At OBOS: Abortion Access as a Health Disparity, the Reel Grrls Take on Comcast, Vermont’s New Law, and More

June 11th, 2011 by admin

I haven’t been very good recently about linking from here to my posts at Our Bodies Our Blog, where I write about twice a week. Here are some recent posts there:

Access to Abortion as a Health Disparities Issue – Highlighting a recent commentary in the Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, in which the authors call for not just expanded access to prevention of unwanted pregnancies, but the treatment of them – and access to that treatment through reducing barriers to abortion access.


“Reel Grrls” Empowers Young Women to Create Videos, Take on Corporate Giants
– a bit about what happens when Comcast picks on a bunch of girls learning media skills

Vermont Passes Law Providing for Insurance Coverage of Home Births and Midwives, Birth Certificate Changes for Transgender Individuals – information on a new law in Vermont that reduces certain barriers, as you could already tell from the post title.


Judge Set to Hear Arguments in Indiana Planned Parenthood Funding Case
– Indiana passed a law to deny Medicaid funds for non-abortion care at Planned Parenthood, which the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responded to by sending a letter explaining that states are not allowed to pick and choose which qualified providers can be paid for services through Medicaid. Let’s be clear – this is not forbidding federal funds for abortions, which is already forbidden in several different ways. It’s prohibiting women who get care – such as cancer screenings and birth control – through Medicaid from choosing Planned Parenthood as the place they want to get that care, and prevents Planned Parenthood from getting paid through Medicaid for providing that care to poor women.

On the day of the post, a hearing was set to happen to consider halting enforcement of the law; the judge has since said she will decide by July 1. Several Senate Republicans, led by Orrin Hatch, have sent a letter to HHS saying that the law should be able to stand, and calling it “an important model for every state.”


New Guttmacher Video Tackles Misconceptions About Women Who Choose Abortion
– exactly what it sounds like, with the video embedded. I don’t *think* there’s a transcript.

Health Literacy Resources for Providers – several useful resources I learned about at a recent health literacy conference.

Filed under: Uncategorized

Posted in Abortion, health disparities, health literacy, Indiana, Medicaid, midwives, OBOS, Our Bodies Ourselves, Republicans, transgender, Vermont | Comments Off

Sunday News Round-Up, Attacks on Reproductive Rights Edition

February 13th, 2011 by admin

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

Posted in Abortion, Access, Rights, & Choice, Ethics, Government, Laws, Legislation, & Courts, News Round-Ups, Republicans, Women's Health | Comments Off

Sunday News Round-Up, Still Here Edition

January 30th, 2011 by admin

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.

  • There’s a decent summary over at Mother Jones, The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape.
  • The New York Times has an editorial: The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill.
  • rikyrah at Jack & Jill Politics reminds us, of the politicians pushing this business: “They are who we thought they were.”
  • The blogger at No Fun at Parties writes in response to people who say, “who cares? I’m against all abortion anyway.” I think this response is an excellent one, and I encourage you to go read the whole post:

    It’s not about abortion. It’s about rape. People who oppose legal abortion can agree with the idea of reducing federal funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest, but doing it this way is incredibly dangerous. Creating two different kinds of rape survivors is very dangerous. Requiring women who were raped to have to prove to a health care provider that their rape was forcible, by some legal standard that has yet to be determined, is very dangerous. It creates a de facto class of rape in which women who were drugged, or severely underaged, or who saw the threat of force and chose to drop their resistance, are treated by the law as having colluded in their rape.

    By the way, some news sites like the New York Times have free online content but ask for users to register before viewing that content. If you ever need it, the website BugMeNot posts user-shared log-ins for reuse by those who don’t want to share their own personal details. It doesn’t always work and requires an extra step, but may be worth checking out if you have privacy concerns.

    Sex-ed source Scarleteen has launched the new Find-a-Doc service, a searchable database of services including STI testing, pregnancy testing, abortion, transgender health, LGBQ health, rape/abuse crisis, prenatal care, and more. You can also add new listings, but the providers *must* serve young people; reviews can also be added.

    RMJ at Deeply Problematic explores fat bodies in the Harry Potter books.

    Local school Belmont University finally added “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination policy. This would be more meaningful if Belmont President Dr. Bob Fisher, when asked whether openly gay people were welcome to study and work at Belmont, hadn’t responded by saying, “I would put that in the hypothetical category.” It’s hard for me to belief a nondiscrimination policy has teeth if it’s hypothetical as to whether the people the policy is supposed to cover are actually welcome. They also still need to add gender identity and expression. Kudos, though, to the folks who worked hard to get this small step.

    Lyon Martin Health Services, a San Francisco clinic that provides health care to many transgender and lgb persons, needs funding help to stay open. According to their website, “Currently, 39% of our patients are people of color; 14% are transgender and 41% self-identify as lesbian or bisexual; 84% live below 200% of the federal poverty level and 14% are homeless.” I wrote last year about a lecture I attended by an openly transgender physician affiliated with the clinic.

    Via Siobhan, links to info on an initiative to promote literacy in pediatric clinics.

    Canadian Blood Services (I could be wrong, but I think it’s kind of like our Red Cross in terms of blood donation), is planning to recommend that Health Canada start to roll back the lifetime ban for gay men on donating blood.

    Change.or has a brief overview of the serious lack of obstetric services/facilities for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

    Amie at RHRC has an update on efforts in Washington State to hold “crisis pregnancy centers” accountable for their accuracy and disclosures.

    Yet another study found no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems.

    eastsidekate at Shakesville wants to share her own version of those car decals that demonstrate “how nuclear, hetero, and fecund your family is.”

    The CDC has a new section on their website on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health.

    Anne Marie is talking about pelvic exams performed on anesthetized women without their knowledge or consent. I’d like to hear suggestions for actions toward putting a hard stop to this practice.

    I seriously want to have my belly button species cultured.

    And, just a reminder that I’m being more strict about moderating comments here. I don’t need to make a place for hatred and hostility. I also just don’t always have the energy to respond – again, and again, and again – to the “why do you care about this little thing?” arguments, to the feminism 101/derailing for dummies stuff. Some things I’ll let through in the hopes that someone else will respond (and I’m unbelievably grateful to the people who do), but I don’t always have the energy. Please know that my leaving something up in no way implies that I agree with the thoughts expressed. To the commenter who said she acts like a guy and so they don’t give her crap – I hope that protects you. If it doesn’t, it’s not because you didn’t act sufficiently like a man. I hope you realize how taking this stance positions all women as less than men instead of addressing the inequity of positioning women this way, and I recommend Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl” to you. To the commenter who called the policy “censorship:” – I’m a librarian and I take that charge seriously; however, you may freely express your opinion at any website/blog of your own – I have no more obligation to be the one to provide a space for you than the New York Times would have to publish every screed they may receive.

    Related: if you never saw it, I really love Melissa McEwan’s response to the “little things” gambit related to the “Fat Princess” video game. Scroll down to: “How do you respond to the common argument “it’s just a game, and it’s not meant to be taken seriously”?

    Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Birth, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Ethics, Government, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources

  • Posted in Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Belly Button Biodiversity, Belmont, Birth, blood, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, crisis pregnancy centers, Ethics, fat, Government, harry potter, healthcare providers, informed consent, LGBT, literacy, Miscellaneous, Nashville, News Round-Ups, pelvic exam, rape, Republicans, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources | Comments Off

    Sunday News Round-Up, Still Here Edition

    January 30th, 2011 by admin

    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.

  • There’s a decent summary over at Mother Jones, The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape.
  • The New York Times has an editorial: The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill.
  • rikyrah at Jack & Jill Politics reminds us, of the politicians pushing this business: “They are who we thought they were.”
  • The blogger at No Fun at Parties writes in response to people who say, “who cares? I’m against all abortion anyway.” I think this response is an excellent one, and I encourage you to go read the whole post:

    It’s not about abortion. It’s about rape. People who oppose legal abortion can agree with the idea of reducing federal funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest, but doing it this way is incredibly dangerous. Creating two different kinds of rape survivors is very dangerous. Requiring women who were raped to have to prove to a health care provider that their rape was forcible, by some legal standard that has yet to be determined, is very dangerous. It creates a de facto class of rape in which women who were drugged, or severely underaged, or who saw the threat of force and chose to drop their resistance, are treated by the law as having colluded in their rape.

    By the way, some news sites like the New York Times have free online content but ask for users to register before viewing that content. If you ever need it, the website BugMeNot posts user-shared log-ins for reuse by those who don’t want to share their own personal details. It doesn’t always work and requires an extra step, but may be worth checking out if you have privacy concerns.

    Sex-ed source Scarleteen has launched the new Find-a-Doc service, a searchable database of services including STI testing, pregnancy testing, abortion, transgender health, LGBQ health, rape/abuse crisis, prenatal care, and more. You can also add new listings, but the providers *must* serve young people; reviews can also be added.

    RMJ at Deeply Problematic explores fat bodies in the Harry Potter books.

    Local school Belmont University finally added “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination policy. This would be more meaningful if Belmont President Dr. Bob Fisher, when asked whether openly gay people were welcome to study and work at Belmont, hadn’t responded by saying, “I would put that in the hypothetical category.” It’s hard for me to belief a nondiscrimination policy has teeth if it’s hypothetical as to whether the people the policy is supposed to cover are actually welcome. They also still need to add gender identity and expression. Kudos, though, to the folks who worked hard to get this small step.

    Lyon Martin Health Services, a San Francisco clinic that provides health care to many transgender and lgb persons, needs funding help to stay open. According to their website, “Currently, 39% of our patients are people of color; 14% are transgender and 41% self-identify as lesbian or bisexual; 84% live below 200% of the federal poverty level and 14% are homeless.” I wrote last year about a lecture I attended by an openly transgender physician affiliated with the clinic.

    Via Siobhan, links to info on an initiative to promote literacy in pediatric clinics.

    Canadian Blood Services (I could be wrong, but I think it’s kind of like our Red Cross in terms of blood donation), is planning to recommend that Health Canada start to roll back the lifetime ban for gay men on donating blood.

    Change.or has a brief overview of the serious lack of obstetric services/facilities for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

    Amie at RHRC has an update on efforts in Washington State to hold “crisis pregnancy centers” accountable for their accuracy and disclosures.

    Yet another study found no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems.

    eastsidekate at Shakesville wants to share her own version of those car decals that demonstrate “how nuclear, hetero, and fecund your family is.”

    The CDC has a new section on their website on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health.

    Anne Marie is talking about pelvic exams performed on anesthetized women without their knowledge or consent. I’d like to hear suggestions for actions toward putting a hard stop to this practice.

    I seriously want to have my belly button species cultured.

    And, just a reminder that I’m being more strict about moderating comments here. I don’t need to make a place for hatred and hostility. I also just don’t always have the energy to respond – again, and again, and again – to the “why do you care about this little thing?” arguments, to the feminism 101/derailing for dummies stuff. Some things I’ll let through in the hopes that someone else will respond (and I’m unbelievably grateful to the people who do), but I don’t always have the energy. Please know that my leaving something up in no way implies that I agree with the thoughts expressed. To the commenter who said she acts like a guy and so they don’t give her crap – I hope that protects you. If it doesn’t, it’s not because you didn’t act sufficiently like a man. I hope you realize how taking this stance positions all women as less than men instead of addressing the inequity of positioning women this way, and I recommend Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl” to you. To the commenter who called the policy “censorship:” – I’m a librarian and I take that charge seriously; however, you may freely express your opinion at any website/blog of your own – I have no more obligation to be the one to provide a space for you than the New York Times would have to publish every screed they may receive.

    Related: if you never saw it, I really love Melissa McEwan’s response to the “little things” gambit related to the “Fat Princess” video game. Scroll down to: “How do you respond to the common argument “it’s just a game, and it’s not meant to be taken seriously”?

    Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Birth, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Ethics, Government, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources

  • Posted in Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Belly Button Biodiversity, Belmont, Birth, blood, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, crisis pregnancy centers, Ethics, fat, Government, harry potter, healthcare providers, informed consent, LGBT, literacy, Miscellaneous, Nashville, native Americans, News Round-Ups, pelvic exam, rape, Republicans, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources | Comments Off

    Sunday News Round-Up, Still Here Edition

    January 30th, 2011 by admin

    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.

  • There’s a decent summary over at Mother Jones, The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape.
  • The New York Times has an editorial: The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill.
  • rikyrah at Jack & Jill Politics reminds us, of the politicians pushing this business: “They are who we thought they were.”
  • The blogger at No Fun at Parties writes in response to people who say, “who cares? I’m against all abortion anyway.” I think this response is an excellent one, and I encourage you to go read the whole post:

    It’s not about abortion. It’s about rape. People who oppose legal abortion can agree with the idea of reducing federal funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest, but doing it this way is incredibly dangerous. Creating two different kinds of rape survivors is very dangerous. Requiring women who were raped to have to prove to a health care provider that their rape was forcible, by some legal standard that has yet to be determined, is very dangerous. It creates a de facto class of rape in which women who were drugged, or severely underaged, or who saw the threat of force and chose to drop their resistance, are treated by the law as having colluded in their rape.

    By the way, some news sites like the New York Times have free online content but ask for users to register before viewing that content. If you ever need it, the website BugMeNot posts user-shared log-ins for reuse by those who don’t want to share their own personal details. It doesn’t always work and requires an extra step, but may be worth checking out if you have privacy concerns.

    Sex-ed source Scarleteen has launched the new Find-a-Doc service, a searchable database of services including STI testing, pregnancy testing, abortion, transgender health, LGBQ health, rape/abuse crisis, prenatal care, and more. You can also add new listings, but the providers *must* serve young people; reviews can also be added.

    RMJ at Deeply Problematic explores fat bodies in the Harry Potter books.

    Local school Belmont University finally added “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination policy. This would be more meaningful if Belmont President Dr. Bob Fisher, when asked whether openly gay people were welcome to study and work at Belmont, hadn’t responded by saying, “I would put that in the hypothetical category.” It’s hard for me to belief a nondiscrimination policy has teeth if it’s hypothetical as to whether the people the policy is supposed to cover are actually welcome. They also still need to add gender identity and expression. Kudos, though, to the folks who worked hard to get this small step.

    Lyon Martin Health Services, a San Francisco clinic that provides health care to many transgender and lgb persons, needs funding help to stay open. According to their website, “Currently, 39% of our patients are people of color; 14% are transgender and 41% self-identify as lesbian or bisexual; 84% live below 200% of the federal poverty level and 14% are homeless.” I wrote last year about a lecture I attended by an openly transgender physician affiliated with the clinic.

    Via Siobhan, links to info on an initiative to promote literacy in pediatric clinics.

    Canadian Blood Services (I could be wrong, but I think it’s kind of like our Red Cross in terms of blood donation), is planning to recommend that Health Canada start to roll back the lifetime ban for gay men on donating blood.

    Change.or has a brief overview of the serious lack of obstetric services/facilities for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

    Amie at RHRC has an update on efforts in Washington State to hold “crisis pregnancy centers” accountable for their accuracy and disclosures.

    Yet another study found no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems.

    eastsidekate at Shakesville wants to share her own version of those car decals that demonstrate “how nuclear, hetero, and fecund your family is.”

    The CDC has a new section on their website on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health.

    Anne Marie is talking about pelvic exams performed on anesthetized women without their knowledge or consent. I’d like to hear suggestions for actions toward putting a hard stop to this practice.

    I seriously want to have my belly button species cultured.

    And, just a reminder that I’m being more strict about moderating comments here. I don’t need to make a place for hatred and hostility. I also just don’t always have the energy to respond – again, and again, and again – to the “why do you care about this little thing?” arguments, to the feminism 101/derailing for dummies stuff. Some things I’ll let through in the hopes that someone else will respond (and I’m unbelievably grateful to the people who do), but I don’t always have the energy. Please know that my leaving something up in no way implies that I agree with the thoughts expressed. To the commenter who said she acts like a guy and so they don’t give her crap – I hope that protects you. If it doesn’t, it’s not because you didn’t act sufficiently like a man. I hope you realize how taking this stance positions all women as less than men instead of addressing the inequity of positioning women this way, and I recommend Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl” to you. To the commenter who called the policy “censorship:” – I’m a librarian and I take that charge seriously; however, you may freely express your opinion at any website/blog of your own – I have no more obligation to be the one to provide a space for you than the New York Times would have to publish every screed they may receive.

    Related: if you never saw it, I really love Melissa McEwan’s response to the “little things” gambit related to the “Fat Princess” video game. Scroll down to: “How do you respond to the common argument “it’s just a game, and it’s not meant to be taken seriously”?

    Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Birth, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Ethics, Government, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources

  • Posted in Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Belly Button Biodiversity, Belmont, Birth, blood, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, crisis pregnancy centers, Ethics, fat, Government, harry potter, healthcare providers, informed consent, LGBT, literacy, Miscellaneous, Nashville, native Americans, News Round-Ups, pelvic exam, rape, Republicans, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources | Comments Off

    Sunday News Round-Up, Still Here Edition

    January 30th, 2011 by admin

    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.

  • There’s a decent summary over at Mother Jones, The House GOP’s Plan to Redefine Rape.
  • The New York Times has an editorial: The Two Abortion Wars: A Highly Intrusive Federal Bill.
  • rikyrah at Jack & Jill Politics reminds us, of the politicians pushing this business: “They are who we thought they were.”
  • The blogger at No Fun at Parties writes in response to people who say, “who cares? I’m against all abortion anyway.” I think this response is an excellent one, and I encourage you to go read the whole post:

    It’s not about abortion. It’s about rape. People who oppose legal abortion can agree with the idea of reducing federal funding for abortions in the case of rape and incest, but doing it this way is incredibly dangerous. Creating two different kinds of rape survivors is very dangerous. Requiring women who were raped to have to prove to a health care provider that their rape was forcible, by some legal standard that has yet to be determined, is very dangerous. It creates a de facto class of rape in which women who were drugged, or severely underaged, or who saw the threat of force and chose to drop their resistance, are treated by the law as having colluded in their rape.

    By the way, some news sites like the New York Times have free online content but ask for users to register before viewing that content. If you ever need it, the website BugMeNot posts user-shared log-ins for reuse by those who don’t want to share their own personal details. It doesn’t always work and requires an extra step, but may be worth checking out if you have privacy concerns.

    Sex-ed source Scarleteen has launched the new Find-a-Doc service, a searchable database of services including STI testing, pregnancy testing, abortion, transgender health, LGBQ health, rape/abuse crisis, prenatal care, and more. You can also add new listings, but the providers *must* serve young people; reviews can also be added.

    RMJ at Deeply Problematic explores fat bodies in the Harry Potter books.

    Local school Belmont University finally added “sexual orientation” to their nondiscrimination policy. This would be more meaningful if Belmont President Dr. Bob Fisher, when asked whether openly gay people were welcome to study and work at Belmont, hadn’t responded by saying, “I would put that in the hypothetical category.” It’s hard for me to belief a nondiscrimination policy has teeth if it’s hypothetical as to whether the people the policy is supposed to cover are actually welcome. They also still need to add gender identity and expression. Kudos, though, to the folks who worked hard to get this small step.

    Lyon Martin Health Services, a San Francisco clinic that provides health care to many transgender and lgb persons, needs funding help to stay open. According to their website, “Currently, 39% of our patients are people of color; 14% are transgender and 41% self-identify as lesbian or bisexual; 84% live below 200% of the federal poverty level and 14% are homeless.” I wrote last year about a lecture I attended by an openly transgender physician affiliated with the clinic.

    Via Siobhan, links to info on an initiative to promote literacy in pediatric clinics.

    Canadian Blood Services (I could be wrong, but I think it’s kind of like our Red Cross in terms of blood donation), is planning to recommend that Health Canada start to roll back the lifetime ban for gay men on donating blood.

    Change.or has a brief overview of the serious lack of obstetric services/facilities for the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

    Amie at RHRC has an update on efforts in Washington State to hold “crisis pregnancy centers” accountable for their accuracy and disclosures.

    Yet another study found no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems.

    eastsidekate at Shakesville wants to share her own version of those car decals that demonstrate “how nuclear, hetero, and fecund your family is.”

    The CDC has a new section on their website on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Health.

    Anne Marie is talking about pelvic exams performed on anesthetized women without their knowledge or consent. I’d like to hear suggestions for actions toward putting a hard stop to this practice.

    I seriously want to have my belly button species cultured.

    And, just a reminder that I’m being more strict about moderating comments here. I don’t need to make a place for hatred and hostility. I also just don’t always have the energy to respond – again, and again, and again – to the “why do you care about this little thing?” arguments, to the feminism 101/derailing for dummies stuff. Some things I’ll let through in the hopes that someone else will respond (and I’m unbelievably grateful to the people who do), but I don’t always have the energy. Please know that my leaving something up in no way implies that I agree with the thoughts expressed. To the commenter who said she acts like a guy and so they don’t give her crap – I hope that protects you. If it doesn’t, it’s not because you didn’t act sufficiently like a man. I hope you realize how taking this stance positions all women as less than men instead of addressing the inequity of positioning women this way, and I recommend Julia Serano’s “Whipping Girl” to you. To the commenter who called the policy “censorship:” – I’m a librarian and I take that charge seriously; however, you may freely express your opinion at any website/blog of your own – I have no more obligation to be the one to provide a space for you than the New York Times would have to publish every screed they may receive.

    Related: if you never saw it, I really love Melissa McEwan’s response to the “little things” gambit related to the “Fat Princess” video game. Scroll down to: “How do you respond to the common argument “it’s just a game, and it’s not meant to be taken seriously”?

    Filed under: Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Birth, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Ethics, Government, Miscellaneous, News Round-Ups, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources

  • Posted in Abortion, Abuse, Rape, & Safety, Access, Rights, & Choice, Adolescent Health, Belly Button Biodiversity, Belmont, Birth, blood, Body Image & Eating Disorders, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, crisis pregnancy centers, Ethics, fat, Government, harry potter, healthcare providers, informed consent, LGBT, literacy, Miscellaneous, Nashville, native Americans, News Round-Ups, pelvic exam, rape, Republicans, Sex & Sex Education, Web Resources | Comments Off