the 51% of Americans who classify themselves as pro-life, and the 60% of Americans who don't want to see Roe v. Wade overturned. Page believes that those Americans, and their leaders, like Ryan, and the members of the diverse coalition she has assembled at On Common Ground, are our best hope for a chance at a real discussion about how to reduce the need for abortion, while simultaneously protecting women's rights and access to abortion and other vital reproductive services.

And now, without further ado, the Feministing Five, with Cristina Page.

Randall Terry is at it again. The founder of anti-choice extremist group Operation Rescue who said the late Dr. George Tiller "reaped what he sowed" as well as launched a terrifying and violence-inducing campaign against Sonia Sotomayor, has been going on a completely bizarre and batshit crazy road show tour. Joe from Amplify has more:

Yesterday, the freakshow went to Louisville, KY, where Terry performed a "skit" with two "actors". Dressed as a doctor (after stabbing a baby doll), he stabbed someone playing an old women in the neck, with a sign behind him reading "Obama death-care. One dead patient at a time." He then shook the hand of a white guy in an Obama mask over the woman on the ground.

While many folks are seeing this just as a silly act by a crazy man, Joe reminds us that this is no laughing matter; Terry and his organization will try to incite violence if they get the chance. And with the removal of federal Marshall protection from Dr. Leroy Carhart and his Nebraska clinic, Operation Rescue's intentions to "keep it closed" (referring to Carhart's intentions to re-open Tiller's clinic in Kansas) could ensue some serious shit this weekend when they'll be protesting.

The good news is that local NOW chapters and other activists in the Nebraska and Kansas area will be holding huge counter-protests. So if you're in or around these areas this weekend, be sure to get involved. If not, contact Attorney General Eric Holder and demand that they reinstate Marshall protection over Dr. Carhart at 202-353-1555.

Via Feministe.

The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation,(not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente) just released a state-by-state review of women's health services health providers are allowed to deny, including contraception, sterilization, and abortion. Albeit with incomplete data, Kaiser alleges that only 7 states have no restrictions on these women's services.

Working with this data, and data from OpenSecrets.org on campaign contributions to Congress, I compiled a data table.

Findings:

Women are less likely to be uninsured than men.

There is no U.S. state where a higher percentage of women are uninsured. The general assumption attributes this to higher Medicare and government program eligibility among women; women are more likely to be below the poverty line, and thus qualify for these services. As of 2007, 56.6% of Medicare recipients nationwide were women. But in reality, there is a very weak correlation (.23) between women's Medicare enrollment and uninsured rates.

The higher percentage of 2008 votes for Obama, the lower the state's death rate from cervical cancer.

Erica Sackin from Planned Parenthood of NYC has a piece up on Rh Reality Check on the history of intrauterine devices (IUDs) and why some misinformed doctors are refusing to insert them:

1. S/he might still be reading old research.. It's possible that your doctor simply isn't familiar with the latest research or is following older clinical protocols.
2. S/he might think it'll be too difficult. It's also possible that your provider is under the impression that an IUD isn't possible to insert into a woman who hasn't had children because their cervix and uterus hasn't yet had to expand for childbirth. This also doesn't mean you can't insert an IUD into a woman who hasn't had children, it just means it might be a little more difficult. Plus, it's different for every woman -- our providers have sometimes had an easier time inserting a device into a woman who's never had children than one who's had four children.
3. They might be worried about STDs. Since IUDs don't protect against STDs, some providers might be hesitant to give them to women who aren't married or in serious, long-term monogamous relationships. It goes without saying that while you should always be safe and protect yourself against STDs, this isn't a reason for a provider to refuse an insertion.

Check it. I've been thinking about getting Paraguard; hormones effect me much more strongly now compared to when I was on the pill in college, so I thought this would be a good alternative. Anyone have IUD experiences to share?

I've spent a lot of time lobbying for health care reform, but it occurred to me that I haven't spent much time explaining some of the reasons why. 'Tis time to put a dash of the personal on top of all that activism!

Ahem.

Shall we?

I've got several personal health care stories, but I'd like to share one about my brother today. As some of you know, my older brother Bill is autistic. He's aphasic and that, along with his autism, made for many a misdiagnosis when he was a child. Bill wasn't diagnosed as autistic until he was around seven years old and all the doctors weren't on the same page about that diagnosis until he turned nine.

I'm the youngest of three siblings so I've spent my entire life with autism in my world. That has some serious benefits...I have a deep appreciation of the gift of easy communication and the amazing variety of ways there are to communicate. But it also has some serious challenges...like the vocal ignorance of others, media that could give a damn other than to lament how fucking awful my life and my brother's life must be (um, NOT!) and a health care system that is stuck in the 1960s regarding providing coverage for autism and to autistic people.

We often fail to truly see what we experience every day. I'm guilty of that regarding my family's experience trying to get my brother diagnosed and trying to figure out how to get him what he needs to live a fulfilled happy life. My sister and I grew up knowing that we would one day have to take the reins of my brother's care. My parents divorced...our father passed away in 1998...and my mother, long blamed for my brother's condition by clergy and physicians and far too many others, is emotionally incapable of continuing her role as my brother's champion. So, in 2002 I moved back home to St. Louis Missouri to become co-guardian of my brother with my sister...and I came face to face with the reality of trying to get basic health care for my brother.

39 years ago my parent's faced an insurance industry that refused to acknowledge autism and the needs of people with autism. They funded meds but did not cover behavior therapy.

Many of my brother's autistic age contemporaries were institutionalized.

My brother, despite the advice of doctors, was not.

My parent's, both trained in how to get shit done through their activism in the Civil Rights movement, turned our family into an action organization. One of my fondest memories is of my mother taking my brother to the Missouri House of Representatives so that legislators could see what autistic behaviors look like and hear what they sound like...and I'll never forget her sense of accomplishment and relief as she, along with a ground of amazing women, won several legislative victories that form the foundation of childhood education for children with autism in Missouri.

Some 39 years later too many American families still face an insurance industry that refuses to cover essential services related to autism.

I know that my family was privileged.

Not lucky...not simply blessed...but privileged to have the kind of money coming in from my father's job to fill in the gaps and fund the thousands of therapies that made up so much of my brother's childhood. As a result, my brother was able to develop a system of sign language and about 20 verbal words that allow him to express his needs, fears, wants and desires. He is able to work, when the state of Missouri feels like funding his transportation to a job and when they don't feel like cutting his Medicaid coverage for daring to earn $60.00 a month. He has friends and hobbies and a life...all because my family was privileged to have the money to be able to feed his soul instead of dose it out of existence and to kick open doors for him that only respond to the force of money.

I added my voice to the chorus calling for health care reform in general and health care reform that includes coverage for autism spectrum disorder specifically because I know my family was privileged...that they were able to damn near bankrupt themselves, able to set aside personal wants for their child's needs, able to try something new when it held hope or something weird when it held promise...and I know that too many families are not able to even dream of exploring options that may help their loved one.

I strongly encourage you to share your personal health care reform story. Write a blog post about why you think essential community providers like Planned Parenthood clinics need to be included in any health care reform...write a letter to the editor about why access needs to be a key component to any reform...put a name and a face to a specific element of health care reform and tell your story to those who are making decisions.

It's time to take the privilege out of health care...it's way past time...

A friend of mine from college joined with a group of young people to form this new campaign, Young Invincibles.

I completely agree that health care reform is imperative, especially for folks of our generation. I think the moment is now, and if we let it slip away, the consequences are going to be hard felt.

We have been called the "young invincibles" - 18 to 33 year-olds who don't worry about health care because we're young, we're healthy and we don't want to be bothered.

That's wrong.

Over 13 million of us, more than any other age group, live without insurance. Millions more of us are on the verge of losing the coverage we do have.

We may feel invincible.

The facts prove we're not.

This year, over 15 thousand of us will be diagnosed with cancer. Every 12 seconds, one of us will be admitted to an emergency department for treatment of a traumatic injury. And thousands upon thousands of us will be forced to declare medical bankruptcy. This is our fight.

About the campaign:

Young Invincibles is a new group of 18 to 33 year-olds across the country who are committed to making sure young people are heard in the debate about the future of our country. Our first campaign - for comprehensive health care reform - will tell the truth about how the current system fails young people, dispel the myth that we don't care about health care, and will add our voice to the millions of Americans demanding change. You will be hearing a lot from us in the weeks and months to come.

The founders of Young Invincibles are a small group of family and friends. We met each other working on the Obama campaign. We are students, activists, workers. We know how important our generation was to securing change in the 2008 election. We also know that the health care debate in America is going on right now without us. We are not being engaged. Our energy is not being tapped.

Young Invincibles wants to change that. Why? First, because young Americans, like all Americans, need health care. We need it as a safeguard today and to ensure our opportunities tomorrow. Second, because we know that mobilizing young Americans could make the difference between the passage of comprehensive health care reform or yet another failed opportunity for change. And we can't afford another failed opportunity.

Join us in our effort. It's time for young Americans to weigh in. Because no one, not even us, is invincible without health care.

You can join the campaign here, to receive updates and opportunities to get involved.