The last few weeks have seen Tennessee on several “worst of” lists for women. The popular iVillage ranked us #40 among the “worst states for women” – for our lower rates of college degree completion, lower earnings, low levels of representation of women in state government, poor health, attacks on women’s rights, and other factors.

This week, Forbes named Knoxville, TN (home of Stacey Campfield) #3 in its list of Most Unfair Cities To Be A Working Woman because of disparities in pay between men and women.

And I missed this last month, but the blogger at Lavender and Cheese writes about another embarrassing finding that got basically no media attention here – Black women die more from breast cancer than white women, and that’s more true in Memphis, Tennessee than in any of the nation’s other largest cities. In Memphis, a Black woman is more than twice as likely to die as a white woman.

As that blogger explains:

We know what these numbers mean: black women are not getting the same access to cancer treatment that white women are. This is not a genetics problem; it’s a care problem, it’s an education problem, and it’s a socioeconomic problem.

And it’s exactly this kind of care inequality that the healthcare reform bill is supposed to alleviate.

The fact that this study has gone unreported and apparently unnoticed in Tennessee has to be a result of two things: laziness and cowardice.

I was born and raised in Tennessee. I chose to come back here after college. Like B, there are absolutely things I love about this state, from the big beauty of the landscape to smaller pleasures of local businesses and institutions and people. It’s not all about politics – but our politics are seriously messed up here right now.

We have Democrats in power who can’t bring themselves to denounce a State Rep when he publicly threatened to “stomp” any transgender woman he encounters. We have bills specifically trying to shame and intimidate women getting legal abortions and their providers, transformed into a bill to limit access in another dishonest way.

We have serious economic problems and disparities, a long list of problems that are getting us on other people’s “worst of” lists that we could tackle. Meanwhile, our state legislators are focused on saggy pants, making sure it’s okay for creationism to be discussed seriously in science classes, and pushing the racism and classism of trying to drug test all welfare recipients. And our Governor, Republican Bill Haslam, had the nerve to blame the media for covering this nonsense, instead of doing his job as a leader and taking on the state legislators for introducing and pushing said nonsense.

Welcome to Tennessee. Although we need you here, if you’re a woman, or poor, or not white and straight and cis and Christian, or you have a decent handle on science, you might want to pass on through, unless you have a lot of energy and patience for the fight. At least for now.

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Cancer, Ethics, Government, Laws, Legislation, & Courts

Here’s the letter I’m sending to relevant politicians in Tennessee regarding a bill to collect very specific abortion data, with little consequence for those who disclose it illegally, and creating targets for violence out of women, their children and spouses, and providers, their families, coworkers, and other patients.

I am writing to express my opposition to HB 3808, the so-called “Life Defense Act,” which requires the collection and reporting of detailed data about women having abortions and their providers.

Data is already collected about the number of abortions provided in the state. It is reasonable to make that data available in aggregate, as the state already does. Reporting more specific data by the county level is much more likely to allow identification and targeting of specific women and their families, as Tennessee has many rural counties in which crossing the categories of race, education, age, and other demographics can get you close or exactly to a specific woman if you have an interest in terrorizing her. Such identification is a violation of privacy, and likely to incite harassment of women and their families.

Although the proposed law includes some provisions that are superficially intended to protect privacy, it also makes clear that the consequences of disclosing such data is simply a misdemeanor, a relatively mild consequence when we’re talking about people whose plans may include harassment, stalking, and violence. The barrier between collection and disclosure is thin, and the consequences for any leaker of the data are small. Regardless of the final form of the actual data reporting, though, the law will serve the purpose of intimidating women seeking a legal medical procedure with implied threats of these consequences.

Publishing the names of all providers is also likely to result in violent consequences. Just in case you think that people who provide abortions are bad, made a choice, and deserve whatever consequences they suffer – these are not “shunned at the church supper” consequences. These are “shot in the face at home” consequences.

Anti-abortion extremists are well-known to have threatened, stalked, kidnapped, assaulted, and murdered providers and have committed crimes against their homes and family members. They make online hit lists of providers to make it easier for anti-abortion terrorists to target, harass, and murder doctors throughout the country.

These expected violent consequences will not just affect abortion providers themselves – they will affect spouses, children, and other loved ones. The children of known providers have been barricaded into their homes, stalked at school, and subjected to other harassment and threats, and this bill endangers them, their friends, and their families. While supporters of bills like this often claim to be protecting “babies,” HB 3808 could in reality incite a threat against the born children of both women choosing abortion and their providers.

It would also not just affect the much-demonized providers at Planned Parenthood. When a woman experiences a pregnancy complication, in some cases a non-clinic provider will perform a necessary abortion out of compassion for and duty to the patient. This might occur in a hospital or private medical practice. These are providers who have not elected to life a life of wearing bullet-proof vests and constantly worrying about threats of violence. They are physicians who provide a legal service to a single woman in a time of need. Making their names potentially public will cause some of these providers, their spouses, their children, their everyday non-abortion patients, and their coworkers to be subjected to the same threats of and actual violence.

This is of course the point of this provision in the bill – to intimidate doctors into not providing needed medical care, and it is unacceptable. When a physician is deciding how to best provide care for a woman with a pregnancy complication, his or her first thought should never be, “If I provide needed and legal medical care, that my patient and I both agree is the best course of action, will I be putting myself and my family in danger because of the Tennessee state legislature?”

There are other problems with this bill. Because threats of violence have so limited the number of providers in the first place, many areas of the country only have providers who travel in to perform this legal medical service. The admitting privileges provision is not for a medical purpose, as facilities and providers capable of handling unexpected complications exist throughout the state. This provision is specifically designed to prevent such providers from offering legal abortions to under-served areas.

I urge you to reject HB 3808. Let’s be clear – the intent of this bill and bills like it has never been to collect better data about abortion. It has always been to intimidate women and providers making personal, legal choices with implied threats of privacy violation and violence. The Tennessee state legislature should not be in the business of harassing its citizens and making them targets for anti-abortion terrorists. Vote no on HB 3808.

I’ll be sending this letter to the members of the Health and Human Resources Committee, who are expected to consider it tomorrow (including bill sponsor Matthew Hill), as well as my own House reps. Find your TN legislator here.

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Ethics, Government, Laws, Legislation, & Courts

Here’s my note to the local Nashville, TN newspaper, The Tennessean, which decided not to run this week’s Doonesbury strips that focus on forced ultrasound for abortion. I’m sending a copy via email in addition to posting here.

I am writing to express my disappointment that you chose not to publish this week’s Doonesbury strips in the print edition of the paper. You explained that the Wednesday strip was not published due to “graphic wording,” but it is baffling as to what the supposedly offensively graphic word might have been. I can only assume it was “transvaginal,” but The Tennessean has previously permitted this word in at least three previous articles, including a recent one on papers electing not to carry the strip.

Tuesday’s installment, in which a woman is called a “slut,” was obviously not too provocative to carry in print, yet the proper name of a medical procedure being forced upon women seeking abortion apparently offended your sensibilities. It’s okay to call women seeking abortion disparaging names, but it’s not okay to mention their vaginas?

Doonesbury is meant to be provocative, political, and satirical, something you surely realize in carrying the strip. Many papers place it in the opinion section for this very reason. There is an argument to be made, I think, about not carrying Thursday’s strip in the comics sections, given the concluding line about rape. Many people believe that rape should never be a punchline. There is legitimate debate to be had about whether its use in this instance is inappropriately meant to be “funny” or is simply a reflection many women’s expressed perspective – that being forced to have an object inserted in one’s vagina for non-medical purposes to serve the agendas of anti-abortion politicians is indeed a form of rape or assault.

The Tennessean did not choose to run the strip and allow it to foster debate about this question or questions of abortion, politics, or the ethics of forced ultrasound. Instead, The Tennessean decided it was important to protect print readers from being exposed to medical terminology and a real rights issue facing women who choose to terminate pregnancies. When our local newspaper is deciding that its readers can’t handle the subject of a national debate, concerning itself more perhaps with advertisers sharing space with even slightly provocative content, and determining that “slut” is okay but “transvaginal” is not, it simply reinforces the perception that real Tennesseans are not being served by the newspaper sharing their name.

You can see the strips over at Slate, write your paper with thanks if they’re carrying it or complaints if they’re not. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which has been fighting the Texas forced ultrasound law, is asking people to sign a letter of thanks to papers that are carrying the strip, and to let them know about papers that aren’t.

I also have a post on the Doonesbury controversy over at the Our Bodies Ourselves blog.

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Ethics, Government, Laws, Legislation, & Courts

[Originally posted at Our Bodies Our Blog. Speaking of, did you know the OBOS 40th anniversary edition book is one of Library Journal's Best Books for 2011 in the consumer health category?]

This week, Health and Human Services head Kathleen Sebelius interfered with the FDA’s decision that emergency contraception could safely be made available over the counter (OTC) without a prescription to women and girls of all ages.

The drug is already available without a prescription for women 17 and older, after years of political wrangling. Advocates have worked to ensure OTC access because emergency contraception is most effective when used as soon as possible, and time, distance, money, and privacy can be serious barriers to getting a prescription and obtaining the drug in time to prevent pregnancy.

The FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) had completed a review of the issue and concluded that Plan B One-Step emergency contraception should be available OTC to younger women, which Commissioner Margaret Hamburg explains:

Based on the information submitted to the agency, CDER determined that the product was safe and effective in adolescent females, that adolescent females understood the product was not for routine use, and that the product would not protect them against sexually transmitted diseases. Additionally, the data supported a finding that adolescent females could use Plan B One-Step properly without the intervention of a healthcare provider…CDER experts, including obstetrician/gynecologists and pediatricians, reviewed the totality of the data and agreed that it met the regulatory standard for a nonprescription drug and that Plan B One-Step should be approved for all females of child-bearing potential.

That’s when Sebelius stepped in and blocked the findings of CDER from taking effect. In her letter [PDF] overruling the FDA’s findings, Sebelius objected that “The label comprehension and actual use studies submitted to the FDA do not include data on all ages for which the drug would be approved and available over-the-counter.”

That data is not available for the vast majority of over-the-counter drugs on sale to all age groups without a prescription. Many OTC drugs (like acetominophen and aspirin) can have serious, even fatal, effects if taken inappropriately because of deliberate misuse or misunderstanding the label and instructions. You will not find data on safety and label comprehension for every possible age group for these medicines, yet they are readily available OTC in adult doses to consumers of any age.

Former FDA official Susan Wood – who resigned after a previous round of political interference in emergency contraception – agrees:

“They don’t do this for pain medication, headache medication, cold medication,” she said. “That’s not part of how we assess products. Are we going to go and now do this with all products, or are contraceptives once again being singled out for this special treatment and this extra standard when we’re talking about a very safe and very effective product that can really help women?”

Change.org has a petition up urging Sebelius not to let politics trump science, and objecting to the HHS leader’s focus on very young girls who may access the drug:

The fact that the HHS and the Secretary are focusing on this extremely young age group is bizarre. Less than 1% of 11 year olds are sexually active, where over half of adolescents have had sex before their 17th birthday.

This decision is illogical and unfounded. Physicians around the country agree that Plan B is incredibly safe and effective for all ages, helping to decrease the number of unintended pregnancies.

Further reading:
This NPR coverage provides a succinct timeline and political explanation of the controversy over accessibility of emergency contraception.

Statement from Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health stating that the Obama administration’s “put[ting] politics before science and responsible health policy…is appalling.”

Heather Corinna at Scarleteen urges young people to speak up in protest of this action.

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check, who reminds us that the previous administration wasn’t the only one playing political games with reproductive rights:

…no amount of proof it seems can make up for the fact that, despite all the evidence, even President Obama and Secretary Sebelius appear to think young women are too stupid to make their own decisions or that they are just chum to be thrown to the religious right in an election year. As the saying goes, with friends like these, who needs the far right?

Added: Email the White House directly.

.

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Contraception, Drugs, Ethics, Government, Women’s Health

In Memphis, TN, Title X family planning funds have been awarded to Christ Community Health Services, a religious health provider which has indicated that it may refuse to provide information, referrals, and some kinds of health care to Shelby County’s women.

Title X funds have historically gone to Planned Parenthood in Memphis; the move to give the funds to an anti-choice organization is part of nationwide efforts to defund Planned Parenthood because PP provides abortions. Existing laws already clearly prohibit Title X or other federal funds from being used for abortion services – the money goes to provide necessary services like contraception and cancer screenings.

Reports indicate that Christ Community has no intention of providing referrals to women who choose to have abortions, whether that is for personal or medical reasons. From a report by a Memphis newspaper (emphasis added):

[Christ Community CEO] Waller initially said the clinic refers patients to abortion providers if they request it, but he and Dr. Rick Donlon, a founding physician at the clinic, later called the newspaper to change that statement.

“We really try to provide women with other options and make sure they have those possibilities. And if they at the end still want a pregnancy termination, we know they know where to go,” Donlon said.

“They know where to go.” That doesn’t exactly sound like a professional provider of medical services to me. The clinic leaders obviously made a point of contacting the newspaper to make sure it was clear that they would *not* provide referrals, demonstrating a clear intent to put religious belief ahead of the medical care of women who may consider or require abortions.

Christ Community has also said it will not provide emergency contraception, only doing so through a third party. No details are available about how this will happen in practice, and how much additional time, travel and cost women may be subjected to in order to access this legal, previously available, and non-abortifacent medical care. This change clearly creates an additional burden for women seeking emergency contraception, and the women of Memphis currently have no guarantees that the third party provision will happen in a timely way, while timely administration of emergency contraception drugs is absolutely crucial for them to work.

I have not seen this discussed elsewhere, but it is also not readily apparent to me whether Christ Community would or could ever decide that any other forms of birth control are off-limits because of purely theoretical possibilities of preventing fertilized egg implantation. If we’re already providing the Title X money to a provider who can pick and choose services because of religious beliefs, I don’t see that refusing other forms of contraception is completely out of the question.

The organization also is reportedly working to install “crisis pregnancy centers” at its locations; these centers are well known for providing false and misleading information about abortion and exist to convince women not to choose abortion. Title X rules require “nondirective” counseling about abortion, and Planned Parenthood and other reputable providers who do provide abortions (using other, non-federal money) have processes and counselors in place to check whether women are certain of their decisions without pushing them in either direction.

Given the interest in installing deliberately biased in-house counseling and the stated intention to refuse to refer women out to other providers for abortion, it seems unlikely that Christ Community will be able to or has any intention of meeting the rules requiring factual, nondirective counseling. Women who cannot afford to access family planning care elsewhere will be subjected to a provider who clearly wishes to influence women’s choices, rather than providers who are committed to medical accuracy and offer women a full range of choices, supporting their right to individual decision-making about their bodies.

One woman reports that “Christ Community provides high-quality medical services, but that they sometimes come with a ‘sermon.’” She says she was told by a Christ Community provider, “If only my relationships with people and God were right, I would have fewer health problems.”

You have got to be f***ing kidding me.

In addition to these concerns, there may be other issues with Christ Community’s administration of the Title X funds. I’m not personally familiar with CCHS’s existing health clinics and services on the ground. A Memphis local informed me Christ Community does not take appointments – patients must show up first thing in the morning and wait to be seen, and may even have to come back the next day if too many people show up. This is obviously not a good model for providing family planning services, especially when emergency contraception or other urgent services are needed or when women must take time off from jobs, school, or childcare in order to wait around for care. Although the organization’s website does have an “appointment line,” it indicates that this is to find out which clinics provide which services; I’d like to hear from others about whether this matches their experience at Christ Community clinics.

Another serious concern is that Christ Community’s proposal to provide these services clearly indicated that they would provide less care to fewer women than would Planned Parenthood. Steve Ross, of Memphis and blogging at Vibinc, has an excellent series chronicling the whole debacle, from the Tennessee state government pressuring the Memphis health department to take the funds despite their lack of capacity for family planning through to the current funding of Christ Community (parts 1, 2, 3, and 4). In part 2, he lays out the numbers and apparent relative deficiencies of the Christ Community proposal, including their lower numbers for proposed services and inconsistencies in how the proposals from Christ Community and Planned Parenthood were scored by local officials.

In Part 3, Steve points to the questions asked by the potential providers – Christ Community, Planned Parenthood, and a third non-religious applicant. Although they are unattributed, we can only assume that the following questions were asked by Christ Community, the only applicant with an explicit religious mission and on the record about refusing services because of beliefs. I think these are very telling about the intentions of the leadership of the organization that asked these questions, and how they plan to approach women’s health:

In providing information about pregnancy termination, is it sufficient to have the referral information in writing? [My interpretation: In other words, do we even have to bother to actually have a conversation with women about this?]

If the information about pregnancy termination is provided, is the contractor allowed to indicate in wiriting (NOT coerce) – on a referral sheet or in the office that it does not provide that service because of its beliefs.

If a contraceptive method is not provided on site by a provider because of the provider’s ethical beliefs, can the provider refer the client to another Title X provider who offers this method? If so, does the referring provider have to pay for the service?

The answers to these questions explicitly state that emergency contraception must be provided, the organization cannot choose not to provide forms of contraception because of its beliefs, and they are not allowed to talk about refusing abortion and referrals because of beliefs. Yet everything we’ve heard – as mentioned above – indicates that Christ Community plans to do exactly that.

As Steve writes:

To be honest, these three questions left me flabbergasted. Certainly individuals and associations of people are allowed to hold their own beliefs. Certainly, different physicians and networks of physicians have different preferred treatment plans. There’s plenty of room for this diversity out there in the private sector. However, when you choose to enter the public sector by seeking a contract for public dollars, you are bound by the requirements those public dollars place on you. If those requirements are unpalatable to you, then perhaps you shouldn’t seek them.

Honestly, I’m sure this whole thing will end in lawsuits, and I wouldn’t be unhappy if HHS would intervene. In the meantime, poor women suffer.

I will leave you with this excellent rant from Sig at DowntownMemphisBlog:

Public policy needs to be based on reason and fact, not feelings and faith. Abortion is a legal medical procedure. Any organization that aspires to hold a government contract in the area of family planning needs to present all options and perform all medical procedures, not just the ones it agrees with or likes. Not just the ones that make them feel warm and fuzzy inside. Not just the ones that fit into the narrow world view defined by their archaic religious beliefs.

See also: Aunt B

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Contraception, Ethics, Government, Women’s Health

BeauSoleil

Last weekend, I attended the National Folk Festival in Nashville, TN, where it will be hosted for two additional years. I truly enjoyed the event, seeing and hearing music performed by old time, mariachi, Kurdish, Japanese, breakdance, cajun, New Orleans jazz, and other bands, along with the Fisk Jubilee Singers and Lloyd Arneach (a Cherokee storyteller). I heard good music, had good (festival) food, and had an excellent time.

That said, two health-related items came to my attention. First, I would like to suggest that first aid folks at outdoor events add extra sunscreen to their supplies. Overheating and dehydration is an obvious concern at an outdoor festival, but sunburn is another, if less acute, health hazard. I stopped by the first aid tent to see if they had any sunscreen after I’d been outside for a few hours and realized I needed more protection. I should have brought my own as well on that 100 degree sunny day, but I think making it available for people to reapply at day-long events is a good idea. The person I talked to at the tent seemed to think so, too.

Don Vappie & The Creole Jazz Serenaders

Second, while festival sponsors seemed to be mostly arts/culture organizations, local radio, lawyers, banks, and so on – the mix you’d expect – one tent in particular was sponsored by Altria, and visibly marked with numerous sponsorship signs listing Philip Morris, Smokeless Tobacco, et al. That tent was the Jefferson Street tent.

For those who don’t know Nashville, Jefferson Street is a historically Black part of town. It runs past Meharry Medical College and Fisk University, then TSU, all HCBUs. It’s home to an annual jazz and blues festival. This page from the Jefferson Street Merchants provides a brief history of the area, further emphasizing the close association between this part of Nashville and our city’s Black population. The Jefferson Street stage was the closest at the festival to Jefferson Street itself by a long shot.

Well, so what? Black and white Americans smoke about the same rate, but Black smokers are a greater risk of lung cancer and suffer disproportionately from smoking-related adverse health effects. Tobacco companies have also targeted their advertising to Black communities, attempting to recruit more of these smokers – one study found “2.6 times more tobacco advertisements per person in areas with an African American majority compared to white-majority areas.” As the American Lung Association explains:

African American communities have been bombarded with cigarette advertising. Since the signing of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) in 1998 through 2005, the average youth in the United States is annually exposed to 559 tobacco ads, every adult female 617 advertisements, and every African American adult 892 ads. Money spent on magazine advertising of mentholated cigarettes, popular with African Americans, increased from 13 percent of total ad expenditures in 1998 to 49 percent in 2005.

The former Brown and Williamson Tobacco Company (now part of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company) ran a campaign for Kool cigarettes aimed at black youths in 2006 that featured hip-hop DJ competitions, themed cigarette packs, and was billed as a “celebration” of hip-hop music and culture.

Long story short, having the “Jefferson Street” stage visibly sponsored by big tobacco was unseemly and gross, in the context of both the location and the deliberate targeting of Black communities to encourage smoking.

Filed under: Advertising/Marketing, Cancer, Ethics, Events & Observances, Miscellaneous

This week, the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health and other organizations have been observing the second annual Latina Week of Action for Reproductive Justice:

This year’s theme is Caminamos: Justice for Immigrant Women. We’re inviting everyone to join us in moving toward a brighter future for immigrant women and their families. Mean-spirited enforcement, workplace exploitation, and the criminalization of basic rights like education and health care are just a few of the challenges that have forced immigrant women into the shadows and ignored the crucial, positive role we play in our communities.

Action items for the week include calling for a review of the 287(g) program and online discussion on the theme, “what’s the real problem behind the targeting of immigrant women?” – including a blog carnival with lots of great posts worth reading, and NLIRH’s posts at their blog Nuestra Vida, Nuestra Voz.

I haven’t read all of the posts yet myself, but one I particularly liked is at Abortion Gang, where the writer talks about appropriate reproductive health care requiring more than just Spanish-language services:

…if we want to provide “culturally competent” health care services (and I’m not just talking about abortion care), we need to be constantly learning from and with our patients. We have to be more than “culturally competent.” We need to be culturally fluent…a lack of understanding of the diverse Latina/o cultures keeps immigrant women from getting the care they need. Lack of cultural understanding breeds intolerance and scapegoating. We need to speak more than Spanish; we need to comprehend the language of experience.

Another good one is What’s the Real Problem? Some families are valued while others are demonized at the NLIRH, blog, which criticizes devaluing of families of color generally and my least favorite libertarian Ron Paul specifically, for his views on protecting fetuses and denying citizenship to American-born children of immigrants via the 14th amendment:

The two different approaches to the Fourteenth Amendment reveal a subtext of whose children are wanted and valued. The fetuses of white women are offered constitutional protection, while the lives of immigrant women of color are dismissed and demonized. In the United States, immigrants are denied benefits while being blamed for environmental degradation, the recession, and lack of jobs. They are also portrayed as coming to the United States solely for the purpose of having children who are then raised to be terrorists. Anti-immigrant advocates are the same people who spout pro-life rhetoric and claim to be protecting family values.

Go check out the blog carnival for more.

While not reproductive justice-focused, Aunt B points to and remarks on this 287(g)-related story out of Nashville, in which a teenage girl just about to graduate from high school was taken to jail and spent almost 3 days there for driving without a license (which I don’t believe she could have obtained under state law). The 18 year-old, who was brought to the U.S. by her parents as a child 9 years ago and has hopes of attending college and med school, may be deported. The local implementation of 287(g) has been criticized for being heavy-handed in targeting Latino/a immigrants for deportation for such non-violent crimes as driving without a license.

Filed under: Abortion, Access, Rights, & Choice, Ethics, Laws, Legislation, & Courts, Women’s Health

I haven’t done one of these in a while, having been distracted by the heat, the carless situation, dad’s cancer, mom’s hip replacement re-replacement, work, leveling my first character in Warcraft (now a level 71 undead frost mage – I don’t want to duel you!), and life in general. Tonight, though, I’m at my parents’ house (sitting with mom after said re-replacement), in a town with <30 thousand people that gets really, truly dark at night, World of Warcraft won't run on this computer, and I think I've reached the end of the internet. Might as well do something.

The FDA has issued a warning not to use emergency contraception labeled as Evital. The agency says,

These products may be counterfeit versions of the “morning after pill” and may not be safe or effective in preventing pregnancy. Evital has not been approved by the FDA for use in the United States. This potentially ineffective and suspect counterfeit emergency birth control may also be in distribution in some Hispanic communities in the United States.

The FDA announcement linked above has an image of the packaging for the drug in question and further details.

The FDA is also proposing guidelines for mobile medical apps (like you use on a smart phone). I haven’t fully parsed the implications of the proposal yet, but public comment is being accepted through October 19.

CNN has a piece on breast ironing in Cameroon. This is not a custom I know much about, and I’m always hesitant to jump in where I know so little, but I feel comfortable saying that this must be a painful procedure that doesn’t achieve the apparently desired goal of preventing sex ad pregnancy.

The New York Times talks about Title IX, the law requiring that women and girls have equal access to participation in school sports, focusing on a lack of investigation and enforcement when schools are thought to not be following the law.

Washington became the first state to specifically provide for offspring from donated eggs and sperm to access the donors’ medical history and names once the offspring turn 18. This is an issue I’ve written a tiny bit about at Our Bodies Our Blog.

Shockingly, Bill O’Reilly is kind of an uninformed jerk about unintentional pregnancy and birth control. The professional blowhard stated that “Many women who get pregnant are blasted out of their minds when they have sex and are not going to use birth control anyway.” Right. Half of all pregnancies in this country are unplanned, and it’s obviously just because women are too drunk and high to use contraception. A lot of attention has been paid to this comment, but O’Reilly also stated in the same segment that HHS should pay for “everybody’s birth control, all the women in the world, or here in the United States, or maybe both.” Yeah, we’re going to pay for birth control for *all the women in the world* – even those women in the many countries with lower rates of teen and unplanned pregnancy. Sure, that seems likely and logical and fact-based, doesn’t it? *headdesk* Media Matters has more, including response from the National Women’s Law Center.

C-section rates apparently hit an all-time U.S. high of 34%. I feel like “new high” is the news we get every year now on c-sections.

Al Jazeera English has a short piece on the ethics of clinical pharmaceutical research in India, where research participants may not clinically benefit from drugs being tested and may be vulnerable to exploitation.

Max Barry has a nice piece about gender through the lens of how we gender animals and the gender of Smurfs.

Kari Paul at the Ms. Blog explores the topic of sexual assault on campuses and the lack of arrests or serious addressing of this problem.

Connecticut added gender identity and expression to the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Good job, Connecticut!

Anita Sarkeesian talks about the “mystical pregnancy trope,” especially in sci fi/fantasy, in which women are used for their reproductive capacity and often forcibly impregnated. I hadn’t really noticed it as much as I should, maybe you haven’t either – check out the video (via Sociological Images).

Hey, it’s World Breastfeeding Week.

Honestly, I can watch True Blood as a bit of fluff and as somebody who likes to see on-screen adaptations of books. There are a lot of problems with it. Watching tonight’s episode, I really wondered how many gratuitous rape scenes one show can possibly have, especially after Alan Ball’s comment on the serial rape of Jason that he’s basically getting what he deserved for his sexual history. Feminist Frequency also has some TB commentary and links to more.

Relatedly but not surprisingly, the blogger at The Frisky wrote critically today about how True Blood handles rape, and the very first comment is of the “relax/don’t watch then” variety. Don’t worry your pretty little head! *predictable-but-disappointing-argh*

I’m proud of our Nashville students who came out to protest stupid, offensive, and mean “don’t say gay” legislation in Tennessee.

Apparently one place in Minnesota has similar “don’t say gay” rules in its schools; CNN covered the issue and the National Center for Lesbian Rights has a letter you can sign onto to express your support for students in the affected school district who are trying to change the policy.

The CDC is talking about antibiotic-resistant gonorrhea.

Somebody threw a Molotov cocktail into a Planned Parenthood of North Texas clinic. The clinic provides health care, including birth control and screenings, but doesn’t even provide abortions. Alex Pareene at Salon’s War Room points out that nobody seems to care about this form of domestic terrorism.

Last but not least, everybody wish Hilary luck on her last board exam and subsequent residency application process.

1) It’s the attack kitty edition because, in noting on Facebook that I am away from home, I told the Internet not to get any ideas – the house is guarded by the spouse, attack kitties, and weirdly commandable suits of armor.
2) Yes, I suspect there are some conversations we could have about gender and Warcraft. If you want to talk about that, we can do so in the comments.

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Birth, Breastfeeding, Contraception, Drugs, Ethics, Events & Observances, Global Issues, Government, Infectious Diseases, Laws, Legislation, & Courts, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Pregnancy, Products, Technology, & Devices

Not the Governor who pushed for the move, apparently.

Earlier this month, I wrote about how Republican-led efforts to defund Planned Parenthood in Tennessee will affect women in Nashville – one of two TN cities where the state usually gives federal family planning and cancer prevention money to Planned Parenthood. In Nashville, that money will now go to the local health department, which explicitly said that it doesn’t expect to serve the same number of women for the money.

Planned Parenthood made up the gap between the federal funds and what it takes to actually serve Nashville’s women by raising funds from donations. The health department does not expect any additional funds to make the shortfall, and would need local tax increases to make up the difference.

As at least one Twitter friend observed, the irony of Republicans causing health care to be shifted *to* the government – and needing to raise taxes if the same level of service is to be provided – is just too bitter to appreciate.

Jeff Woods has additional follow-up on this story for the Nashville City Paper, where he writes, “Told that health officials fear thousands of women might lose services once Planned Parenthood is denied federal money…the governor wouldn’t acknowledge the problem.”

“It’s news to me if that’s true,” he said. “Nobody’s told me that.

Oh, really?

As I pointed out in the previous post, the letter from the Metro Public Health director accepting the money was pretty damn explicit that the same number of women would not be served.

Perhaps Governor Haslam never saw that letter. Perhaps State Health Commissioner Susan Cooper, who reportedly pressed Metro to accept the funds at Haslam’s urging, didn’t tell her boss that this political “win” came with a downside for women seeking health care. Perhaps nobody on the Governor’s staff reads the news and not a single person involved in the political pressure to move the funds either thought of or worried about the implications and was willing to say so. I’ll pause here so we can all ponder whether that seems likely, and what it means if it is.

Notice that the quote Woods got from the Governor doesn’t say, “That’s news to me, and we’ll make sure the same level of preventive care and family planning services is provided, because the health of Tennessee’s women, including vulnerable low-income women, is important to me.” There is no “we’ll check on that” addendum, at least in Woods’s reporting. What this suggests is that the Governor Haslam may not have known – which is problematic on its own – but doesn’t especially care. “Nobody’s told me that” is a brush-off, one that doesn’t commit Haslam to any future worrying about or follow-up on this issue.

I also wrote in my previous post that I am troubled by public health officials accepting this money knowing that doing so, in addition to playing a part in a ridiculous political agenda, would mean fewer women getting the same services for the same money. In Woods’s piece, Metro Health Director Bill Paul weakly defends this move with the excuse that he thought the state legislature might kill the funding altogether if he didn’t. “I honestly was quite concerned that the money would go away completely,” he said.

I’d like to know how Paul thinks that would have worked out given that the funds are federal, and would have put Tennessee in basically the same position as Indiana. The state trying such a move might actually have worked out better for Nashville’s women, because the federal funding agency might have stepped in at that point as they have in Indiana – which was already happening when Paul accepted the funds in Nashville.

Paul reportedly told Woods he hopes nonprofit family planning providers will fill the unmet need caused by Metro taking the funds. Uh, again, nonprofit family planning providers LIKE PLANNED PARENTHOOD? Paul played a role in solidifying that gap in services by accepting funds that would have been supplemented by private donations if they had one to Planned Parenthood. And now he hopes some unnamed non-profit family planning provider – presumably through private donations – can make up the gap? Who does he think is likely to do that? Is this really just a way of saying, “We took the money because of political pressure, but we really hope Planned Parenthood can keep providing those services, because we know and have acknowledged that we don’t have the capacity?” Maybe Paul’s secretly a great guy in a tough position, but I’m pretty sure being complicit in this situation was not the best way to protect or promote the public’s health.

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Cancer, Contraception, Ethics, Government, Health, Sex & Sex Education, Vaginas & Vulvas, Women’s Health

This post is late because I was busy taking the bus to get here.*

I wrote several times in 2008 about the case of Juana Villegas, an immigrant in Nashville who was arrested as the result of a traffic stop and ultimately ended up shackled to a hospital bed during labor, separated from her newborn for two days without seeing him, and denied a breast pump or cream for lactating women. This past week, a federal judge ruled in her favor that the shackling during labor and after delivery violated her civil rights. I have a full post up at Our Bodies Our Blog on this topic.

I also have a full post up at the OBOS blog on the Skin Deep database, which provides info on the safety and ingredients of skin care and cosmetic products.

I spent the last few days at the IHA Health Literacy conference. I intend to post on this separately later, including a list of a lot of good resources I learned about, but Siobhan has a few things up at her place. One thing I need to think about is the level at which this blog is written, and whether it is useful and helpful to make some adjustments so posts are more readable for a wider audience, and whether there would be interest in that.

The National Resource Center on LGBT Aging, which I think I also found out about from Siobhan, has information and guidance for providers, patients, and organizations on a number of topics, including ageism, HIV and aging, housing, legal support, Medicare, homelessness, and more.

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check (which has a new look) asks, “What does it mean to be pro-choice?“

NPR, on Morning Edition and Talk of the Nation, aired several pieces on the local Magdalene/Thistle Farms, a residential program in Nashville, TN for women who have experienced violence, sex work, and addiction, and a bath and body products enterprise through which the women work and earn money. You can buy from them online at http://store.thistlefarms.org/.

A question at Good: Why isn’t birth control getting better?

Relatedly, I talked briefly with a representative of the California Family Health Council at the health literacy conference, and was told that they are trying to promote some longer term methods of birth control. This is among their other work, which includes the development of patient education materials on contraception, violence, cancer prevention, pregnancy, STIs, and other sexual and reproductive health topics. I always kind of get the willies when people talk about “promoting” long term contraception, because of the problematic history of how it has been used to assert control over the reproduction of women of color and poor women – regardless of what may be good methods, ethics and intent from whoever is talking about it. I’ll have to contact them and find out what the motivation for this is and how they are approaching it, because I didn’t have time to follow up at the event. In the meantime, anybody familiar with this group?

In the comments at Aunt B’s place, the topic of “gender parties” comes up. I have an appeal to saucy bakers to incorporate the message, “Now you know the sex, not the gender” into the design of these ill-conceived “gender party” cakes.

Here in Tennessee, Stacey Campfield has been pushing his “don’t say ‘gay’” bill, which – despite an intro that talks generally about home being the appropriate place for discussions of sexuality – provides specifically that “no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation *other than heterosexuality*” – which is not at all the same as “teachers shouldn’t be discussing sexuality in schools at all.

I picked up a weekly paper in Orange County this week and noticed that Dan Savage mentioned the bill in his 5/4 column, pointing readers to wesaygay.com, a site ostensibly set up by a couple of teenagers opposing the bill and gathering petition signatures in opposition – it’s nice to see students being active in this way.

The bill passed the House committee and is scheduled for a full Senate vote on May 9, although it has been reported that the state Senate will not take it up this year.

The wonderful Rev. Chris Buice of Knoxville argues in a commentary on the bill that prohibiting teachers from discussing homosexuality in school hinders them in acting against bullying and prevents them from having many educational discussions related to current events and legislation.

Apparently this coming week is National Women’s Health Week.

From the FDA:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today announced a joint effort to remove products from the market that make unproven claims to treat, cure, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Among the products targeted in today’s action are Medavir, Herpaflor, Viruxo, C-Cure, and Never An Outbreak.

The Harper Collins controversy has escaped the boundaries of libraryland. tigtog at Hoyden notes it, and Andy’s change.org petition got sent out on a huge scale. Short version of the controversy – Harper Collins wants to make libraries buy new copies of ebooks after they’ve been read 26 times. You know, because libraries are rolling in money and typically discard books after 26 reads. *eyeroll* There’s a ton of writing on this in the library blogosphere, just google it with some combination of Harper Collins, libraries, 26, ebooks.

The Abortioneers are talking about the stigma of multiple abortion, and there is some really good discussion in the comments, including from those gently pushing back against the OP for certain attitudes expressed in the post.

The Utah AIDS Drug Assistance Program is closing to new applicants due to a funding shortfall; supporters of the program are encouraged to contact their state and federal legislators.

This week’s title: I was in a car accident a couple of weeks ago, car three in a five-car wreck. I’m fine, although I was a little rattled and had a seatbelt bruise for about a week. The car, which is older and was in a previous accident, is totaled. The spouse and I are planning to go without a car, at least for the next few months. Tips and strategies for doing so are welcome. Depending on my mood, the situation gets framed as “car free” or “carless.”

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Birth, Contraception, Drugs, Ethics, Government, HIV/AIDS, Infectious Diseases, Laws, Legislation, & Courts, Libraryland, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Pregnancy, Sex & Sex Education, Women’s Health

This post is late because I was busy taking the bus to get here.*

I wrote several times in 2008 about the case of Juana Villegas, an immigrant in Nashville who was arrested as the result of a traffic stop and ultimately ended up shackled to a hospital bed during labor, separated from her newborn for two days without seeing him, and denied a breast pump or cream for lactating women. This past week, a federal judge ruled in her favor that the shackling during labor and after delivery violated her civil rights. I have a full post up at Our Bodies Our Blog on this topic.

I also have a full post up at the OBOS blog on the Skin Deep database, which provides info on the safety and ingredients of skin care and cosmetic products.

I spent the last few days at the IHA Health Literacy conference. I intend to post on this separately later, including a list of a lot of good resources I learned about, but Siobhan has a few things up at her place. One thing I need to think about is the level at which this blog is written, and whether it is useful and helpful to make some adjustments so posts are more readable for a wider audience, and whether there would be interest in that.

The National Resource Center on LGBT Aging, which I think I also found out about from Siobhan, has information and guidance for providers, patients, and organizations on a number of topics, including ageism, HIV and aging, housing, legal support, Medicare, homelessness, and more.

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check (which has a new look) asks, “What does it mean to be pro-choice?“

NPR, on Morning Edition and Talk of the Nation, aired several pieces on the local Magdalene/Thistle Farms, a residential program in Nashville, TN for women who have experienced violence, sex work, and addiction, and a bath and body products enterprise through which the women work and earn money. You can buy from them online at http://store.thistlefarms.org/.

A question at Good: Why isn’t birth control getting better?

Relatedly, I talked briefly with a representative of the California Family Health Council at the health literacy conference, and was told that they are trying to promote some longer term methods of birth control. This is among their other work, which includes the development of patient education materials on contraception, violence, cancer prevention, pregnancy, STIs, and other sexual and reproductive health topics. I always kind of get the willies when people talk about “promoting” long term contraception, because of the problematic history of how it has been used to assert control over the reproduction of women of color and poor women – regardless of what may be good methods, ethics and intent from whoever is talking about it. I’ll have to contact them and find out what the motivation for this is and how they are approaching it, because I didn’t have time to follow up at the event. In the meantime, anybody familiar with this group?

In the comments at Aunt B’s place, the topic of “gender parties” comes up. I have an appeal to saucy bakers to incorporate the message, “Now you know the sex, not the gender” into the design of these ill-conceived “gender party” cakes.

Here in Tennessee, Stacey Campfield has been pushing his “don’t say ‘gay’” bill, which – despite an intro that talks generally about home being the appropriate place for discussions of sexuality – provides specifically that “no public elementary or middle school shall provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation *other than heterosexuality*” – which is not at all the same as “teachers shouldn’t be discussing sexuality in schools at all.

I picked up a weekly paper in Orange County this week and noticed that Dan Savage mentioned the bill in his 5/4 column, pointing readers to wesaygay.com, a site ostensibly set up by a couple of teenagers opposing the bill and gathering petition signatures in opposition – it’s nice to see students being active in this way.

The bill passed the House committee and is scheduled for a full Senate vote on May 9, although it has been reported that the state Senate will not take it up this year.

The wonderful Rev. Chris Buice of Knoxville argues in a commentary on the bill that prohibiting teachers from discussing homosexuality in school hinders them in acting against bullying and prevents them from having many educational discussions related to current events and legislation.

Apparently this coming week is National Women’s Health Week.

From the FDA:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today announced a joint effort to remove products from the market that make unproven claims to treat, cure, and prevent sexually transmitted diseases (STDs). Among the products targeted in today’s action are Medavir, Herpaflor, Viruxo, C-Cure, and Never An Outbreak.

The Harper Collins controversy has escaped the boundaries of libraryland. tigtog at Hoyden notes it, and Andy’s change.org petition got sent out on a huge scale. Short version of the controversy – Harper Collins wants to make libraries buy new copies of ebooks after they’ve been read 26 times. You know, because libraries are rolling in money and typically discard books after 26 reads. *eyeroll* There’s a ton of writing on this in the library blogosphere, just google it with some combination of Harper Collins, libraries, 26, ebooks.

The Abortioneers are talking about the stigma of multiple abortion, and there is some really good discussion in the comments, including from those gently pushing back against the OP for certain attitudes expressed in the post.

The Utah AIDS Drug Assistance Program is closing to new applicants due to a funding shortfall; supporters of the program are encouraged to contact their state and federal legislators.

This week’s title: I was in a car accident a couple of weeks ago, car three in a five-car wreck. I’m fine, although I was a little rattled and had a seatbelt bruise for about a week. The car, which is older and was in a previous accident, is totaled. The spouse and I are planning to go without a car, at least for the next few months. Tips and strategies for doing so are welcome. Depending on my mood, the situation gets framed as “car free” or “carless.”

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Birth, Contraception, Drugs, Ethics, Government, HIV/AIDS, Infectious Diseases, Laws, Legislation, & Courts, Libraryland, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Pregnancy, Sex & Sex Education, Women’s Health

I have several sets of lecture notes to write up from talks given at the larger workplace’s LGBT health week in March of this year. Yes, it has taken me forever to get to this – March and April have sort of gotten away from me somehow. As a result, some of my notes may not be as rich as I’d like, as they would be if I had converted them to posts right away, but I hope they’ll still be interesting and useful to readers. The followin is built from my notes on a presentation on Friday March 18, “Case Presentations in Adolescent Hormonal Therapy,” by Dr. Jennifer Najjar and Dr. Lisa Beavers.

Before we get into the lecture notes, I’d like to introduce the basic concept, although I am by no means an expert. One thing the speakers didn’t really get into was *why* you would want to delay puberty in transgender youth. Presumably they thought the mostly medical student audience would already understand the implications, but I think we’ll need to review this briefly here. While some readers may be completely unfamiliar with this concept and approach, coverage and discussion of the topic from the last few years can be readily found at outlets such as NPR, the New York Times, the LA Times, and Babble’s Stollerderby. Warning: offensive/transphobic framing, misgendering, assumptions (such as that sexual reassignment surgery is the only way to be a fully transgender person), language, and comments may be found in these pieces or their comments. They are included merely to illustrate “mainstream” or popular media sources paying at least some attention to this topic.

As you likely recall, many noticeable changes happen to the body during puberty – voices deepen, hair sprouts, breasts grow, menstrual periods start – physical markers that are typically strongly associated with one sex or the other. For young transgender people, these changes can be particularly problematic because they further expand the distinction between their physical bodies and their genders, and make it more difficult to be recognized as their actual gender.

Using hormones to block/delay these changes may reduce these difficulties, mental health concerns, bullying, and violence brought on by an enhanced dichotomy between physical sex and gender, allow a young person to transition his or her dress and name, and allow additional time for the adolescent and hir family to understand and adapt, including potential readying for further transition measures such as surgery once the adolescent reaches 18 years of age. This piece, Key to Successful Treatment of Transgender Patients May Involve Delay of Puberty, provides additional detail.

This approach also additional time for the adolescent to “be sure,” although I worry that this time for certainty is focused more on the needs of the parents/family and medical and psychological personnel as gatekeepers than it is for the needs of the actual young person.

As explained in the lecture, this puberty blocking is completely reversible, with puberty occurring as soon as the therapy is stopped. For further reading, try TransYouth Family Allies’s resources for healthcare providers, including Puberty Blockers 101, and TransActive’s medical resources. Suggestions for additional reading are appreciated in the comments.

Now, onto the actual lecture notes. These will be a little blocky, with my notes in brackets, but I didn’t want to do it all in bullet points.

The first speaker was Dr. Lisa Beavers, a Licensed Professional Counselor and Certified Sex Therapist and Sexuality Educator in Nashville, TN. Her practice website is www.nashvillesextherapy.com.

Dr. Beavers indicated that she is the only practitioner in the state of Tennessee working with young transgender people in transition.

She indicated that in a year or so a new version of the DSM (diagnostic manual for mental health conditions) will be out, and the controversial gender identity disorder is likely to be replaced by gender incongruence. The criteria will include a lot of behavioral things like focusing on toys intended for the other sex, having a peer group primarily composed of the other gender [which sounds problematic in its own ways, but I'll want to see those criteria when they come out].

Dr. Beavers noted that endocrinologist Dr. Najjar is the only one who will work with her on transitioning young people and puberty-blocking. She said that this approach is not really outlined clearly medically or psychologically for practitioners. Transgender adults go through psychotherapy for one to two years with hormones before surgery can be considered [this is not uncontroversial in itself; see Julia Serano]. In the U.S. transgender young people cannot have surgery until they turn 18. In the past Dr. Beavers had to send families out of state before she was able to partner with Dr. Najjar.

The first case she spoke about (that she and Dr. Najjar worked on together) was a ten-year-old whose household family consisted of a mom, dad, and two siblings. She was first diagnosed with bipolar and attention deficit disorders. Her parents described her as having a behavioral desire to be the opposite gender, and this was creating family conflict. She was referred to endocrinology to check on her puberty status and endocrine issues disorders of sexual development, and was in family therapy for a couple of years before they started talking about stopping puberty.

At that point there was a question [there were questions throughout, rather than the end] about the girl’s school situation, which Dr. Beavers answered by saying the school situation depends on the people and the place – there’s no one answer for every young person. In one [or this?] case, the girl took a pink backpack to school and was bullied. Instead of stepping in and addressing the bullying, the school principal insisted that she should not have brought a pink bag to school [clearly a blame the victim scenario].

So when Dr. Beavers does therapy, especially when they talk about school issues, there is a lot of emphasis on safety. In this case the student was out of school in the initial part of transitioning and is now at a private school that is safe and that she has worked with. However, some kids don’t have the financial resources to switch to a private school that might be a safer change from their zoned public school.

Then there was a question about making the decision to transition and how to know its appropriate for the young person, to which Dr. Beavers replied that it is a very slow process, much slower than with an adult.

Dr. Beavers then referred to an NPR story “about 18 months ago” [I didn't find anything in that time frame, just the 2008 piece linked above]. She then talked about, especially in this area of the country, how transgender children are often treated by their families, with steps taken to take away toys and clothes that are really negative for the children. Their social ties and preferred activities may be severed by the adults, resulting in depression and anxiety for the children. She noted that a child may present with anxiety and depression, may be isolated, and may have parents and doctors who are pushing for further isolation of the child with resulting negative mental health consequences.

There was then a question about parents trying to “make” their child not be a transgender person, and discussion of how so-called “reparative” therapy is unethical and can be illegal. Dr. Beavers explicitly tells adults this when they raise the the idea in counseling sessions.

She explained that she tries to do initial talking and information-giving early on and build trust, providing ethical and accurate information, but parents still my not accept it, it can be a long process for them adjusting to what it means to have a transgender child. Dr. Beavers said that she has worked with parents who wanted to have an exorcism [!] for their child; she tries to explain to them why that won’t work and what negative consequences will happen for them and their child.

She noted that it was just two years ago that “reparative” there was deemed inappropriate, that the Academy of Pediatrics has statement or policy out on sex and gender, and the American Psychological Association has followed suit [I don't think I'm finding the right things on these, need to keep looking].

The “One in Teen” group was mentioned as a local resource, although it should be noted that this is a broader LGBTI group, not specifically for trans youth. She noted that beyond this one resource, it is a real problem for transgender youth to find safe same-age peer groups (noting the lack of safety for participating in sex-segregated sports teams, etc.). She also referred to a conference in Pittsburgh each year [couldn't find it - wish we'd had a handout of links/resources!] and trans-friendly summer camps [perhaps like this one].

Next up, Dr. Jennifer Najjar, pediatric endocrinologist spoke. She stated that there is a lot of research to back up the idea that gender identification in the brain can be very different from the physical presentation. She said that as part of her professional work she also consults for the psych hospital, and so has been asked to see children with gender identity issues who do not have traditional endocrine disorders.

She emphasized that there is a program that Dr. Beavers works through with children and their families before figuring out the appropriate medical path. She also explained that blocking puberty can be reversed can happen before or after puberty starts. She then went into the specific hormones used in this therapy, and my notes are error-laden enough and endocrinology is complicated enough that I don’t feel completely confident in my notes. I believe she said the primary hormone used is an agonist of hypothalamic hormones, they stimulate the pituitary, use spironolactone if they are seeing some puberty to reduce the physical signs, and may use some oral estrogens.

She said that one of the most difficult problems is social rather than medical, that the social skills acquired in puberty are lost for a while – patients they have and eighteen year old body but social adjustment may be delayed because they may (after stopping therapy) have a newly pubertal body and the issues that go with that that would normally be done at thirteen or fourteen.

She indicated that gender identity is ingrained from a very young age, sometimes less than a year old. She also noted that it is very hard to get insurance to cover the therapy; she has had very little luck with insurance until lately when she has put the transgender diagnosis code on the paperwork and insurance actually covered it. However, providers have to consider how explicitly to document very carefully. For example, if somebody goes in to get an appendectomy, at that point insurance may get the whole chart, with all of the transgender documentation in there. They don’t need it for the appendectomy, but the system is such that they can find that out at that point.

That was basically it – I think the audience probably had a lot more questions but there wasn’t time to get them all answered. I asked Dr. Najjar about whether she ever has issues where the young person approaches her for treatment and the parents aren’t on board, and whether the parents have to consent for that. She indicated that the patients don’t ever really come to her directly, they all get referred to Dr. Beavers first and don’t come to her until after they have been through the therapy there. It wasn’t entirely satisfying, because I’m still worried about this “gatekeeper” issue and what happens to transgender children when the parents are a-holes. Overall, though, it was an interesting discussion of issues I think that a lot of medical students don’t get a chance to get exposed to.

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Drugs, Ethics

Last week it was announced by Tennessee’s new Republican Governor, Bill Haslam, that three RVs have been bought to address joblessness in this state. From the announcement:

Governor Haslam and the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development today unveiled three vehicles designed to improve outcomes for those looking for work. Three “Career Coaches” were customized with 10 computer workstations with Internet access, printers, fax machines, and flat screen TV’s with SMART Board overlays to facilitate classroom instruction. The intent of these roving offices is to bring job matching and training to rural communities that have limited access to a Tennessee Career Center.

The vehicles will be based in Huntingdon, Nashville and Knoxville in order to cover all areas of the state. Each mobile unit will be staffed with three Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development employees who are trained in career counseling and unemployment benefits.

Those employees will do workshops on job search and interviewing skills, résumé preparation, administer GED Practice Tests, and the like.

In a long state with 95 counties, we are stationing mobile computer labs in RVs in *three* of them (two of which are urban), RVs which will then drive out to rural areas – and let’s remember that is not cheap – carrying equipment that is already on site in pretty much every county in the state, housed in public libraries.

Rather than buying the RVs, the gas required to drive three RVs all over the state, and inviting people to learn about job skills in the confines of said RVs (doesn’t that sound inviting?), the Governor could have elected to have Labor and Workforce Development employees drive smaller, regular cars – consuming less gas – to places where those computers and equipment already exist in more spacious environments with classrooms in place – our state’s many public libraries, already located in every county where these RVs will need to travel.

Some pretty nice efficiencies could have been realized, and they could have taken advantage of the computer skills training already in place in many if not most public libraries, at the same time connecting job seekers to a wealth of other educational resources (such as language learning and literacy resources). Some public libraries have already taken the initiative to provide job search, online application completion, and related training to library users – Haslam’s corps of experts could have supplemented that work by passing along knowledge for reuse, extending the utility of the programs beyond single visits. In some cases, it might have been necessary to provide additional equipment to a county’s public library – putting the money there instead of in fuel-guzzling RVs would have actually provided a benefit to those communities that would last beyond when the RV pulls out of town. Even with grant money funding the nearly $200,000 purchase cost of each RV, the ongoing and opportunity costs here are shameful.

Frankly, Governor Haslam should be embarrassed that somebody on his team didn’t already think of this. Public libraries and their staff could have done it better, for less money, in a way that would benefit residents of Tennessee for more time. Sure, an RV can go directly to the factory that’s shutting down and spend a day or a week there – but our public libraries are there every day in every county, providing the resources to make our communities smarter and stronger. Let’s support them, not the short-term Haslam gas-guzzling express.

[hat tip to newscoma, via twitter]

***************

Added: via a comment by Coble on B’s post, I learned that the idea for what we’re jokingly referring to as “Jobs Party Buses” came from former Governor Phil Bredesen (D). I don’t think that makes it any more sensible – Bredesen was short-sighted in suggesting it, and Haslam was short-sighted in not killing it. B addresses that aspect a bit in a comment over at Pith.

I also appreciated B’s hilarious response to Michael Silence, who suggested the TNDP had done a good job getting out talking points, and that’s what generated the posts.

Listen, I’m a lefty, super pro-choice, feminist. The TNDP has treated folks like me and B like we’re nonexistent in just about every election forever, and couldn’t get talking points out to people like us to blog on them on a non-Friday-afternoon if their lives depended on it. For my part, I never even saw that Ds had said anything about it until Silence himself linked to something, because I don’t really care about their half-hearted press statements that miss the real mistakes of the initiative. I care what they’re doing – and that is using resources in a way I don’t think is very smart or sustainable, as detailed above.

Filed under: Ethics, Government, Libraryland

Over at Our Bodies Our Blog, I have a post on the FDA’s approval of Makena (17-Hydroxyprogesterone or 17OHP) for prevention of preterm birth and the huge price hike that followed, with links to commentaries on the controversy, including calls for boycotts, questions about the March of Dimes’s role in supporting the approval, lots of good posts from The Preemie Primer blog, and a New England Journal of Medicine perspective piece decrying the potential impact on Medicaid and decrease in access to the drug as a result of the price hike.

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Drugs, Ethics, Pregnancy

Assorted items of interest collected over the last week or so; as usual, the Sunday round-up is more socially than medically oriented, this week with several items on transgender women and related rights, issues, and prejudices as I’ve been trying to read more about these topics.

Scientific American has an excerpt from a new book, Demand Better! Revive Our Broken Health Care System. It’s a pretty clear explanation of how little doctors apply the best, most current evidence to medical treatment, and might be pretty shocking for folks who are not involved in evidence-based medicine issues. For example:

Even though clinical guidelines exist…physicians get it right about 55 percent of the time across all medical conditions. In other words, patients receive recommended care only about 55 percent of the time, on average…. How well physicians did for any particular condition varied substantially, ranging from about 79 percent of recommended care delivered for early-stage cataracts to about 11 percent of recommended care for alcohol dependence. Physicians prescribe the recommended medication about 69 percent of the time, follow appropriate lab-testing recommendations about 62 percent of the time and follow appropriate surgical guidelines 57 percent of the time. Physicians adhere to recommended care guidelines 23 percent of the time for hip fracture, 25 percent of the time for atrial fibrillation, 39 percent for community-acquired pneumonia, 41 percent for urinary-tract infection and 45 percent for diabetes mellitus.

Friends and family members who I encourage to question your physicians, to find out more, to not accept decisions based on simple authority? See above.

Renee at Womanist Musings calls out Bitch magazine for their focus on middle class white women in an article on “mommy bloggers” and their inclusion of women of color only as (literal) footnotes in the piece. She points out that in general women of color are not thought of when people thing of “mommy bloggers” and “mommies,” and that white women who blog on these topics are much more likely to receive recognition, book deals and other rewards – and it’s not because they’re just inherently better writers or more experienced moms.

Apparently some obstetricians in Tennessee are upset about a plan to have the state’s Medicaid program reimburse cesareans at the same rate as vaginal deliveries, in part to influence physicians to do fewer cesareans that are not medically indicated.

One physician interviewed tries to make a claim that physicians have to do more cesareans now because physicians are doing more cesareans…making a distinction between elective procedures and elective procedures done so physicians can avoid risks without working patients into that equation:

“It is very true that the rate of cesarean deliveries is increasing, but it is not increasing just because of convenience. It is increasing because of the repeat cesarean deliveries that occur…Many doctors now don’t want to face the liability of doing a vaginal birth after a cesarean section.”

Some repeat cesareans are obviously going to be medically indicated, but repeat after me: physician’s desire to avoid potential legal liability /= medical indication.

Becoming Johanna — A Trans Youth’s Story (VIDEO) – video focuses on an adolescent transgender Latina kid Johanna whose mother committed her to a mental hospital in order to prevent her from transitioning. A trailer is available; they’re part of a larger project.

Guest Post: Transmisogyny is Misogyny Against All Women at Transarchism. Includes discussion of what a woman’s body “should” have in order to be considered “woman” by other people:

What the hell does a woman’s body possess that makes it a woman’s body? What does it NEED to have to be female. Did you immediately think of breasts, ovaries, vaginas? Gross. Think about that for more than two minutes and you’ll see why it’s gross. Still don’t get it? Well then go down to the nearest breast cancer walk and tell every single woman with a double mastectomy she’s not a woman. When you’re done with that, go down to your local hospital, ask the nurse where the OR is, and wait outside until you can find a woman fresh out of her hysterectomy surgery, and tell her the news. Yeah, that sounds evil, doesn’t it? Well it’s basically what you’re doing when you’re policing trans women’s bodies. You’re telling all women what they have to have on/in their bodies to be a woman. Which, obviously, is totally gross.

Monica at TransGriot notes that while white feminists called out George Lopez for his body size-related remarks on Kirstie Alley, they were silent about transphobic comments directed at woman of color Wendy Williams. You don’t have to be a fan of any of those three to note the difference in handling.

The blogger at Lollygagging and Lassitude reacts to the reaction to the misogynistic, ableist, and ageist nonsense of Scott Adams of Dilbert by talking to feminists about picking targets – “But do not forget there are women who will die for reasons that have nothing to do with Scott Adams’ words” – including trans women. I have noted my dislike of “shouldn’t you be focused on more important things?” arguments in the past, and they are often cited as a derailing tactic when employed by external parties. In this case, though, it’s worth talking amongst ourselves about whether there are systemic privileges that focus what we talk about as feminists – nobody’s saying we shouldn’t talk about Scott Adams, I think the author is saying that we can talk about Scott Adams but we need to also remember not to use all of our fighting energy on people like him.

Audacia Ray explains that “You” probably couldn’t be arrested in New York City under provisions that allow condoms to be counted as evidence of sex work, that “Policies like this one exist solely to uphold the ability of police to harass people of color, poor people, and often trans women who are profiled as being sex workers or nabbed for ‘walking while trans.’”

Queerty has a bit on challenging the New York City requirement that trans men and women have genital surgery in order to change their birth certificate.

TransTalk points to the “Two Spirits” documentary to be aired by Independent Lens (PBS) in June. The website for the film is at http://twospirits.org/.

Rep. Henry Waxman demands answers from Ther-Rx about Makena – There’s a drug meant to help prevent preterm birth that was approved by the FDA as an “orphan drug” at which point the company that got the approval hiked the price from about $10-$20 a dose to $1500/dose. There is also commentary on the March of Dimes’s response, and a call to boycott Makena in favor cheaper compounded preparations.

AARP has a piece on inaccuracies in translated drug labels, citing a study (I haven’t read yet) that “Fifty percent of all prescription labels translated from English to Spanish are wrong or incomplete.”

The FDA may start regulating mobile medical software/apps.

Women’s eNews has a bit on maternal deaths in New York City.

Ron Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act for 2011 (HR 1096), which would define human life and personhood “from the moment of conception.” I hardly need to get into the fetus>woman, miscarriage, detectability of non-implanted fertilized eggs, and gross misogyny issues, right?

Some things from libraryland:
We need to work together to save the Statistical Abstract of the United States.

And the Nashville Public Library is compiling a digital history of our May flood.

For emergency responders, WISER has been updated – it’s “a system designed to assist first responders in hazardous material incidents” from the National Library of Medicine.

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Birth, Drugs, Ethics, Government, Libraryland, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Pregnancy, Women’s Health

Three things this week that I think are important to focus on for advocates of reproductive rights and justice: HR3, HR358, and proposed cuts to Title X family planning funding and other women’s health services. I wrote about HR3 and HR358 at Our Bodies Our Blog this week. There, I note that I particularly appreciated the succinct explanations provided by Jennifer Steinhauer in the New York Times, excerpted below.

1) On HR3:

One bill, the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” would eliminate tax breaks for private employers who provide health coverage if their plans offer abortion services, and would forbid women who use a flexible spending plan to use pre-tax dollars for abortions. Those restrictions would go well beyond current law prohibiting the use of federal money for abortion services.

The Hyde Act already forbids taxpayer funding for abortion except for in limited circumstances (often rape or incest; this is the bill that had/has the “forcible” rape language). This law would make that permanent, and would perpetuate the injustices of Hyde, which specifically makes it harder for poor women and women of color to exercise this right.

As so clearly expressed alongside a recent report on the issue:

As long as these unjust provisions remain a part of our laws, the rights of women in this country will continue to be treated according to two different standards whether you can afford to pay for your rights or not. That is not equality.

Hyde currently has to be renewed on a regular basis. HR3 would make these inequalities permanent, in addition to potentially affecting issues such as whether employers who provide abortion coverage through their health insurance plans would be financially penalized through the loss of tax breaks.

Related Posts:
Meet the HR3 Ten – RHRC is calling attention to Democrats who cosponsored HR3
Kudos to Senators Gillibrand, Boxer, Franken, Murray, Lautenberg, Blumenthal speak out against HR3 (silver ribbon blog)
House Committees Press On with “Stupak on Steroids” Attacks on Women’s Health (Blog for Choice)
The “Stupak on Steroids” Agenda: A Multi-Pronged Attack (Blog for Choice)
Hr3/Smith Bill Toolkit for Action (National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health)

2) On HR 358:

Another bill, sponsored by Mr. Pitts, addresses the health care overhaul head-on by prohibiting Americans who receive insurance through state exchanges from purchasing abortion coverage, even with their own money. The bill is essentially a resurrection of a provision in the House version of the health care law but was not in the Senate version.

The bill would also permit hospitals to refuse abortions to women, even in emergency situations, if such care would offend the conscience of the health care providers.

The thinking about this bill is that it would effectively override EMTALA provisions that require emergency departments to treat patients regardless of ability to pay. Existing rules already protect the right of individual providers to choose not to perform abortions, but EMTALA requires that if the patient can’t be safely stabilized and transferred (in other words, if the patient might die if the procedure is not performed), an emergency department *must* provide that care.

Related Posts:
Waxman and Pallone Ask “Where’s the Constitutional Authority” on H.R. 358? (RHRC)
After ‘forcible rape,’ another abortion restriction (PostPartisan)
Anti-Choice Politicians Propose Eliminating Funding for Birth Control and Cancer Screenings (Blog for Choice)
PRCH Board Chair Submits Testimony on Pitts and Smith Bills (Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, on both bills)

3) A third item of concern is the Continuing Resolution from the House Appropriations Committee for funding throughout the fiscal year which proposes to completely eliminate the funding the President has requested for family planning services. The CR proposes a number of reductions, including the following decreases in women’s and reproductive health:

• WIC -$758M
• Community Health Centers -$1.3B
• Maternal and Child Health Block Grants -$210M
• Family Planning -$327M

That $327 million reduction proposed for family planning is the *entire requested family planning budget* from the President, who requested:

$327,356,000 shall be for the program under title X of the PHS Act to provide for voluntary family planning projects: Provided further, That amounts provided to said projects under such title shall not be expended for abortions, that all pregnancy counseling shall be nondirective…

This move is intended in part to achieve the Republican wet dream of “defunding Planned Parenthood.” So not only are they attempting to block women from accessing necessary and legal abortion procedures through HR 3 and HR 358, they are attempting to block women’s access to the kind of medical care and contraception that would help them prevent pregnancy and achieve healthy pregnancies. Awesome.

Related Posts:
House GOP Declares War on Planned Parenthood (Mother Jones)
GOP Spending Plan: X-ing Out Title X Family Planning Funds (Wall Street Journal blog)
Congress’s Latest Fiscal Strategy: Cutting Programs that Save Money and Protect Women’s Health (National Women’s Law Center)

Filed under: Abortion, Access, Rights, & Choice, Ethics, Government, Laws, Legislation, & Courts, News Round-Ups, Women’s Health

Some things that caught my eye this week; for new folks, the Sunday news round-up tends to focus more on social issues than research or resources, including whatever I’ve noted for later reading from my RSS feeds or Twitter.

First, the English-language site for Al Jazeera has the most complete coverage I’ve seen of what’s going on in Egypt for those who need it in the English language.

I’m woefully behind on the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” proposed by House Republicans, so this first chunk is catching up. It seems to me to be completely unnecessary political posturing on the backs of women (and especially rape victims, as we’ll see), given that there are existing restrictions preventing federal funding for abortion. I know it includes an exception for “forcible rape,” which as far as I know is not a real legal term with an actionable definition. Many folks have expressed concerns that it would seem to exclude women who are date raped, or drugged, or otherwise not sufficiently physically abused in the course of being raped. Perhaps those women didn’t suffer enough for House Republicans to be considered for access to the means to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies. *headdesk*

It also fails to mention statutory rape, includes incest only if the victim is a minor, and includes only a “danger of death” exemption, not a health exemption.

Some things that caught my eye this week; for new folks, the Sunday news round-up tends to focus more on social issues than research or resources, including whatever I’ve noted for later reading from my RSS feeds or Twitter.

First, the English-language site for Al Jazeera has the most complete coverage I’ve seen of what’s going on in Egypt for those who need it in the English language.

I’m woefully behind on the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” proposed by House Republicans, so this first chunk is catching up. It seems to me to be completely unnecessary political posturing on the backs of women (and especially rape victims, as we’ll see), given that there are existing restrictions preventing federal funding for abortion. I know it includes an exception for “forcible rape,” which as far as I know is not a real legal term with an actionable definition. Many folks have expressed concerns would seem to exclude women who are date raped, or drugged, or otherwise not sufficiently otherwise physically abused in the course of being raped. Perhaps those women didn’t suffer enough for House Republicans to be considered for access to the means to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies. *headdesk*

It also fails to mention statutory rape, includes incest only if the victim is a minor, and includes only a “danger of death” exemption, not a health exemption.

Some things that caught my eye this week; for new folks, the Sunday news round-up tends to focus more on social issues than research or resources, including whatever I’ve noted for later reading from my RSS feeds or Twitter.

First, the English-language site for Al Jazeera has the most complete coverage I’ve seen of what’s going on in Egypt for those who need it in the English language.

I’m woefully behind on the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” proposed by House Republicans, so this first chunk is catching up. It seems to me to be completely unnecessary political posturing on the backs of women (and especially rape victims, as we’ll see), given that there are existing restrictions preventing federal funding for abortion. I know it includes an exception for “forcible rape,” which as far as I know is not a real legal term with an actionable definition. Many folks have expressed concerns would seem to exclude women who are date raped, or drugged, or otherwise not sufficiently otherwise physically abused in the course of being raped. Perhaps those women didn’t suffer enough for House Republicans to be considered for access to the means to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies. *headdesk*

It also fails to mention statutory rape, includes incest only if the victim is a minor, and includes only a “danger of death” exemption, not a health exemption.

Some things that caught my eye this week; for new folks, the Sunday news round-up tends to focus more on social issues than research or resources, including whatever I’ve noted for later reading from my RSS feeds or Twitter.

First, the English-language site for Al Jazeera has the most complete coverage I’ve seen of what’s going on in Egypt for those who need it in the English language.

I’m woefully behind on the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” proposed by House Republicans, so this first chunk is catching up. It seems to me to be completely unnecessary political posturing on the backs of women (and especially rape victims, as we’ll see), given that there are existing restrictions preventing federal funding for abortion. I know it includes an exception for “forcible rape,” which as far as I know is not a real legal term with an actionable definition. Many folks have expressed concerns would seem to exclude women who are date raped, or drugged, or otherwise not sufficiently otherwise physically abused in the course of being raped. Perhaps those women didn’t suffer enough for House Republicans to be considered for access to the means to make their own decisions about their own pregnancies. *headdesk*

It also fails to mention statutory rape, includes incest only if the victim is a minor, and includes only a “danger of death” exemption, not a health exemption.

I don’t often blog about hyper-local issues that aren’t completely focused on health or reproductive rights, but this story brought to my attention via B’s blog is an important one, I think, for people who care about how government is run and appropriate funding of important and necessary services.

The Nashville City Paper reports that a former government employee has essentially been asked to work a part-time, made-up position in the Nashville’s Department of Finance, for an estimated $60,000 a year. The Finance Director is quoted in the article saying things that make it explicitly clear that this was not an existing job opening, one with clearly defined responsibilities and needed qualifications, that other people were able to compete for.

“We’ll assign him projects as they arise on a case basis.” Because they were “just talking” (hello, good ole boy network), and thought he could help.

You know who actually knows what they’re supposed to do and could use more money? Who would just love to have somebody around to do whatever needed doing, or at least the $60,000 a year?

The Nashville Public Library.

Or the Metro Department of Health.

Or schools, or any number of other departments with real missions to help real people. Real services that people of Nashville need and deserve, in departments that struggle to do everything that needs doing with the limited-and-being-cut funds available.

The Finance Director who is bringing this guy on asked other Metro departments this week to look at a 3% budget cuts. $60,000 a year might be a drop in the bucket compared to 3% of the budget of Metro departments, but it’s the principle of the thing. When a man who is who is buddies with a lot of other men in government – and who is already getting a pension from that government – can get a part time job paying $60,000 a year to do whatever while vital services are being asked to make cuts, something is seriously wrong.

I don’t blame the guy who’s being offered so much money to do who-knows-what – he might be a great guy, and it probably sounds like a pretty good deal to him. I do blame Metro Finance Director Rich Riebeling, and of course Mayor Karl Dean, who should really put a stop to this. Even if the reporting on this is not the full story, it’s unconscionable to me that somebody could be offered a job that was made up, that nobody else got to apply for, that might pay $60,000/year for whatever, when other vital departments are being asked to make cuts. It’s an insult to people like the public librarians who try to make every dollar stretch to meet the growing needs of the community. Mayor Dean, make it stop.

Filed under: Access, Rights, & Choice, Ethics, Government, Health, Libraryland, Miscellaneous

A few stories that have caught my attention over the last week:

Unlike many people, the larger workplace does not have MLK Day tomorrow as a holiday. I’m going to two lectures at work, though – the first is from Robert L. Satcher, Jr., physician and astronaut, on “Fulfilling the Dream: Minorities in Biosciences.” The second will be Julian Bond, civil rights activist, on “The Road to Freedom: From Alabama to Obama.” The Julian Bond talk is free and open to the public but tickets are required; on Friday the Sarratt box office still had tickets.

The CDC released their first report on health disparities and inequalities. It provides data on a number of issues and disparities, including exposure to air pollution, health insurance coverage, infant deaths, inadequate and unhealthy housing, preterm births, homicide, and many others.

This NPR bit on buildings and building standards in Haiti (as related to earthquakes and their damage) has a striking line in it from a seismologist working in the region: “poverty and corruption kill [because they undercut construction standards, he says. People cheat.]” It’s such a clear example of the truth of that statement, I felt the need to mark it.

Relatedly, MADRE has released a new report on sexual violence in camps in Haiti one year after the country’s devastating earthquake.

The 2011 standards of medical care for diabetes from the American Diabetes Association came out this month in the journal Diabetes Care.

A Canadian publication brought attention to the practice of pelvic exams done on anesthetized women without their knowledge or consent. Here in the U.S., there was some controversy over this practice a few years back, resulting in some institutions changing their practices, but it still happens and I’m mulling over whether it would be possible to get state and/or federal laws passed banning the practice outright.

Report: Drug-Sniffing Dogs Are Wrong More Often Than Right. In short, in Chicago, dogs were way over-alerting their handlers, and at least one expert thinks it might be because of the behavior of those handlers. According to the story:

…officers found drugs or paraphernalia in only 44 percent of cases in which the dogs had alerted them. When the driver was Latino, the dogs were right just just 27 percent of the time.

The obvious concerns here about racial profiling and unjustified searches are discussed in the full article from the Chicago Tribune.

The American College of Nurse-Midwives is holding their annual video contest, and is accepting video submissions supporting midwifery or on becoming a midwife through March 31.

This piece describes some of the barriers to safety and freedom faced by immigrant women who are abused and are in the U.S. without legal documentation.

Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check writes about The Pregnancy Police and Citizens’ Arrests of Pregnant and Nursing Women. In Tennessee, a woman who abused cocaine during her pregnancy, and whose infant was found to have cocaine its system, is being charged with aggravated child abuse.

A trans woman was murdered in Minneapolis. OutFront Minnesota has info on the planned vigil and anti-violence efforts.

Pam at Pam’s House Blend has links to info and commentary on the gruesome story of videos sent to the LAPD which depict men sexually assaulting several disabled women.

Angry Asian Man has a nice round-up of posts by Asian authors with critical responses to the “tiger mother/Chinese mother” thing. Amy Chua herself has claimed that the WSJ misrepresented her work in the controversial parenting article.

Jill at Feministe points to a story of an Idaho pharmacist who refused to fill a prescription written by a Planned Parenthood nurse practitioner unless the NP would disclose whether the drug was needed for abortion-related follow-up care.

The sixth annual Blog for Choice day is coming up this Friday, January 21. The theme for this year is: Given the anti-choice gains in the states and Congress, are you concerned about choice in 2011?

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Drugs, Ethics, Events & Observances, Global Issues, Midwifery, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Pregnancy

First things first: the Senate voted on Saturday to repeal Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. Hurray! The roll call vote for all of the Senators is here, reflecting the 65 votes for repeal and 35 votes against. The votes for repeal came almost exclusively from Democrats, with just eight Republicans voting yes. My own Senators, Bob Corker and Lamar Alexander, were unsurprisingly among the Republicans who voted against repeal; I’m disappointed in them for voting their party and their prejudice to be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of human rights and dignity.

The repeal will not become active for at least 60 days; HRC has a Pathway to Final Repeal document [PDF] that explains the necessary next steps, and warns service members about the interim:

The Human Rights Campaign issues this critical warning to service members: Repeal of DADT is not effective immediately and service members are still at risk of being discharged on the basis of their sexual orientation until certification occurs and 60 days have passed.

Also, as @polerin was clearly pointing out yesterday, the repeal of DADT does not protect trans service members, and passage of ENDA is still needed to protect trans workers everywhere. Trans Talk has a copy of a statement on this issue from the Transgender American Veterans Association.

Of course, the Senate also failed to pass the DREAM Act, which would have provided some avenues to education and citizenship for young immigrants brought here as children. I keep reading the “DREAM Act defeated” headlines as “DREAM Act deferred…”

In other news, Kate Harding has a completely amazing post, Some Shit I’m Sick of Hearing Regarding Rape and Assange. You really just need to read it if you have heard the commentary that Wikileaks’ Assange *just* didn’t use a condom, are tired of that commentary, or don’t yet understand what’s so problematic about that line of Assange defense. It’s a crash course in recognizing and combating rape apology.

Relatedly, Sady of Tiger Beatdown has had some internet drama related to Michael Moore’s reaction to the Assange situation and his minimizing comments related to the rape accusations – Sady has been demanding that rape victims’ stories not be thrown under the bus of Wikileaks worship. It involves a Keith Olbermann Twitter flounce. Thanks to Sady for tirelessly afflicting the powerful. Just go catch up over there. Kate Harding has also posted her support in Why I’m On Board With #mooreandme.

I just finished reading “Nobody Passes: Rejecting the Rules of Gender and Conformity,” a collection of essays on passing, gender, race, and identity. Some of the essays are better than others, but the whole book is worth a read for an interesting meditation on dominant narratives, the ways in which so many individuals don’t perfectly fit our assumptions about who/what people are, and how we create and convey our identities along the way.

I have issues with this story and the reactions it has generated that probably need to be explored in a longer post. I never saw the “Is She A Hero Or A Danger?” language CNN purportedly used to discuss this woman who had a home VBAC after three cesareans (VBA3C); that’s not the headline now, but I think the answer is probably “neither,” and “these are the very cases against which we test our principles about what a woman can and cannot be compelled to do with her body for the sake of another person’s body.”

New sexually transmitted infection treatment guidelines are out from the CDC; they also include screening and prevention recommendations.

Renee at Womanist Musings shares a video about images of women in advertising.

Cara at The Curvature points to a local story I’d missed: Nashville Police Officers Charged With Domestic Violence Get to Keep Their Jobs. Ugh. This reminds me that I need to contact Nashville police to follow up on an incident of police action I witnessed/reported.

In other local news, the story of Coach Howe’s dismissal from Belmont University because of her sexual orientation made the New York Times. For ongoing coverage, the Belmont Vision student newspaper and Pith in the Wind (blog of the local alt-weekly) seem to be doing the best job.

At Feministe, Hospital saves woman’s life; is told by Catholic leadership not to do it again, Oops, I forgot to have babies!, and two posts related to the International Day to End Violence Against Sex Workers – It’s not just violent clients who abuse sex workers, and Whore Stigma Makes No Sense.

RHRC is also hosting a series to explore and combat violence against sex workers.

Perhaps I’m entirely too skeptical, but I find it hard to buy this official story that the 36 LGBT books damaged with urine in a Harvard library were “accidentally” damaged by a staff member who just *happened* to spill a nearby open bottle of urine on said books. I’m a librarian, and a spilly/messy one at that, but this really strains my credulity.

As always, please check out Our Bodies Our Blog – this week we’ve been talking about genetic testing and privacy, and Avastin.

Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Birth, Ethics, Events & Observances, Government, Infectious Diseases, Libraryland, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Pregnancy, Reviews