Recently in Health Category

In Tuesday's What We Missed, we briefly mentioned the new USPST mammogram guidelines, which now recommend that women begin getting regular mammograms at age 50 rather than at 40, and that the frequency be reduced from annual to once every two years.

The guidelines have been criticized for being "patronizing" and "dangerous" for women's health, but there's one community that is put at particular risk by the guidelines but isn't receiving as much attention: black women.

My colleague and former classmate Ashton Lattimore writes on News One that "the potential impact of these guidelines on black women is a really important piece of the puzzle that so far hasn't gotten much discussion."

In her piece, she interviews Dr. Marissa Weiss, a leading breast cancer specialist and founder of BreastCancer.org, who confirms that African-American women are more likely to get breast cancer than white women when they're under age 40. (The U.S. Department of Health reports that Black women ages 35 to 44 have a breast cancer death rate more than twice that of white women in the same age group.)

The new guidelines, then, as Weiss points out, "would pass over the time of greatest risk for African-American women."

Lattimore also points out that triple negative breast cancer - an aggressive form of cancer- disproportionately impacts Black women, and that Black women are already diagnosed with later stage breast cancers more frequently than other groups.

Looks like perhaps the only good that will come out of these guidelines is increased awareness about the importance of ignoring them completely, as well as the importance of women- especially black women- undergoing regular and early mammogram screenings.

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

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

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

As Miriam noted the other day that it's Sesame Street's 40th anniversary, Global Voices Online brings attention to one character in particular that is making a significant impact in efforts to destigmatize HIV and AIDS in South Africa - the world's first HIV-positive muppet, Kami. Says Global Voices:

While Sesame Street is seen in over 140 countries, each version addresses local issues and has different Muppets. Golden-yellow Kami made her debut on the South African Sesame Street co-production, called Takalani Sesame, in 2002 in response to the country's HIV/AIDS problem. The world's first HIV-positive Muppet, she helps educate kids about the disease and confronts issues related to being HIV-positive. The name Kami is derived from the Setswana word "Kamogelo," meaning "acceptance."

She's also a child, a 5-year old orphan nervously came onto Sesame Street, scared the other characters wouldn't accept her - but they did with open arms. She informs viewers about the virus in easy-to-understand ways like showing folks that hugging someone with HIV is okay, as well as talks about coping and loss (as she lost her mother to HIV). She was also interviewed by Katie Couric, gave a message with Bill Clinton about HIV/AIDS and was named a UNICEF ambassador for children.

So we should have been surprised when folks in the U.S. were apparently up in arms about the character, saying she wasn't appropriate for children, despite the fact that South Africa is - as Global Voices reminds us - believed to have the highest number of people with HIV in the world. This is not to mention that 280,000 are children and there are 1.4 million orphans in South Africa because of AIDS.

So the question of an HIV-positive muppet on the American version of Sesame Street? Pshhhh, it's not even a question to be considered. But what folks don't seem to recognize is - how 'bout that, people in the U.S. are living with HIV/AIDS too! This does come from a personal place of hope; my friend Ebony from high school was born with HIV. She was an orphan too. She had a wonderful life full of people who loved her, but if she maybe had Kami to grow up with, I don't doubt that could have helped her childhood in a significant way.

For now, props to Sesame Street on their anniversary for addressing the reality of the world, and the reality of people's lives.

On Monday, the World Health Organization (WHO), an agency of the UN, released its first-ever study of women's health worldwide, Women and Health: Today's Evidence, Tomorrow's Agenda. The findings of the study, although perhaps not surprising to those of us who work in the field of international women's health, are still pretty outrageous: H.I.V. is the leading cause of death and disease among women between the ages of 15 and 44.

This is a sad and somewhat overwhelming statistic for me personally, since I view so many HIV infections among women as preventable with the right policy steps by the U.S. government and other governments of the world, and the right knowledge and information

Yes, I said it. Preventable. Although the WHO reports that unprotected sex is the leading risk factor in developing countries, don't let that statistic fool you. "Unprotected sex" may technically be the leading risk factor, but that doesn't tell the whole story. As the president of my NGO points out, women's vulnerability is increased by preventable conditions such as unmet need for contraceptives, insufficient legal and social protection for women against widespread sexual coercion and violence, social encouragement of the marriage of young girls to much older men, and lack of access to information about HIV, sexuality, and the availability of reproductive services.

Lastly, although this particularly disturbing statistic is deservedly getting a lot of coverage, check out some of the report's other findings, as summarized on Akimbo:

• Women provide the bulk of health care, but rarely receive the care they need
• Women live longer than men but these extra years are not always healthy
• Despite some biological advantages, women's health suffers from their lower socio-economic status
• Perhaps least surprisingly, policy change and action is needed within the health sector and beyond to ensure full protection of women's health and rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Writes Pilgrim Soul,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


• Work on overturning the Hyde Amendment


• Ask a pro-choice woman to run for office

Other suggestions?

UPDATE: Go read Shark-Fu.

UPDATE II: The Washington Post reports,

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

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

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

"Status is Everything": These are the words repeated in the new HIV testing campaign to be launched by the Newark, NJ African American Office of Gay Concerns (AAOGC).

The website is not functional yet, as the campaign will be revealed on December 1, 2009, and officially launched in January 2010, but their preview photo shoot for the advertising campaign was released on flickr this week.

Photos feature young gay African American men with the caption "Status is Everything," and the ad campaign will refer viewers to a hotline and website where they can schedule free HIV testing at local clinics.

Not found in this campaign, however, is the need for a cogent campaign that's inclusive of young women of color. In 2007, blacks accounted for 44% of the 455,636 people living with AIDS in the 50 states and District of Columbia. And as Advocates for Youth reports,

Black women and Latinas account for 79 percent of all reported HIV infections among 13- to 19-year-old women and 75 percent of HIV infections among 20- to 24-year-old women in the United States although, together, they represent only about 26 percent of U.S. women these ages.

One idea that has circulated this year accuses black men on the "down low," that is, closeted black men who have sexual exposure to other men while dating women, of contributing to the HIV epidemic and women's infection rates in the US. Yet, the director of the Centers for Disease Control's National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD and TB Prevention, Kevin Fenton, concluded that the cause of increased infection rates among black women was instead the incidence of black men with multiple heterosexual partners. He cites data that shows a lack of bisexual self-identification among the community of HIV-positive black men. (Is it possible that the accusation that "down low" men spread HIV is an extension of the race-fueled trend of the feminization of black men?)

This advertising campaign, while potentially powerful in the gay male community, won't help the black women who comprise 61 percent of all new HIV cases among women.

One thing is certain: Newark's new campaign, while not targeted toward the women affected most by HIV, is a nice change from other disturbing HIV advertising we've seen.

Remember how conservatives think the HPV vaccine will just make young girls want to go out and have lots of The Sex? According to a new UK study published in the British Journal of Cancer, it looks like getting the vaccine actually makes them even more wary about risky sexual behavior:

One in five of the 12 and 13-year-olds polled by the University of Manchester team thought the vaccine was embarrassing because it is for a sexually-transmitted infection - human papillomavirus, or HPV.

But, 79% of the girls said having the vaccination reminded them of the possible risks of sexual contact and 93% said it showed they were serious about their own health.

This is not too long after Gardasil was recently approved for boys and a new vaccine for girls aged 10-25 has been approved by the FDA, Cervarix.

The Daily Mail says women might imagine being drugged and put at risk of rape, but in reality they just drank too much.

Dr Adam Burgess, from the University of Kent school of social policy, said rumours about the prevalence of date-rape drugs were little more than an urban myth.

This led young women to underestimate real risks of alcohol misuse, which can include impaired judgment putting them at risk of sexual assault.

'The reason why fear of drink-spiking has become widespread seems to be a mix of it being more convenient to guard against than the effects of alcohol itself and the fact that such stories are exotic - like a more adult version of "stranger danger".'

The study, published in the British Journal of Criminology, found that three quarters of students identified drink-spiking as leading to an important risk of sexual assault - more than drinking too much alcohol.

If a journal of criminology is making these conclusions, you can start to understand the thinking that informs the legal system when dealing with rape cases. The person who analyzed this data set either hates women or is not a woman because (a) "oooh, I was drugged," is a far cry from an exotic story and (b) being drunk isn't what puts a woman at risk of sexual assault--being near a rapist does.

Perhaps looking at the increase in use of alcohol by women and its harrowing effects on self esteem on the body or the mind, or who is providing the alcohol to the victim, creating said circumstances for violence, might be helpful. But no, it is so much easier to blame young women and suggest they have rape fantasies about "stranger danger" and lie about their irresponsible boozing. Anything else you got that will shame women about their habits and suggest they were "asking for it?"

via Daily Mail.

Thanks to Hannah for the link.

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

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

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

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

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

Another video about Robertson's story after the jump.

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

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

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

Meanwhile, the National Breast Cancer Foundation maintains:

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

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

If you want a "real" man, don't use birth control!

This is too amazing. Today's stellar quote comes from "abortion doctors eat babies" Jill Stanek.

From Feministe:

Basically, a study says that women who use birth control tend to be attracted to men with more boyish features with caring personalities, versus "rugged" men with controlling personalities. The study itself is questionable, and the article detailing it comes from the less-than-reliable Daily Mail. But Stanek jumps on it nonetheless, saying, "Also don't forget estrogen from the Pill is water has been found by several studies to feminize male fish. So women on the Pill may be getting what they're helping create, wimps." (Emphasis mine)

Someone needs to read The Wimp Factor!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back in March, we mentioned that the FDA had recently approved a new female condom (FC) for distribution in the U.S.

Well folks, that new female condom has officially hit U.S. markets, and is now available for our all-American consumption. The FC2 is made of a new, thinner, material, is less likely to squeak during use, and is about 30% cheaper than the original FC.

My colleague Audacia Ray has a post up on Akimbo about why this news marks exciting progress for US women's access to safer sex materials.

Now, I know that the FC often gets a bad rap. Previous commenters have touched on some of the many criticisms it often faces- it's not readily available, it's too expensive, it squeaks, it looks funny, the materials' unfamiliar, it's uncomfortable, it's unnatural, it's inconvenient, it's not effective enough, etc. And part of this criticism is understandable because the FC is a relatively new form of contraception and- let's face it- not many of us use FCs on a regular basis, or even know someone who does. How many of us have even seen an FC for sale in a drugstore? Or seen women carrying around FCs in their wallets the way men often do with the male condom?

The Kinsey Institute folks over at Indiana University are the bomb dot com. Particularly, Debby Herbenick has been doing some really great, sex positive, feminist research. This ranges from the skinny on the prevalence of sex toy use to the recent study on the issue of low "genital self-esteem":

The anxiety some women feel about their genitals is rooted in messages gleaned from parents and pop culture, said study author Debby Herbenick, a sexual health educator with The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction.
"Individuals may adopt negative attitudes toward women's genitals as a result of cultural-level scripts that suggest that women's genitals are unclean or dirty," writes Dr. Herbenick, who is also associate director of Indiana's University's Center for Sexual Health Promotion in the School of Health, Physical Education and Recreation.

Recalling the euphemistic television ads for Massengill douche - the ones in which mothers and daughters stroll a beach or sail while chatting about vaginal freshness - Dr. Herbenick says:

"These images of the women walking on the beach are pretty salient in our minds. Growing up, we've seen these commercials. Even if we never felt like we bought into those ideas, we've certainly heard of them, we know them, we know the taglines.

"Women who are shopping for condoms in drugstores may see these sex wipes or baby wipes on the shelf, and even if they're not buying them, there's a sense with products that we don't see for men that women's genitals are dirty and need to be cleaned."

Herbenick also goes on to state that men are generally more positive about women's genitals than women. While I am sad that women's genital self-esteem is low, I am happy to hear that men are positive about women's genitals. I know how much vagina stigmatizing--especially when men do it--can hurt women. Terrence Howard still gets press coverage for the "wipe mandate" he issued in 2007. Many women, especially black women in my circle, added wipes to their hygiene arsenals after his foolishness.

At the same time, I believe in the role of cultural interpreters that call out this male validation business and strive to educate women about the potential effects of buying into some of these vagina mores. That's why Herbenick's work is so meaningful. It is doing just that.

I was one of those feminists who spent a lot of 2007 planning community forums about the importance of having options, first and foremost, when it comes to sexual health. But it didn't sit well with me that HPV vaccination efforts only involved young women.

Last month marked an important breakthrough in sexual health: an FDA panel recommended Gardasil, the HPV vaccine, for males ages 9 through 26. Although men and women have equal chances of getting genital warts -- a symptom of HPV -- they don't have equal access to testing or vaccinations, which are not widely available for men. Being the equality advocate that I am, when I learned that the vaccines would now be recommended for both sexes, I started to do an Irish dance -- yes, like the ones in the River Dance commercials that air at 5 a.m. -- but halted mid-step.

It's not my intent to do an about-face on this issue, but now that the vaccine is almost here I am totally conflicted. On one hand, men should take their sexual health more seriously because of how health outcomes can affect them and their partners. The introduction of this vaccine gives men an incentive to invest in their sexual health. But there are drawbacks when considering the decision-making of Merck, the maker of Gardasil, and the circumstances surrounding how money has been spent to advocate for the vaccine.

My beef with Gardasil is really a beef with the unethical practices of Merck, the pharmaceutical giant that currently has a monopoly over the HPV vaccine in the U.S. A report published in Business Week reminded me of Merck's decision in 2006 and 2007 to lobby lawmakers to make the vaccine mandatory in some states. To boot, the article notes that we still aren't in the know about long-term effects of Gardasil.

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

Go here to participate.

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

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

Meanwhile,

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

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

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

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

What is up with the hypocritical bullshit right wingers are pulling with their usage of pro-choice language to oppose health care reform? In a New York Times article on lawmakers who are seeking a ban on mandates for health insurance, Minnesota State Representative Tom Emmer is in the featured pic, with his quote in the caption:

"All I'm trying to do is protect the individual's right to make health care decisions. I just don't want the government getting between my decisions with my doctors."

He's also described his proposed legislation allowing the state to refuse a federal universal health care system as an amendment that would "protect the freedom of personal choice in health care.''

And yes, he is 100% anti-choice.

h/t to Aaron.

A study in in Cancer, the journal of the American Cancer Society, says that a rising number of women are having a healthy breast removed after being diagnosed with breast cancer as a preventative measure.

Because the only way to get people to care about women dying of breast cancer is to remind them that tits are stake.

Related: The Breast Cancer-Industrial Complex, More on breast cancer's most tragic victims..., Fun with Feminist Flickr (beating cancer/beating women edition), and more from Hoyden About Town.

Via.

Last year I wrote about how Gardasil, the relatively new HPV vaccine, had been added to the list of required vaccines for people seeking to adjust their immigration statuses.

Numerous immigration groups came out in opposition to this requirement, stating that it posed a unfair financial barrier to immigrant women, who already take on a lengthy and costly process to become citizens.

Well now one of the first reported cases of a young woman losing her path to citizenship because of Gardasil, via ABC.

For the last near decade, Davis has embarked on a quest to get Simone U.S. citizenship.

Now 17 and an aspiring elementary school teacher and devout Christian, Simone has only one thing standing in the way of her goal -- the controversial vaccine Gardasil.

Immigration law mandates that Simone get the vaccine to protect against the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus, which has been linked to cervical cancer.

But Simone, who has taken a virginity pledge and is not sexually active, doesn't see why she should have to take the vaccine, especially since it's been under fire recently regarding its safety. And none of her American classmates is mandated by law to be vaccinated.

"I am only 17 years old and planning to go to college and not have sex anytime soon," said Simone. "There is no chance of getting cervical cancer, so there's no point in getting the shot."

While I too, think that straight men can sadly be intimidated by women who love their vagina, this was upsetting. Another confession Fox divulged in her Rolling Stones interview was that she used to cut herself:

"Yeah...But I don't want to elaborate. I would never call myself a cutter. Girls go through different phases when they're growing up, when they're miserable and do different things, whether it's an eating disorder or they dabble in cutting."(Emphasis mine)

No biggie, just something girls "dabble in" as they grow up. Huh? While I respect her openness about her problem, normalizing pretty serious issues as just somethin' us gals do isn't sending her young emulating fans a good message here.

(Not to mention cutting seems to be more common in general among young actresses lately - and of course the media is eating it up. Heinous.)

Just a random shot I took yesterday of the "Women's Health" section at my local Eckerd drug store that I wanted to share.

Yes, it's no big news that women's products are very, very often pink for marketing purposes, but seeing an entire section of women's health supplements was just too pinkified to not point out.

In case you missed it, check out a snippet of First Lady Michelle Obama's speech on health care reform and women. You can read her full speech here.

h/t Michelle Obama Watch

A new study shows that states that skew towards more conservative religious beliefs tend to have higher rates of teenage girls giving birth. (Shocking, I know.)

Researcher Joseph Strayhorn of Drexel University College of Medicine and University of Pittsburgh says,"We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."

Now, obviously studies like these have the whole correlation/causation issue going on - but from the work I did write The Purity Myth, this study makes sense to me.

If you grow up in an area where you're taught that sex is bad and contraception is evil (and that it can kill you), when you do have pre-marital sex - as 95% of Americans will - you're much less likely to protect yourself. Not only because you've been taught that condoms cause cancer and other such ridiculousness, but also because you may think that if sex happens in the heat of the moment - and you didn't plan for it like a bad, slutty girl - you're not as tainted.

Incredibly disturbing news from the SEIU blog:

[I]n DC and nine other states, including Arkansas, Idaho, Mississippi, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Wyoming, insurance companies have gone too far, claiming that "domestic violence victim" is also a pre-existing condition.

For more information, read the National Women's Law Center report, Nowhere to Turn: How the Individual Health Insurance Market Fails Women.

Related: A cartoon from Mikhaela Reid

UPDATE: In April, Arkansas prohibited insurance discrimination against DV survivors

Yesterday, a FDA panel recommended that the agency approve Gardasil - the HPV vaccine - for use in young men and boys. Something tells me that despite the vaccine being recommended for use in boys as young as 9 years old, no conservative organizations are going to bemoaning boys' "lost innocence" or worrying about them becoming big whores.

Related: Quick Hit: The HPV vaccine for boys?
Good news on HPV vaccine?
How safe is the HPV vaccine?
Hit me with your best (HPV) shot

Today, the Obama administration is meeting with HIV/AIDS advocates and leaders in Atlanta to discuss the prevalence of AIDS in the U.S. and how the White House Office of National AIDS Policy (ONAP) can work on new strategies towards HIV prevention. I don't doubt many advocates are coming into these debates with much fervor considering Obama's recent reversal on AIDS policy.

And in coordinance with the administration's community discussions this week, RH Reality Check is doing a series in partnership with HIV Prevention Justice Alliance, the Community HIV/AIDS Mobilization Project (CHAMP), AIDS Foundation of Chicago, the Center for HIV Law and Policy, and others. Some pieces to check out:

• The AIDS Crisis in the United States: Will the Obama Administration Meet the Challenge? Julie Davids and David Ernesto Munar
• Community Engagement in HIV Policy: Are Townhalls Meaningful Enough? By Catherine Hanssens
• AIDS 50 Times Higher in Gay/Bi Men Than Other Groups, an analysis and critique by Walt Senterfitt of new CDC data presented this week in Atlanta
• Coming out HIV Positive, 14-year old LaShaun Brown reveals her HIV status for the first time and discusses her hopes and fears for the future.

Don't miss it.

How's that for a headline.

Reader Philip alerted us to this new study by Swedish researchers who found that a number of men felt that getting an sexually transmitted infection (STI) like chlamydia or HPV was perceived more as a medal of honor or right of passage than a health issue.

The University of Skövde researcher Kina Hammarlund, who is also a midwife, says she was (unsurprisingly) disappointed with the findings:

"Despite all the talk about gender equality, it seems like today's young people are wrestling with the same prejudices and stereotypical gender roles that existed when I was young in the 1970s."

While it's irritating that none of the factual evidence was disclosed (in terms of how many folks were studied, etc.), I still wanted to highlight it because it brings up interesting questions about men, sexual activity and contraception use compared to the stigma on women living with STIs as "damaged goods," etc.

Thoughts?

I promise I'm not just posting this episode of WBAI's Healthstyles because I'm interviewed on it. The awesome Tristin Aaron of the Women's Media Center guest-hosted this show and interviewed me, Jaclyn Friedman, and Jennifer Block - author of the great book Pushed: The painful truth about birth and modern maternity care. Tristin, Jaclyn and Jennifer are some seriously smart and compelling women - so please give a listen.

This is sort of astounding:

Women with a family history of breast cancer may have a new weapon against the disease: breast-feeding. In a new study of more than 60,000 women, nursing a baby for at least three months cut the risk of breast cancer in half for those who had a family history of the disease.

The researchers say that breast-feeding could be the equivalent of taking the drug tamoxifen for five years, which is a well-known way to cut breast cancer risk in women with a family history of the disease.

While breastfeeding didn't affect women who don't have a family history of the disease, for women with at least one close relative with breast cancer, breastfeeding cut the risk of premenopausal cancer by 59% compared to those who didn't. That's pretty significant.

Since needing to feed your hungry child apparently isn't good enough reason, maybe folks won't be so opposed to women breastfeeding in public, knowing it could potentially be life-saving and all. (Though something tells me not to hold my breath.)

Good news in the nation's capital. As reported by the Washington Post (free registration required), D.C. public schools are expanding a pilot program to offer education and free STD testing to all high school students.

The program conducted last year at eight high schools found that 13 percent of about 3,000 students tested positive for an STD, mostly gonorrhea or chlamydia, according to the D.C. Department of Health.

STDs are of particular concern to AIDS activists because they increase the risk of contracting HIV. The testing program was hailed in a report being released Wednesday by the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice as a positive step in the city's effort to arrest its growing AIDS rate, which is the highest in the nation and is considered an epidemic. Half of the city's cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea are among adolescents.

The program, which has been discussed by the D.C. school board, requires students to attend a lecture about STDs, but they can opt out of providing a urine sample for the test.

The D.C. program is modeled after a Philadelphia program and similar to those offered in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, and Baltimore.

For more information on the AIDS epidemic in D.C., click here. Yet another reminder of the need for comprehensive sex education. I love the idea of coupling education programs with free testing and hope to see this replicated in more school districts.

I'm not a player, I just shit a lot.

Can someone please tell me what's going on with women and poop lately? Seriously, it feels like every commercial I see is the sisterhood of the fucked up intestinal tract. Let me be clear. I have no problem with openness surrounding women and bodily functions - it's certainly better than the sexist women-don't-poop thing or the hilarity that dudes find in women shitting (because it means we're like actual people). But I find commercials like these, well...hard to stomach.

Ladies' insides = The Perfect Storm. I'm fairly sure that men have stomach-related problems, so why is nearly every shit-product marketed solely to women?

Take the most famous of crap-making yogurts, Activia. (Said much classier on the Activia website, which notes the yogurt will "reduce long intestinal transit time.")

Or fellow poop-pusher, Yoplait:

As Miriam mentioned in the health care reform roundup, Representative Lois Capps (D-CA) introduced an amendment to the House health care reform bill that would create a Healthy Teen Initiative. Jodi Jacobson at RH Reality Check shares the story of this amendment, the result of work by a coalition of sexual health advocates to expand the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative proposed in the president's budget. Advocates were concerned by the limited scope of the president's initiative, which, as I discussed previously, would exclude information about and strategies for preventing the spread of sexuality transmitted diseases.

The Healthy Teen Initiative would authorize $50 million to fund program models that have been proven -

to delay initiation of sex; to decrease number of partners; to reduce teen pregnancy; to reduce sexually transmitted infection rates; or to improve rates of contraceptive use.

This initiative is a big improvement over that originally proposed by the president. While the Healthy Teen Initiative is not explicitly about funding only comprehensive sexuality education, it could be an important step in the transition from supporting failed abstinence only programs. Yes, I am still bothered by the inclusion of language that presumes certain forms of teen sexuality should be prevented without concern about whether young people are having sex at a certain age or with a certain number of partners in a way that is personally healthy and consensual. But the need for education about sexually transmitted diseases and contraception is great and this initiative would be an important first step. I am also happy to see this included in health care reform, a symbolic recognition that teen sexuality is a health issue, which has been masked by the focus on religion and morality.

Choice USA, an organization representing the voice of young people in the reproductive justice movement, recently launched a campaign to promote comprehensive sexuality education (full disclosure: I have done some consulting related to this campaign). Executive Director Kierra Johnson said of the Healthy Teen Initiative, "Sex education is preventative health care. The Healthy Teen Initiative is a smart move and the right move to ensure young people have access to information and medical services that can keep them healthy and save their lives. I applaud the Committee's work to ensure full and comprehensive health care to teens and the millions of young people who are uninsured in this country."

This weekly Saturday column "Ask Professor Foxy" will regularly contain sexually explicit material. This material is likely not safe for work viewing. The title of the column will include the major topic of the post, so please read the topic when deciding whether or not to read the entire column.

Dear Professor Foxy,

Thank you,
Searching in Vain

Hi Searching in Vain -
I think you are starting off on the right track by speaking with your friends. The next step is to call to schedule an appointment with one of those healthcare providers and make it clear to the person that you want to speak with the provider prior to the visit. If the receptionist refuses to do this, you do not even to step into that office, you know that it is not the place for you.

I am purposefully not saying doctor because there are many other types of healthcare providers with whom you may feel more comfortable. Registered nurses, nurse midwives, and physician's assistants can also provide many of these services and studies show that these types of healthcare providers tend to spend more time with their patients.

Also think about the demographics of the person you want to see. Many people prefer one gender over the other or feel more comfortable with certain age ranges. You can also ask for this information when you call.

Some other ideas include calling a local rape crisis or sexual assault center to see if they have healthcare providers that they regularly work with that they could recommend.

Also think about bringing a friend or loved one for support. This person can accompany you all the way through the conversation and exam.

I recognize that this is incredibly hard and I am doubly sorry that your mother's doctor made it so much worse. Healthcare providers should never reduce people to their body parts, especially when it comes to our genitalia.

We all deserve healthcare providers who talk to us with our clothes on, who listen to our concerns and who treat us like human beings. It will take you time and effort, but I believe you can find such a person.

Best,
Professor Foxy

If you have a question for Professor Foxy, send it to ProfessorFoxyATfeministingDOTcom.

While Jos alerted us a couple of weeks ago to the anti-choice Democrats who are trying to keep abortion funding out of the health care reform plan, a recent interview with our president makes us wonder if he's caving into their efforts.

In an interview with Katie Couric this week, he finally addressed abortion funding in health care reform, but it wasn't too pleasing; he asserted he wasn't looking to "micro-manage" which benefits are covered and that not funding abortion has generally been "the tradition":

Katie Couric: Do you favor a government option that would cover abortions?

President Obama: What I think is important, at this stage, is not trying to micromanage what benefits are covered. Because I think we're still trying to get a framework. And my main focus is making sure that people have the options of high quality care at the lowest possible price.

As you know, I'm pro choice. But I think we also have a tradition of, in this town, historically, of not financing abortions as part of government funded health care. Rather than wade into that issue at this point, I think that it's appropriate for us to figure out how to just deliver on the cost savings, and not get distracted by the abortion debate at this station. (Emphasis mine)

That is a reference to the Hyde Amendment, which currently prevents Medicaid coverage of abortions for poor women. And while none of the health reform bills in Congress threaten Hyde, reproductive health advocates have been trying for decades to repeal the ban. By deferring to this "tradition," Obama seems to be signaling that he could support a public plan that excludes abortion coverage.

This is despite the fact that during his campaign, he stated that he opposed the amendment. Dana Goldstein has more. Read more about the Hyde Amendment here. And take action here.

Last night while watching Obama address the country on health care, I was indeed shocked like everyone else when Lynn Sweet asked Obama what he felt about Skip Gates. I was both, disappointed that she was derailing the focus on health care and anxious about the potential answer. Obama has not talked much about violence or police brutality, even though during his administration there have been many incidents of violence between police and people of color.

So what did he actually say? Watch the video below.

(Transcript after the jump.)

I never imagined that he would make jokes about "getting shot in front of the White House," and how "it could have been me." These comments show an understanding of racial profiling that no other president has ever had. Being so candid in expressing these comments, I almost wondered if it was political suicide. Granted, Obama has worked on the issue of racial profiling in Chicago so he has experience on the topic and maybe it would seem odd if he were to deny it.

But what are the implications of what he said? As Adam Serwer said on twitter (yes on twitter), " Reporters are going to act like this was a "betrayal" of a post-racial promise Obama never actually made." Obama is defying the most popular election/post-election meme which is that we are in a "post-racial" time. Many whites in this country are committed to the idea of being in a post-racial space, it makes them feel relieved and less bad about the racism of the past. It also gives them a pass on harboring racist sentiments about things like affirmative action. Furthermore, Obama's comments reminded Americans (who are more committed to the task of remembering to forget racism) that Obama is actually black like "those" that can be picked up by the cops, not "almost white" or a "decent black," that isn't a threat to you. That racism is so endemic in our society even the POTUS can't get away from it. I have written about this tension amongst moderate/liberals about the legibility of his blackness (and will shamelessly quote myself here),

If you're anything like me, you might be a tad bit overwhelmed with the news about health care reform. It is THE issue on the Obama agenda and Congress has been working away at their various plans for months.

It's hard to keep up with all the news about amendments, single payer, etc. Here is a round up of some health care related links to get you up to speed on what's going on.

First, tonight at 8pm EST Obama will be addressing the nation with a press conference that is likely to be centered on urging support for health care reform.

Abortion funding within health care reform continues to be a hot button issue. Jos wrote about this action alert a few weeks ago, and now Dana Goldstein has more on the Moderate Democrats opposing abortion funding.

Chris Hayes at The Nation puts the health care fight in perspective: "If there's going to be a pivot onto a new path of progress this is it."

The National Women's Law Center has this graphic explaining the process and timeline for health care reform. They are predicting having a bill on Obama's desk by October. You can download an expanded version of the graphic here.

If you're interested in the topic I wrote about at TAP a few weeks ago, the efforts of Certified Professional Midwives to get recognized in the health care reform process, read this article at RH Reality Check. Amie Newman shares that the American College of Nurse Midwives is officially opposing their attempts.

Advocates of single-payer gained a small win last week, with an amendment co-sponsored by Kucinich that could open that door. John Nichols at The Nation has more on this, including the perspective that Canada didn't actually start with a single-payer system.

Comprehensive sex ed won inclusion in one of the health care reform bills being considered. RH Reality Check has the details.

For a great weekly update on health care reform check out the Media Consortium's health care Weekly Pulse, written by Lindsay Beyerstein and always cross-posted on the community blog!

UPDATE: Senator Durbin just admitted that a vote on health care reform before the August recess is unlikely.

Guttmacher Institute is reporting on a new study of women's contraceptive usage across age ranges.

A new study of women's contraceptive use around the world finds that sexually active 15-19-year-olds are more likely than their 20-49-year-old counterparts to use contraceptives inconsistently and, on average, experience a 25% higher rate of contraceptive failure.

The study's authors, Ann K. Blanc of EngenderHealth et al., believe that compared with adult women, adolescent women face more obstacles to consistent contraceptive use--including feeling embarrassed about seeking out contraceptives, not being able to afford them and not knowing how to use them correctly--and may be more likely to abandon a method and try another if they experience side effects, which often leads to gaps in contraceptive use. The authors also note that, in comparison with adult women, adolescents tend to use methods with higher failure rates, to use methods less effectively and to be more fertile--all factors that increase the risk of unintended pregnancy.

This isn't really surprising data, and while the study acknowledges that contraceptive usage among young women has gone up in many countries, this inconsistent usage could definitely be an issue. This study is interesting because it looks globally at contraceptive usage. Access and education to contraceptives vary widely across the world, depending on the economic situation, political environment and other factors in determining access. The study also points out that demand for contraceptives will only rise as the population increases, and that international health systems are going to have to be significantly improved to adjust to this rise.

You can read the rest of the study here.

Or 'enter', whatever.

A new report from the CDC says that "trends in the sexual and reproductive health of U.S. teens and young adults have flattened, or in some instances may be worsening." Are we really surprised?

Thanks to a decade of misinformation masquerading as sex education, teens are having the same amount of sex, using contraception less, and getting pregnant more.

We're reaping what we've sowed. A 2002 study found that one-third of U.S. teenagers hadn't received any formal instruction about contraception. For those who did learn about contraception - it was all scare tactics. In Me, My World, My Future - a textbook used in public schools across the country - students are told that "relying on condoms is like playing Russian roulette." A Case Western Reserve University study found that Ohio students have been taught that the birth control pill increases young women's chances of infertility later in life. And in 2005, teens at Montana's Bozeman High School were even taught that condoms cause cancer. So why would teens want to depend on something that they're told is not only ineffective, but cancer-causing to boot?

I'm stoked that the new budget has cut funding for abstinence-only education, I really am. But de-funding these programs is not enough. We have to undo the damage that's been done to young people and support real solutions: If we want to lower the teen pregnancy rate, we need to demand that contraception be easily accessible and affordable to young people. Yes - this means condoms in schools and community centers, and emergency contraception being available to teens over the counter. If we want to ensure that teenagers are well-informed, we need to demand federal and state funding for comprehensive sex education.

The purity-pushers are not going anywhere, but this is about more than politics...it's about our health and futures. (And goodness knows I don't know either in the hands of someone who could think up the above shirt.)

Congress has been busy lately, and there are currently a number of pieces of reproductive and sexual health-related legislation moving through both the House and Senate. A roundup of what I've been following after the jump.

Via BusinessWire:

Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NASDAQ: TEVA) announced today that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved its New Drug Application (NDA) for Plan B® One-Step emergency contraception (levonorgestrel tablet, 1.5 mg). Now, with new Plan B® One-Step, women can help prevent an unintended pregnancy after unprotected sex or contraceptive failure with just one pill in one dose. The FDA is expanding over-the-counter (OTC) access to Plan B® One-Step for consumers age 17 or older; women younger than age 17 will require a prescription. The product will be available at licensed U.S. retail pharmacies within the next month.

Thanks to the National Institute for Reproductive Health for the heads up.

Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

What America is going to do about climate change and what we're going to do about our health care system--the two main challenges facing US today.

Our health outcomes are consistently behind so many other countries. If we don't do something, this new generation will be the first to have a life expectancy less than that of their parents.

We have 12,000 people every year losing their health benefits. We have about 46 million Americans without health coverage at all.

As a parent it was pretty scary to watch my kids, in their twenties, go beyond their college plans and they were in a situation where there was no employer provided health plan. For a lot of folks, they take a chance, and they say they're going to go without coverage. You are an accident away, or a step away from debt that will follow you for the rest of your life.

The current financial situation we know is unsustainable. Our businesses are less sustainable because they are competing with products that don't bear the burden of health care coverage.

In the last attempt at health care, doing nothing was seen as less scary than doing something. I don't hear anybody saying that what we're doing now is a really good strategy moving forward. It will bankrupt governments, families, business. And we don't get good results.

The good news is I think Congress is truly engaged. When the President determined that this will be the year for health care, he took a bold risk. What he determined was you can't fix the economy without fixing health care. It's about 16% of the overall GDP right now but it's on the rise.

Shameless self-promotion time. My first article is up at The American Prospect, Delivering Affordable Healthcare, on the connection between midwives and health care reform.

Michelle Bartlett is not the typical Washington high-stakes health-care player. She's probably not on the radar of anyone in Congress or the Obama administration. Bartlett is a midwife in Idaho, but in the last few years, she's been trying her hand at lobbying. This came after a night spent in jail for using medication during a home birth she attended in 2000. Bartlett was the second midwife to be charged for this type of practice in Idaho, and thanks to her efforts, she will be the last in her state. "I've done a lot of hard things in my life, and giving birth was one of them," Bartlett says. "But giving birth to a law was really hard."

On April 1, Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter of Idaho signed legislation allowing certified professional midwives (CPMs) like Bartlett to administer medication during births. Unlike certified nurse midwives who are able to practice in all 50 states and generally work in hospital settings alongside obstetricians, midwives like Bartlett are referred to as "direct entry" midwives, and practice exclusively outside of hospitals, mostly in homes or birth centers. These CPMs spend three to five years training and meet the standards for certification set by the North American Registry of Midwives.

...

State licensing fights may be the first step for these midwives, but it's not their last. Now they're turning their attention to the federal health-care reform debate, and a look at the maternity-related health-care costs quickly explains why. Childbirth is among the top five causes for hospitalization, and the No. 1 cause for women. According to Childbirth Connection, Cesarean section is the most common operating-room procedure, and in 2009 the C-section rate hit an all-time high according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, at 31.8 percent of all births. These rates account, in part, for the increasing cost of maternity care in the U.S. Maternal and newborn charges totaled $86 billion in 2006, 45 percent of which was paid for by Medicaid. The federal government is already footing a huge portion of the U.S.' maternity-care bill, and these midwives think they can help reduce costs significantly, and not just for low-income women.

Read the rest of the article here.

Check out Project 1, a new two-part project. The site documents Jamila K. Gaskins' 12, 000 mile bicycle journey across America "facing her physical limitations, desolate stretches of road, miles of mountain climbs, hot asphalt, and cold winds which mirrors the situations in the lives of many HIV+ and HIV- women." She plans to make this journey into a documentary in honor of her uncle Tommy, who is HIV positive (pictured right). More on Jamila's motivation:

I want my actions and this production to engage the hearts and minds of girls and women across the country, and serve as a signal of empowerment, education and hope. I am creating this film and cycling for myself my niece, Kai, my sisters, Sidney, LaShonda, my best girlfriends, Michelle, Erin and Sofia, and the many other women I hold in my heart. We all have women we love; your wife, mother, grandmother, aunt, sister, daughter, and best friend. It is vital that they are confident in their voice, secure with themselves and knowledgeable enough to make informed, healthy decisions in every aspect of their lives.

Sadly, most of the time pharmacists are mentioned on Feministing it's regarding "conscience clause" folks - anti-choice pharmacists (and their buddy Bush) who believe it's their "religious or moral" right to refuse to sell contraception to women even though it's, you know, their job and all. So it was really refreshing to find a group of pharmacists who actually give a hoot about women's health. (Until we found out they exclude trans women - update below.)

Today, Vancouver Women's Health Collective have opened Lu's: A Pharmacy for Women.This will be the first women-run and women-only pharmacy in North America. VWHC's executive director, Caryn Duncan, said:

"Women felt, 'I want a woman pharmacist. I want to know that when I walk in the door, I'm going to be getting sound women-centred care from a pharmacist. I can talk to her about emergency contraception or a vaginal infection, something that is very personal and intimate.'"

UPDATE: A reader alerted us to Bilerico's findings that the pharmacy specifically excludes trans women. Commenter Lau actually interviewed VWHC about this, who said that the policy existed because trans folks' health is different and there is already a heath center for trans people in Vancouver (which is supposed to make it all okay). Sounds damn weak to me. If their lack of expertise in trans folks' health is really a concern, why not bring in someone who can assist them? As Mercedes on Bilerico said:

For those who don't know Vancouver, that part of West Hastings is near the rough part of town, the skid row. There are other pharmacies present, all cold environments, heavy glass between caregiver and client, patrons subject to suspicion just for entering the doors. In this area, yes, trans sex workers and the poor of our community could probably use some respectful and reliable advice without hostility and prejudice. Unfortunately, Lu's is not there to give it -- Lu's has chosen to be selective in how it defines women.

Just wanted to share my friend, Claire Mysko's smart response, to this article about "pregorexia"--"a disorder marked by preoccupation with weight control through extreme dieting and over-exercising while pregnant.":

I just cringe at that "pregorexia" term every time I see it. It's just another example of how eating disorders are always presented in extremes (and having the gallery of "look how skinny she was!" photos certainly doesn't help). That kind of coverage makes it much easier for other women to separate themselves and, sadly, to pass judgment ("How could she be so selfish?). And that "selfish" label is one that the pregnant women and moms we interviewed are truly terrified of. It's why so many of them keep their eating disorders, disordered eating and body image issues quiet. Three quarters of them admitted that didn't even discuss those histories with their doctors.

Hopefully we'll be able to broaden the discussion with our upcoming book, Does This Pregnancy Make Me Look Fat?: The Essential Guide to Loving Your Body Before and After Baby.

Keep any eye out for it in October!

In a historic move the Department of Health and Human Services has issued regulations that will start the process to lift the HIV travel and immigration ban. The ban is from the 80's and has stigmatized and restricted the movement of people with HIV. The ban is based on discrimination, hate and fear. Andrew Sullivan writes,

Once the ban is lifted, the US will be able to become a venue for AIDS and HIV research conferences again (the US has been unable to host such events because of the ban for years), and leave behind the tiny number of countries - from Yemen to Saudi Arabia - that still actively stigmatize and penalize people with HIV in travel. It will remove a measure that discourages honesty about HIV, and promotes a stigma around the disease that makes effective prevention and treatment much harder. It will save lives. It will save relationships and marriages. It will place America where it belongs - at the forefront of global AIDS and HIV leadership. And because all immigrants have to prove they will not be a public charge and have private health insurance, and because a fee was added to the visa application to pay for the costs of enforcement, the fiscal effect is minimal - and offset by taxes legal immigrants like yours truly will continue to pay.

This is great news.

This is a guestblog from Audacia Ray of Waking Vixen and author of Naked on the Internet.

This past week it was revealed that there are some new cases of HIV within the adult industry in Los Angeles. The LA Times and LAist have both covered the story, as have adult industry media outlets AVN and Xbiz. A stunning majority of straight porn companies do not require condoms and actively discourage their use - in the business this is called "condom optional" which is euphemistic for "you either perform without a condom or you don't perform for this company." The gay porn industry has slightly different standards than the straight porn business. Gay porn companies do not require testing, with the idea that it is an invasion of privacy and HIV shouldn't prevent people from working/having sex, but the more reputable companies require condom use. The Gay Video News Awards (GayVN) will not consider a film for an award if there is "barebacking" (sex without a condom) in it.

I worked in and around the sex industry (porn and other sectors) for several years, so my take on the news of recent HIV cases and the dynamics of health, safety, and responsibility within the porn business is colored by my experiences in and frustrations with the business. I directed and produced a bisexual feature porn film, The Bi Apple, which was shot in NYC in summer 2006 and released in February 2007. It went on to win a Feminist Porn Award for Hottest Bisexual Scene and was nominated for Best Bisexual Video at the GayVN Awards (where, by the way, it was pretty fun to be the lone girl director). The company I made the film for required performers to be negative for HIV, chlamydia, and gonorrhea, and I required all performers to wear condoms for vaginal and anal sex and the option to use condoms for oral sex (no one opted to negotiate condom use for oral). I also paid for tests for the performers who weren't working regularly and didn't have a recent test on hand.

Marilu Morales has filed a federal lawsuit after being allegedly shackled while giving birth at Cook County Jail in Chicago.

...Morales was eight months' pregnant when she was incarcerated in April 2008, according to the lawsuit. It could not be immediately determined on what charges Morales was being held.

When she went into labor three days later, she was taken to Stroger. A sheriff's deputy shackled a hand and foot to the hospital bed, the lawsuit alleged.

Morales was in labor for four hours before a physician ordered the deputy to remove the shackles shortly before she gave birth, the lawsuit said. The shackles were allegedly put back on immediately after the baby was born.

This is the fourth lawsuit that Flaxman has filed against Sheriff Tom Dart's office regarding a pregnant prisoner had been shackled while giving birth. Unbelievable.

Related posts: Judge jails HIV positive woman to "protect" her fetus
New report: Mothering in Prison
Woman gives birth in jail cell, alone
Bureau of Prisons bans shackling pregnant inmates
Critical Resistance: Prisons as a Tool of Reproductive Oppression

Moderator Isobel Coleman begins by pointing out that there is some controversy over the title of the panel itself. She asks: "Is this a new agenda? Who's agenda is it?"

The first panelist to speak is Lamia Karim (pictured right), from the Department of Anthropology at the University of Oregon. She speaks to all of the various human rights discourses, many of which she obviously doesn't think are complex or ethical. "What I am most interested in is grassrooots, indigenous, human rights movements organized, not around an individual human, but much more on a group rights basis.This is taking up these rights discourses but trying to renegotiate with the realities on the ground."

"As feminists we need to really go beyond the rhetoric of the empowerment of women and ask carefully, 'What does it take to empower women? Is money enough? What does it mean to give women access to capital without giving them skills training?' This is the Grameen Bank model--based on neo-liberalism."

Larnia has a book coming out through UC Press in spring 2010 which she describes as "a radical critique of this model, this particular model. I wanted to put it out there because this has become a very innovative way of framing how women, especially in the global south and very poor women, can be economically and socially empowered." Can't wait for that!

Isobel turns to Jill Lester next, who is the ED of The Hunger Project, to ask her what her reaction is to the radical critique of micro lending.

"Unfortunately, I think we're going to be in violent agreement." [audience laughs]

"The Hunger Project believes in an integrated approach to poverty. Part of that is having a micro finance facility. We ask the community to form a micro finance committee of 100% women to set their own agenda."

Next up is Radhika Balakrishnan (pictured left), of the Marymount Manhattan College:
"Rather than talking about the crisis as if it something that fell from the sky, we're calling it the 'manufactured crisis,' caused by deliberate changes that the government made in the regulatory framework."

"We're trying to turn human rights around on them. You want to oppose human rights all over the world? What about the human right violation right here. What about the TARP legislation? There's no transparency. That's public money. This is our institution. Therefore there's a human rights obligation on the state."

Cynthia Enloe (holy amazing) jumps in as the pinch hitter:

"One has to be able to think analytically in order to act. I've hated the theory-practice divide. It's stupid. Anyone who acts, especially if you try to act collectively, if you try to mobilize beyond your best friend, it means you've done some causal thinking. You are an analyst. Out of your action come new analytical understandings. It works and you think why did it work? Or it didn't and you have to go back to the drawing table. We are all analysts. We are all thinkers who think thinking matters. Thinking is in handshake with action."

"If we've learned something from feminist thinking from around the world, it is that you have to think big in order to think small--the guys say that of course--but you also have to think small in order to think big. It works both ways and it's really one of the great strengths of feminist thinking for action."

"We are at a moment now where we've got a pool of schools and an understanding of what needs to be acted upon, some people call it an agenda, and we are at a moment, not just because we have a new president of one country, not just because the institutions of capitalism are wobbly (they're not as wobbly as we'd liked)."

"We really are at a moment amongst all of us, and I mean all of us who aren't in the room, where we have the capacity to think as if it matters and the capaity to know what needs to be acted upon. This is a very, very exciting moment. We shouldn't let cynicsm let that moment pass."

"Think as if it matters and then act as if it affects our thinking."

A new study says that breastfeeding may lower the risk of MS relapses after pregnancy.

I am a fan of the sponge. But they need to stop teasing, for real.

From The New York Times:

At one time the Today Sponge, a spermicide-coated polyurethane barrier placed in the vagina to inhibit sperm, was the most popular form of over-the-counter birth control for women. Now, a new distributor is introducing it again this weekend, hoping to reclaim that status.

Introduced in 1983, the sponge first disappeared from drugstores in 1994 after some manufacturing problems. It reappeared in 2005 under new ownership, which spent millions to promote the brand before selling it to another company. That new proprietor declared bankruptcy in late 2007, taking the Today Sponge out of production last year.

I remember when the sponge came back in 2007, and I started to use it soon after. Then *poof*, gone. So let's hope the Today sponge is here to stay - because the more contraceptive options women have, the better!

Via PopGadget.

I've gotten shit for my bougie love of yoga before, but I thought I'd let folks know about my latest obsession: YogaToday. Here's a groovy little advertisement for it:

If you've got an internet connection and a computer, you can do an hour long yoga class with gorgeous views of the Wyoming landscape. In this economy, free yoga classes are especially sweet. Plus you can make weird noises and the only one who notices is your cat. TMI. Sorry.

Check out this surprisingly informative piece from the sexpert over at Fox News (yeah, I did a double take as well), Yvonne Fulbright about the reported decrease in sex organ functioning and loss of sex drive due to anorexia and bulimia. She writes,

*Possibly triggering*

Having an eating disorder is also linked to deficient sexual functioning in women when they become sexually active. When a female severely reduces her intake of food to the point she's consuming hardly anything, naturally, her reproductive system shuts down.

With low body fat, her body fails to produce sufficient amounts of sex hormones, namely estrogen. Thus, she'll quit menstruating, making pregnancy difficult for those hoping to reproduce. These endocrinal changes have a domino effect, starting with a lack of vaginal secretions.

This loss of vaginal lubrication makes intercourse painful and uncomfortable. As a result, many develop an aversive reaction to sex and further loss of interest. Lack of orgasm is also common in women with anorexia nervosa.

That is the medical advice, prior to this Fulbright goes into women with eating disorders and how their low self esteem affects their sex drive. I think her analysis is apt.

The one thing that is rubbing me the wrong way (and perhaps I am reading into it to much!) is the way this is couched as advice on how to have better sex as opposed to how to have a healthier self-esteem. I guess it is a sex column, but the reason women should stop having eating disorders is because of their sex drive, not because it is unhealthy? Also, I was hoping that when she wrote the tag line to the article she was going to suggest that having a curvy figure is sexy, as well, to counter-act the reason that so many women have eating disorders; they are taught that thin is sexy.

Finally, doesn't the advice border on, "you better stop it with that eating disorder, because it is NOT sexy?"

Go check out Our Bodies Ourselves 2009 Women's Health Heroes. It is an amazing group of women's health advocates. From the blog,

The 20 outstanding individuals and organizations inducted in May 2009 have made significant, long-lasting contributions to women's health. Their work covers a wide range of health fields and disciplines.

Included are midwives and women advocating for safer, more comfortable births; founders of websites on chronic illness and teen sexuality; an activist against female genital mutilation; director of a LGBT health center; a public health nurse; a photographer; and many more.

This inaugural group, chosen from close to 100 nominations, represents seven countries: United States (13), Canada (2), Australia, The Netherlands, Nigeria, United Kingdom, Ukraine.

Feministing is honored to stand next to these amazing women. Thanks OBOS!

From the Wall Street Journal:

Women tend to pay higher premiums than men for health insurance. Insurers have argued this is because women tend to have higher health costs, particularly during the child-bearing years.

But as the feds scrutinize health care, that disparity has come under the spotlight; earlier this week, Massachusetts Dem John Kerry introduced a bill that would prohibit insurers from charging women more than men.

And testifying in the Senate yesterday, Karen Ignani, the president of the big trade group for health insurers, said she doesn't think gender should factor into women's rates when buying individual policies.

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is a great start. Thanks Kerry!

Related posts:
Josh T's community post
Personal is Political: Buying my own health insurance
Women Pay the Price for Health Insurance

So when I recently decided to take a leap and quit my full-time job, I didn't initially realize how big of a deal buying my own health insurance would be.

I realized that it would be expensive, and probably not great coverage. But what I didn't know was that I would have to worry about getting denied coverage completely and wait more than 6 weeks for my application to be approved.

I was pretty much indignant when I decided I wanted to quit my job and try cobbling together a living in a non-conventional way. I had saved money for the three years I worked full-time, I had planned out some future sources of income to keep me going initially. The idea that I wouldn't be able to pursue what I wanted to do with my life because of health insurance just seemed silly.

I'm actually one of the lucky ones. I didn't get denied coverage. I did however, while I was anxiously waiting to hear back, hear stories from numerous friends who were denied for lots of seemingly ridiculous reasons. One friend told me he was denied because he had been prescribed anti-depressants once. Another was denied because of a long ago issue with ovarian cysts that was being regulated through birth control.

The bottom line is that we have no protections against the arbitrary and discriminatory policies of the health insurance companies. I was approved for coverage, but not until 6 weeks after I had submitted my application. That meant that in order for me not to have a gap in coverage I had to pay more than $500 the first month after leaving my job to stay on the COBRA policy from my organization.

Again, I'm lucky in all of this. I don't have serious medical problems, I saved some money to help me cover the high monthly cost of insurance. But there is no doubt the system is beyond broken.

Fingers crossed that the Obama administration can move forward on the fixes that we need so so badly.

For some more facts on the rising cost of health care and it's impacts, check out this fact sheet from the National Coalition on Health Care.

Sorry, not OK to rename the swine flu to the "Mexican" flu. Channing Kennedy writes at the Racewire blog,

Let me be among the first to say that the move by some to rename 'swine flu' to 'Mexican flu' is offensive on its face and in its roots. It does everything to fuel unfounded fears, and it politicizes a serious health crisis in a thinly veiled effort to stoke hatred toward an already-vulnerable group. Worst of all, it doesn't even blame the right people!

And better yet, renames it to Spring Breaker flu. Go read the rest. High-larious.

via Danah Boyd, it seems the government is not taking gender identity or sexual orientation into account when it collects health data. Bill Jesdale writes,

But there is no nationally representative dataset that yet captures sexual orientation data, making it very difficult to do the kind of research I am most intereted in - looking at the impact of normative heterosexuality on health. Because most of the studies that do include sexual orientation data happen in States that are relatively friendly (VT, RI, MA, CA, WI, etc.), it is difficult to find a comparison group exposed to higher levels of societal homophobia.

I understand reservations about differentiating between different sexual orientations and gender identities when collecting this data -- because research can be manipulated to make generalizations and downplay or ignore people's individual experiences. (We discussed this in the comments to Courtney's post on the New York Times Magazine piece on female desire.) But in order to advocate for big-picture solutions to address the ways LGBTQ folks are discriminated against in the health system, it would really help to know how widespread problems are. That's where data come in -- and why I ultimately think it's a good idea to ask that info like gender identity and sexual orientation be included in data collection.

There's already some movement in this direction:

Hats off to Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) for initiating a "Dear Colleague" letter to ask the Senate to set aside $2M to ask questions about sexual orientation and gender identity on the National Health Interview Survey is a good start.

Now let's get other senators to sign on. Do you live in California, Connecticut, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Virginia or Wisconsin? More info on how to contact your senator, after the jump...

We are humbled and honored to be among the nominees for the Our Bodies, Ourselves Women's Health Heroes contest.

Nominator Amy says:

I would like to nominate the great blogging women of feministing.com as my Women's Health Heroes. I have been enthusiastically reading feministing for quite some time and I feel that it gives young women a space to voice their concerns, in addition to learning about other's perspectives on important health issues. The women of feministing deserve recognition for always keeping readers up-to-date and for also sharing lighter and funnier news.

Thanks Amy!

You can check out our nomination here, and vote for us if you like. You can vote by rating the entry using the stars at the bottom of the entry, or by leaving a comment.

Also take a gander at the other nominees, who are an impressive bunch of activists and leaders.

Voting ends May 8th.

Woot!

A study from Lucile Packard Children's Hospital and the Stanford University School of Medicine shows that health websites that have sexual health information for teens are often "riddled with errors and omissions."

Lead researcher Sophia Yen, MD, said, "Even widely trusted sites like WebMD are not that accurate when it comes to adolescent reproductive health...Teens should be cautious about finding sexual health answers on the Web."

About half of the Web sites, including such highly trafficked destinations as Wikipedia and Mayoclinic.com, failed to provide accurate, complete information about emergency contraception, also known as "the morning-after pill." For instance, sites often failed to say that minors can buy emergency contraception from authorized pharmacists in nine states, and many sites did not correct the myth that emergency contraception causes an abortion.

So where can young people find accurate sexual health info? The research team found that the most reliable sites are Go Ask Alice, the Center for Young Women's Health, TeensHealth, and Planned Parenthood's Teen Wire.

Jennifer Block, author of Pushed: The Painful Truth About Childbirth and Modern Maternity Care, has a great piece up on Babble about the backlash against breastfeeding. (Specifically, she takes on Hanna Rosin's recent Atlantic article.)

We tell women that breast is best, we tell them to breastfeed exclusively for the first six months, we even tell them it will raise their kid's IQ (and we should give that a rest), and then we send them home with formula samples, or with a baby whose throat is too sore to suckle, or a mom whose milk is delayed because of surgery, and we don't teach technique, and we are offended when a woman breastfeeds in public, so we make her feel housebound, and we don't give a mother and her partner paid leave, and we send her to go back to a workplace without on-site childcare, and so her only alternative to formula is to plug her nipples into a machine, and if she's lucky she gets periodic breaks and a "non-bathroom lactation room" in which to pump, and if she's not she gets a toilet, and so on and so forth.

It's no wonder women are ready to burn their nursing bras.

Nice.

For more takes on Rosin's piece and breastfeeding, check out Pandagon, Kay Steiger, Broadsheet, Rachel's Tavern, and Lawyers, Guns and Money.

From RH Reality Check:

Researchers Eran Bendavid, MD, and Jayanta Bhattacharya, MD, PhD, from Stanford University recently released findings from their study on the effectiveness of PEPFAR's programs...The report, released in the Annals of Internal Medicine, found that the U.S. effort to curb the global HIV/AIDS epidemic has been a mixed bag. The study found that significant progress has been made in the areas of care and treatment, a laudable accomplishment of the first phase of implementation. But the report also confirmed what too many of us had seen coming - we have not made any significant progress in curbing new infections because our prevention efforts have failed.

Related posts:
Abstinence-only funding at home and abroad
The chastity industrial complex

Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, has a piece at The Nation about her personal experiences with the healthcare system, what it has done (or I should say hasn't done) for her family and what her story says about the challenges many women are faced with in the midst of our healthcare crisis.

h/t to C!

There are so many incredible people doing activism these days about climate change. I'm especially excited about those acting at the intersections of racism, classism, health issues, and the environment, like Van Jones and Majora Carter. Check out this great video profile of Kari Fulton, Brower youth Award Winner and general badass.

Knowing that Kari and so many others like her exist make me feel safer and happier. I can almost imagine this huge generation of new, savvy environmental activists coming up under folks like Majora and Van. Wahoooo!

And don't miss out on other great video profiles over at the Environmental Justice and Climate Change Initiative.

From Our Bodies, Ourselves:

When you hear the words "Women's Health Hero," who comes to mind? Your 9th grade health teacher who taught you about sexually transmitted infections? The midwife who sat with you through 15 hours of labor? The young Nigerian activist you read about who's working to end gender discrimination in her country? Or maybe the neighbor who counter-protests at the abortion clinic every Saturday morning?

Whoever your heroes are, we want to know about them! We've created the Our Bodies Ourselves Women's Health Heroes awards to honor those who make significant contributions to the health and well-being of women. It's a great way to publicly recognize people who make a difference in your life or the lives of others.

More information about the competition is here. Nominate someone today!

Nomination deadline is May 1.

This past weekend the media was full of violence. Between the tragic Binghamton shooting and the shooting of three police officers shot and killed in Pittsburgh, (and that was only the weekend, we have several examples in the last few weeks of violence) it seems that violence is very much a part of 2009.

I write a lot about the relationship between violence and oppression, but this post is not about that. I realized it is rare that we talk about how we deal with hearing all these violent stories, how we deal with experiencing violence in our lives or how we cope with the trauma of hearing, knowing, experiencing and internalizing violence and trauma.

Reading, writing and thinking about violence so frequently gets depressing and I realized if I wanted to hack it in this type of work I needed some ways to cope. These are some of my strategies to stay positive:

1. Look at pictures of kittens and/or play with my very very cute cats. It has apparently been proven that there is a decrease in blood pressure upon the petting of an animal.

2. Work out! I am a fan of yoga, running, walking, biking and rock-climbing. I go to the gym at least 4 times a week. It has done wonders for stress management.

3. Read motivational books about spirituality and enlightenment and write in my journal. My favorite book to read for inspiration is Daily Mediations for People of Color by Iyanla Vanzant. I keep a copy next to my bed and go to it when I feel I need some positivity.

I realize there is so much work that needs to be done in the realm of violence, both physical and psychological and one of the ways I seek to find solutions is by keeping myself as centered as possible. I channel a lot of my anger at injustice into my writing, but sometimes that causes more anger and well, it goes on and on. It is a daily struggle.

What are your strategies for staying positive and centered?

My favorite line: "Do you want a vagina full of AIDS?!" (Also, is it wrong that it totally annoys me that this dude has the same drinking glasses - I'm sorry, vaginas - I do?)

But that video doesn't hold a candle to this: "Why it is okay for sex to hurt the vagina." Yes, that's right.

NPR's Morning Edition takes on women and health insurance.

The Washington Post reports that Merck, the company that makes Gardasil, has asked the FDA to approve the HPV vaccine for boys and young men.

When a vaccine designed to protect girls against a sexually transmitted virus arrived three years ago, the debate centered on one question: Would the shots make young girls more likely to have sex?

Now the vaccine's maker is trying to get approval to sell the vaccine for boys, and the debate is focusing on something else entirely: Is it worth the money, and is it safe and effective enough?

Shocking that the concern for young men isn't about promiscuity.

File this under: WTF.

Pope Benedict XVI said on his way to Africa Tuesday that condoms were not the answer in the continent's fight against HIV, his first explicit statement on an issue that has divided even clergy working with AIDS patients.

"You can't resolve it with the distribution of condoms," the pope told reporters aboard the Alitalia plane headed to Yaounde, Cameroon, where he will begin a seven-day pilgrimage on the continent. "On the contrary, it increases the problem."

From Our Bodies, Ourselves:

When you hear the words "Women's Health Hero," who comes to mind? Your 9th grade health teacher who taught you about sexually transmitted infections? The midwife who sat with you through 15 hours of labor? The young Nigerian activist you read about who's working to end gender discrimination in her country? Or maybe the neighbor who counter-protests at the abortion clinic every Saturday morning?

Whoever your heroes are, we want to know about them! We've created the Our Bodies Ourselves Women's Health Heroes awards to honor those who make significant contributions to the health and well-being of women. It's a great way to publicly recognize people who make a difference in your life or the lives of others.

Find out the details here.

As I move into my third week of Professor Foxying, I realize I've been doing some pretty heavy, relationship-type stuff. Since lord knows sex is not all about relationships, I'm going to do a couple of pure sex questions. And FYI - I always change the names. Hope you enjoy!

Professor Foxy,
I feel sort of silly asking this. I have heard so often how the woman on top position, in male/female sex is often the best way for the woman to reach orgasm through intercourse. I just can't seem to get the hang of it. Do I move up and down? Rock? I feel like I can't relax into it up there because I'm working so hard. It also feels a bit uncomfortable when I sit all the way up or lean back. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong, or if it's just not for me.

Thanks so much!
-Girl usually on bottom

Hello Girl -
There is no one best position. Some women like on top, some like on bottom, and most will never orgasm with penetration alone. For the overwhelming majority of women, it is all about clitoral stimulation. There is also not one best way to move. A third will move this way, a third that, and a third another way all together. What I can say is this, climb on top, close your eyes, touch your clitoris and try moving in different ways. Try not to focus on how you are moving, but really how it feels. Penetration is like fudge on ice cream, it makes ice cream taste better, but rarely works alone.

Dear Professor Foxy,
Though I've never been tempted to write for sex advice before, I trust feministing enough to try!
I'm in college, and have a relatively new boyfriend. He's great, and we're very open about things with each other, but he doesn't have very much experience in the bedroom. In fact, I'm not sure he knows where all the lady parts are. He's willing to learn, but I'm not sure how to go about "teaching" subjects like sex or oral sex. Perhaps you could offer some advice?

Thanks!
Gertrude

Hi Gertrude -
I really like both your teaching instinct and your desire to improve your sex life. Make it a game and phrase it about you. "Baby, I want to learn how to please you more. Can you show me how you like to be touched, stroked, sucked?" Get naked and touch yourself in front of each other. Then try it in with each other. The other part is to use positive encouragement: "I love it when you. . ..." "Honey, yes that is it." Just plain moaning. This makes it easier to then say "a little faster" "A little to the left"

Dear Dr. Foxy,
I am a married, heterosexual woman. I really love receiving anal sex - we've done it only a few times, but I loved it each time and fantasize about it all the time. What prevents me from asking for it more often is the fear that frequent anal sex can "stretch out" the anal sphincter, leading to incontinence or other health problems. Is that just a silly (and possibly homophobic) urban legend? Or is that a real risk? And if it is a risk, if there anything that can be done to prevent it? I avoid putting sex toys in my anus too often for the same reason.

Thanks,
Anonymous

Hey Anonymous -
I searched for some good studies on this issue and could not find any. So I did the next best thing, I went to happy hour with a few of my favorite gay boy bottoms (often used for shorthand for the receptive partner when men have sex with other men). And after several martinis, we agreed that this is just a silly, definitely homophobic urban legend.

No really, anal penetration is fine for you or him. There are some steps you should definitely take to keep it safe. Water-based lube is a necessity. Both on the outside of your anus and on the implement or penis. I also suggest your husband use a condom, even if you don't use condoms for vaginal penetration. Three words: feces in urethra. I would also do post anal sex clean up with a moist towelette (Tucks is a good idea) versus rougher toilet paper. If you are using fingers, either use latex gloves or make sure fingernails are clean and short. A good test is to run the nails across your palm.

During my searching, I also found this great advice from Duke University. It is great for novices and experts alike.

If you start to worry about anal incontinence or general tightness/control, try anal Kegels.

The new blog Akimbo of the International Women's Health Coalition has a great post and video up about how despite female condom's bad rep, they're getting great feedback from the countries that IWHC works in.

(This is not to mention the FDA's recent announcement of the approval of the new female condom, FC2, which is a thinner material and hella cheaper.)

Check it.

Today the Gay Men's Health Crisis, the Women's HIV Collaborative of NY, along with other HIV/AIDS awareness and prevention groups in NY will be marching on the steps of city hall to raise awareness for the alarming rate at which young women are being infected with HIV. One of their demands is increased education around issues of HIV and AIDs.

Why is this an important issue? The Women's HIV Collaborative blog tells us.

Here in the United States, women comprise about 27% of HIV infections, up from about 8% in 1984. In many countries around the world, women already represent over 50% of HIV infections. Rates of sexually transmitted infections among youth and teenage pregnancy have risen over the last several years - both indicators that we may soon see a corresponding rise in HIV infections among both young women and men. And, although generally considered a chronic manageable condition in the U.S., HIV continues to be the leading cause of death among African American women aged 25 to 34 years old.

Yet most of the general public in the U.S. think of HIV as a men's disease and some members of the HIV advocacy/policy community have gone so far as to say "HIV/AIDS in this country is a men's disease".

If you are in NY the march is today at 1 pm. More specific info can be found here.

If you are not in NY but know of other events please put them in comments.

via Newsday.

UPDATE: Also check out this piece from the Feministing Community (originally appeared at HuffPo) about HIV in NY with this year's theme for the National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day theme being "HIV is Right Here at Home."

Rona Taylor, author of the piece tells us,

The theme for this year's National Women and Girls HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, "HIV is Right Here at Home," hits close to home here in New York City, where 10% of all women living with the virus in the United States reside.

It's the largest population of women with HIV in the country. If all 30,000 of these HIV-positive women and girls were to come together and walk down Fifth Avenue, the crowd would approximate the swell of runners in the NYC Marathon. They could sell out Radio City Music Hall five times over and occupy more than half the seats in Yankee Stadium. A disproportionate number of these women--90 percent--are black and Hispanic; over half, or 68 percent, are over the age of 40; and more than a third, or 41 percent, were infected through heterosexual activity. This is the same female face of HIV that we have been seeing since the epidemic first began to be acknowledged in women in the 80s.

You can check out the report from the Women's HIV Collaborative of NY here.

Dr. Ross Ardill, a doctor in Dublin, was found not guilty of professional misconduct yesterday, though he used some truly questionable and outrageously hilarious terminology when trying to figure out if one of his young female patients was either pregnant or potentially infected with a sexually transmitted infection:

He said he asked her was she "next or near a man's willy bits" in the last six months and in relation to her sleeping he did suggest a drink, light exercise, a trashy novel or some "rumpy pumpy". He said he used this kind of "childish" language with all patients to make them feel at ease. Nobody before had found it offensive. He said he would not use the term "willy bits" again.

Read more here.

Thanks to a reader for the heads up.

Amy Depaul talks about her battle with breast cancer and making decisions about breast reconstruction after her double mastectomy. Faced with the option of going to a larger breast size, Amy shares:

I finally managed to stammer a response to the bra inquiry ("It's 34, um, A") and said that no, I'd pass on the augmentation. My answer seemed to surprise my doctor ("Oh" was all he could say at first), and then he mentioned that I might want to mull this matter some more and perhaps confer with my husband on the decision. But my mind was pretty much made up that day in the office. The inescapable fact is that I resist any attempts by others to "improve" me. My husband, for the record, never tried to talk me into augmenting. He is a very intelligent man.

Perhaps I wouldn't have been so taken aback that day if I had known then what I know now, which is that rebuilding a breast or breasts after they have been removed in a mastectomy can allow you options for expansion. Hard to figure--you lose much of the skin and virtually all the internal contents of your breast, and yet you can, in some cases, end up bigger than you started. Increasingly, more women may attempt to do just this, since mastectomy rates are on the rise again, according to a recent study by the Mayo Clinic. But patients should know that reconstruction as it is most typically performed might best be described as medieval. It involves prolonged, torturous skin stretching, and anyone seeking to augment will face an even greater degree of pain and discomfort, something I've learned many women are willing to do.

It's a really thoughtful piece about breast reconstruction, self-esteem and cancer. She has a particularly interesting perspective on plastic surgery because she lives in Orange County California, notorious for high-rates of plastic surgery. Check it out here.

This is a great idea--we need to share these experiences in more open and honest ways.

MY LITTLE RED BOOK is an anthology of stories about first periods, collected from women of all ages from around the world. The accounts range from light-hearted (the editor got hers while water skiing in a yellow bathing suit) to heart-stopping (a first period discovered just as one girl was about to be strip-searched by the Nazis). The contributors include well-known women writers (Meg Cabot, Erica Jong, Gloria Steinem, Cecily von Ziegesar), alongside today's teens. And while the authors differ in race, faith, or cultural background, their stories share a common bond: they are all accessible, deeply honest, and highly informative. Whatever a girl experiences or expects, she'll find stories that speak to her thoughts and feelings.

What's your first period story?

From the Associated Press: "A study of nearly 1.3 million British women offers yet more evidence that moderate alcohol consumption increases the risk of a handful of cancers."

There's been lots of talk about clean coal these days. Have you seen any of the industry's commercials? But what you haven't heard much about since Robert F. Kennedy visited the region back in the day is where coal comes from -- the Appalachian Mountains. His son continues to speak out about the region. Ashley Judd a long with many folks in her home state of Kentucky have been doing a lot of activism around mining and the disparities in the Appalachian Mountains there. Judd recently spoke out about a piece Diana Sawyer aired on 20/20 last week called "Children of the Mountains on Appalachian life in Kentucky -- Diane Sawyer is also from the state. The piece sparked some reaction in the blogosphere from folks who have been in the trenches working on these disparities just about their whole lives.

I decided to ask Theresa L. Burriss, the Assistant Professor of English & Appalachian Studies at Radford University, about everyday life in Appalachia and what she thought about clean coal and Diane Sawyer's piece. (Diane Sawyer did a follow-up piece last night on "Mountain Dew mouth".)

Here's Theresa...

It is always good to read about how some of your bad habits might be good for you. When news that organic dark chocolate was good for you in small qualities, I did the happy dance. And although, I am personally not at risk for stroke, I am still happy to hear that drinking coffee may reduce the chances of women having strokes.

The finding stems from the tracking of both coffee habits and stroke occurrence among tens of thousands of American women across nearly a quarter century. And it adds to earlier indications that coffee might also offer some protection against diabetes, while not raising the risk for heart trouble.

However, the current evidence also includes a cautionary note for smokers: Their habit seems to wipe out whatever protection long-term coffee drinking might otherwise confer.

"Many people have been very concerned that coffee might actually be a risk factor for stroke, that it might, in fact, increase the risk of stroke," said the study's co-author, Rob M. van Dam, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School and Harvard School of Public Health, in Boston. "But here we saw that it might end up being beneficial rather than detrimental."

So drink up that coffee.

PS-I totally quit smoking, did I forget to mention that?

via US News and World Report.

During a humanitarian trip to Sierra Leone supporting a tetanus-vaccination project, Salma Hayek cross-nursed a sick newborn. (ABC made the mistake of saying the child was born on the same day as her daughter - they actually just share the same birthday.) I tend to feel similarly with Hoyden About Town's post on this. (Watch the entire segment here.)

What are folks' thoughts?

There was an interesting article in yesterday's New York Times about the birth control pill Yaz. Apparently Bayer, their parent company, has been running ads setting the record straight about false claims they originally advertised about the pill getting rid of acne and PMS (remember all those ladies all up in the club who just happened to be chatting about birth control and its side effects in super serious and technical terms?). They didn't come clean out of the goodness of their own hearts, mind you:

As part of an unusual crackdown on deceptive consumer drug advertising, the Food and Drug Administration and the attorneys general of 27 states have required Bayer to run these new ads to correct previous Yaz marketing.

Regulators say the ads overstated the drug's ability to improve women's moods and clear up acne, while playing down its potential health risks. Under a settlement with the states, Bayer agreed last Friday to spend at least $20 million on the campaign and for the next six years to submit all Yaz ads for federal screening before they appear.

I was especially fascinated because when I was helping Elaine Tyler May do research for her book on the birth control pill (thank you so much to all of you who answered our call for stories!), I found that so many young women swear by Yaz as their birth control of choice. Apparently our anecdotal experience was representative of the actual numbers: "Yaz is the best-selling oral contraception pill in the United States, with sales last year of about $616 million or about 18 percent market share, according to IMS Health, a health care information company."

Many respondents to Elaine's survey had struggled for years with all sorts of nasty side effects from other pill brands, but swore by this particular concoction. To hear that the advertising was so overstated as to have warranted an FDA response (and we know how much that takes because they've dropped the ball on a lot of unsafe drugs in the last few years), alarmed me. Reading further it looks like women on Yaz don't have a tremendous amount to be worried about: "Yaz contains drospirenone, a progestin that can cause excess potassium production in some patients, its side effects include an increased risk of serious heart and other health problems." That's fairly normal for any oral contraceptive.

It is nice to see the FDA holding big pharma's feet to the fire about accuracy in advertising, especially for a drug that affects women.

Oh and for funsies, check out this hilarious parody video of the whole pharma commercial genre by Upright Citizens Brigade duo Sara Chase and Caitlin Tegart:

Related: Microbicide trial to prevent HIV in women stopped because of increased risk of infection

One of the largest studies done to determine whether fertility drugs cause ovarian cancer found that there is "no convincing association" between the two. The New York Times reports:

[T]he researchers followed 54,362 women who had been referred to Denmark's fertility clinics between 1963 and 1998. They gathered information about the women from Denmark's birth, cancer and hospital discharge registries, seeking more detailed information on medications from individual medical records of a subgroup of 1,241 of the women.

Among the 54,362 infertile patients followed for an average of 15 years, there were 156 cases of ovarian cancer. The average age of the women by the end of the study was 47.

Medical records were used to analyze the relative incidence of ovarian cancer in women who had taken either gonadotropins, clomifene citrate, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone, compared with ovarian cancer rates of women who had not taken each of the individual drugs (but may have been treated with one of the other medications).

After adjusting for risk factors, the researchers concluded there was no increase in ovarian cancer risk associated with the drugs, nor was there an increased risk for women who underwent 10 or more cycles of treatment or for women who never became pregnant despite treatment.

This should be somewhat comforting, although the researchers also say this doesn't mean there's absolutely no link. Dr. Allan Jensen, the first author of the paper, said that "over all these data provide further evidence that fertility drugs do not increase the risk of ovarian cancer to any great extent," but also adds that "you should always balance a possible small increase in ovarian cancer risk with the physical and psychological benefits of pregnancy made possible only by use of these drugs."

This is good news and will ensure coverage for immigrant children. Previously, these children have been denied adequate healthcare and had to wait 5 years to get any medical coverage. Bush had vetoed the expansion to the bill.

Senate Democrats moved one step closer to handing President Barack Obama an early health care victory Thursday, passing a bill extending government-sponsored health insurance coverage to about 4 million uninsured children.

The bill, which was approved 66-32, authorizes an additional $32.8 billion over the next 4 1/2 years for the State Children's Health Insurance Program. The House plans to take up the same measure next week.

Even with the added spending, an estimated 5 million children still would be without health insurance. During his election campaign, Obama called for requiring all children to have health coverage.

"When President Obama signs this bill, the real victory will belong not to politicians, but to kids," said Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.

Wow, a step in the right direction. I don't know what is going on, what does the government exist to ensure the health of its people? I forgot about that.

via AP.

A few months ago, Courtney blogged about news that health-insurance providers are charging women more for the same coverage. (No, this isn't about pregnancy care -- that costs women extra.) Now, the city of San Francisco is bringing a lawsuit against the board that regulates California insurers, to get them to stop the discriminatory practice.

This is especially relevant now, when so many employers are making lay-offs and cutting benefits, because the price difference mainly affects individuals purchasing health insurance. Says SF City Attorney Dennis Herrera,

"A lot of times, women are priced out of private health coverage because of the discriminatory practices by insurance companies," he said. "This means women have to rely on public hospitals and clinics, and over the last few years we've seen an influx of women who can't afford insurance come into San Francisco General Hospital."

As the economic downtown worsens and the costs of healthcare rise, Herrera said, the numbers of those who can't afford healthcare will grow.

"Our state is really behind the curve on this one," he said. "When women can't afford healthcare because they're priced out of it, they're not the only ones who pay for it. These women have to turn to the public health system, a system that is already strained as it is, and every taxpayer ends up paying for it."

For more discussion, see the comments on Courtney's previous post.

Well, this is great.

House Democrats have removed a provision from their stimulus bill that would exempt states from the need to get waivers for covering family planning under Medicaid. The family-planning aid has been the subject of repeated Republican attacks over the past few days, and health care advocates were dismayed by the Democrats' decision to give in on its removal.

The revision the Dems have caved on would have merely allowed states to continue doing what they already do. As I mentioned this morning and Ann mentioned in her column at Tapped,

Not only will this expand health care services and take some burden off states, it will eliminate the need for states to go to the federal government and obtain a waiver.

Apparently, caving on provisions that are commonsense and make the government more efficient is how we will win the support of the right, especially when it compromises reproductive services and health care access to poor women and women of color.

I agree with what Elana Schor says at TPM,

I'm certainly receptive to the argument, relayed by Matt Yglesias and others, that the family-planning provision wasn't genuinely stimulative, making its removal from the bill a minor decision. And I'm not accusing the Obama team of getting rolled by the Republicans on flaps like this one.

But other aid provisions in the recovery bill, not directly targeted to women's reproductive freedom, do not create jobs or boost GDP -- yet are meeting with less agitation from Republicans and remaining intact.

So why was this provision rallied against so hard?

In announcing new labeling info for the drug, Health Canada said that "the toxin in Botox products may spread to distant parts of the body, with potentially fatal consequences."

Six months after the FDA rejected Merck and Co.'s request to approve the distribution of Gardasil - the HPV vaccine - to women aged 27 to 45, they've sent a response letter to Merck requesting that they resubmit their request after a full 48-month study. Merck's original application included research from a 24-month period.

As Shark Fu noted, January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, so I'm not too surprised that this update is being released now. The good news is that the end of the 48-month study will be by the fourth quarter of 2009. Let's just hope this will be enough.

In the meantime, Merck also requested FDA approval for its use in males last month. I'm definitely curious how that's going to play out.

An anti-bulimia ad from Pro Mädchen in Düsseldorf, Germany has been placed in an...interesting location.

...through their WPP ad agency red cell, placed these splatter stickers (headline translates: Bulimia is curable) on the undersides of toilet lids in women's bathrooms at area colleges.

Now, I see what they're going for and part of me thinks its innovative. But another part of me finds it kind of offensive - a splatter ad? And let's not even talk about the fact that it's pink. But perhaps it's an effective way to reach young women.

What do you think?

I am getting SO fucking sick of seeing Vagisil commercials. Yes, Vagisil, I get it: you think vaginas are gross and smelly and that women spend all day trying not to scratch desperately at their shame-caves.

The above commercial isn't the latest one I've seen - I saw an ad not five minutes ago for Vagisil wipes that combined a cutesy colorful cartoon look with copy about feeling smelly.

Seriously, Vagisil, I know you're trying to make money by suggesting that women's bodies are in need of constant-deodorizing; but leave my vadge alone!

Just in case you didn't know...today is blog for Lesbian Health Day! Folks are blogging as a lead up to the National Lesbian Health Summit.

The summit will take place March 6-8, 2009 in San Francisco and its goal is "to rebuild a multi-issue, multicultural women's health movement focused on long-term strategic goals for lesbian/bi/queer women's health and wellness that is reflective of the diversity of our community."

January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, y'all!

Each year in the United States, more than 11,000 women are diagnosed with cervical cancer and close to 4,000 die as a result of the disease. As you probably know, certain types of the Human papillomavirus (HPV) are linked to cervical cancer. Vaccines such as Gardasil® and Cervarix™, which are designed to prevent infection with high-risk types of HPV, have the potential to greatly reduce the occurrence of cervical cancer.

Despite the amazing medical advances made, cervical cancer remains a serious threat to women's health...

...but 11% of women in the United States report that they do not have yearly pap tests which are crucial to early detection and treatment.

Blink.

I encourage everyone to remind a friend to schedule their yearly Pap test and health screening now...today...sooner rather than later, damn it!

Encourage each other to make the time to get to the doctor and help each other problem solve if y'all find that there are financial or logistical obstacles preventing screening.

Let's take our awareness and partner with our sisters - vaccinate early, Pap test regularly and HPV test when recommended!

Pause...consider...continue.

Confession - in my circle "tell-a-friend" turns into "fuss-at-a-friend" more often than not.

But what the hell, if cervical cancer screening isn't fuss worthy nothing is!

This is rich.

The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said Saturday.

The pill "has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature" through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report.

Your pee! It's killing the trees! Not to mention sperm. As if the fear of female sexuality wasn't obvious enough - best to mention that contraception is a total boner killer. Lovely.

Reuters reports:

Instead of infiltrating breaks in the skin, HIV appears to attack normal, healthy genital tissue in women, U.S. researchers said on Tuesday in a study that offers new insight into how the AIDS virus spreads.

They said researchers had assumed the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, sought out breaks in the skin, such as a herpes sore, in order to gain access to immune system cells deeper in the tissue.

Just in case you haven't seen the facts, women of color are disproportionately infected with HIV and AIDS:

• Black women and Latinas account for 79 percent of all reported HIV infections among 13- to 19-year-old women and 75 percent of HIV infections among 20- to 24-year-old women in the United States although, together, they represent only about 26 percent of U.S. women these ages.


• HIV/AIDS is the leading cause of death for black women (including African American women) aged 25-34 years.


• High-risk heterosexual contact is the source of 80% of newly diagnosed women with HIV infections.

Appalling, right? I got my big wake up call working with Marvelyn Brown on her memoir, The Naked Truth (now in its second printing!). Marvelyn was infected with HIV at 19-years-old through unprotected sex with who she thought was her "prince charming." Her entire life was turned upside down by forgoing the condom that one night.

Wrap it up ladies! Now that we know that HIV can infiltrate healthy tissue, it has become even more critical to negotiate condom use and always carry your own protection.

Wow, this is sort of the depressing opposite of that orgasmic birth story we posted on recently:

According to a civil suit filed Monday, Skol arrived at the hospital at about 4 a.m. Her usual doctor was out of town, so Dr. Scott Pierce filled in. The lawsuit alleged that Pierce showed up at Rush four hours later, and when he did, he allegedly reprimanded Skol for not calling before coming in. The lawsuit claims he said there was not enough time to administer pain medication.

The suit also accuses Pierce of telling a nurse that Skol got the pain she deserved because she had not called ahead.

"Sometimes pain is the best teacher," he allegedly said.

Skol says the doctor gave her an excruciating vaginal exam in the middle of a contraction. Then, although she was not fully dilated, she claims Pierce instructed her to start pushing.

When Skol or the staff questioned his methods, Pierce told Skol, "Shut up, close your mouth, and push," according to the suit.

If what the suit alleges is true, that's seriously disturbing.

In Japan where women have really low rates of heart problems they have found that women that live with their spouses and their in-laws have a really high rate of heart problems.

The researchers followed 91,000 Japanese men and women living in different household arrangements for more than 10 years. The participants ranged in age from 40 to 69 and had not been diagnosed at the start of the study with any serious illnesses, including heart disease, stroke or cancer.

By the end of the study, 671 participants had been diagnosed with coronary artery disease, 339 had died of heart disease, and 6,255 had died of other causes.

Women who lived with their spouses and parents, usually in-laws, were less likely to smoke or drink heavily, but were three times more likely to have had a heart attack, the researchers found.

The article feigns surprise in finding out that men don't have these same health problems, but fails to make the obvious conclusion that women get inordinate amounts of pressure from their in-laws to live up to certain expectations that increases stress in their lives. Many women are choosing not to get married or have as many children in Japan, but the culture of expectation around how women should act in the home seems resilient. I wonder if a similar correlation can be made with women that are living with their in-laws in the states?

via NYTimes.

From The New York Times:

As the wife of a former N.F.L. player with degenerative dementia, Eleanor Perfetto finds herself performing the most basic tasks for her husband, Ralph Wenzel: she feeds him, bathes him and tries to explain all that is happening to him.

She could not, however, attend a meeting Thursday night in suburban Washington between N.F.L. Commissioner Roger Goodell and former players, the third in a series of discussions regarding the later-life care of retirees. As Perfetto tried to enter the room, Goodell told her the meeting was for players only.

But the problem wasn't just that the meeting was for players - it's that it was for men. Goodell told the NYT reporter that women being present could impede the discussion.

Perfetto and the wives of other players with dementia criticized their exclusion, adding their voices to a debate over the care of retired players that has been the subject of two Congressional hearings.

"We wives are the voice of players with dementia, because they can't speak for themselves," Perfetto said. "They are only allowing players healthy enough to attend. That means they're getting a very slanted view of what it's like out there."

So sexism is stopping what could be a comprehensive discussion. Nice. Though I'm betting this isn't just about keeping women out - it's about keeping caretakers out. These women are the ones who know best what is happening to their loved ones - shutting them out isn't just sexist, it's irresponsible.

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Yesterday Jessica took to task this diminishing and poorly thought out article in NY Mag about gender equality and drinking. Jesscia did a great job parsing the bullshit in the article as blaming feminism for women's rate of drinking and I wanted to add to her analysis from a different angle, as that of someone who has had many close friends enter recovery.

In the last few years, I have had several close friends come to a cross-roads with their drinking where they have either decided that they can't drink as much as they used to or they have entered recovery. Many of the transformations have been painful, they have been introspective for all of us and they have harnessed on the collective strength of women supporting each other in making the best decisions for themselves. Feminism has played a key role in this. Many of my female friends drink in excess, not because they wanted to be "one of the guys" but because they had lives that were difficult as women, either for internalized sense of failure, experiencing abuse, depression around money, depression around social stature or failed relationships. I am not just talking about drinking for fun, of course women engage in that as well, but I am talking about drinking as a way to numb the pain, difficulty and reality of this often cold cold world.

It has been through the support of feminism and the fundamental belief that women have the right to enjoy life and not hate themselves for the failures that society has in many ways set up for us have we found the strength to take care of ourselves. So while the type of thought expressed in the above article blames feminism for allowing women to act more like men, I am arguing that it is the pressure of patriarchy, racism and poverty that have frequently led women to drinking in excess and feminism that has given us the framework to understand it is not our fault, but a system built on our failures.

From Sunday's New York Times:

[Starla D.] Darling, who was pregnant when her insurance ran out, worked at Archway for eight years, and her father, Franklin J. Phillips, worked there for 24 years.

"When I heard that I was losing my insurance," she said, "I was scared. I remember that the bill for my son's delivery in 2005 was about $9,000, and I knew I would never be able to pay that by myself."

So Ms. Darling asked her midwife to induce labor two days before her health insurance expired.

"I was determined that we were getting this baby out, and it was going to be paid for," said Ms. Darling, who was interviewed at her home here as she cradled the infant in her arms.

As it turned out, the insurance company denied her claim, leaving Ms. Darling with more than $17,000 in medical bills.

I just had to highlight this anecdote because it shows so starkly how all of these issues are connected.

Also check out the coverage of the sit-in at a Chicago factory on Sunday, where workers demanded the wages they're owed. Shark-Fu has more...

Related:
Women Charged More for Identical Health Insurance
Saving on health care costs by crossing borders
New report: Unionized women workers earn more
Health care is a feminist issue

I never thought about drinking until equal rights came along!

Feminists are all too aware that we get blamed for a lot of ridiculous shit; everything from destroying the family and killing chivalry to YouTube "catfights."

And the idea that feminism (and women's equality more generally) is the reason behind ladies boozing it up has certainly been making the rounds lately. This article from New York Magazine, however, which argues that "drinking has become entwined with progressive feminism," takes the feminist-blaming cake. Cue scare tactic subhead:

More women are drinking, and the women who drink are drinking more, in some cases matching their male peers. This is the kind of equality nobody was fighting for.

While I don't doubt the statistics about women drinking more than in years past, the connection that reporter Alex Morris makes to feminism is based largely on nonsense: personal anecdotes, a couple of quotes, and hackneyed ideas about what feminism is. Morris even cites the Jezebel Thinking and Drinking controversy and falls back on the stereotyped notion that Third Wave feminism is "something akin to the type of reasoning that paints Girls Gone Wild participants as sexually liberated." The bullshit, it burns!

The thing that pisses me off most about this article - besides the fact that it perpetuates a well-loved lie about what young feminist are (Girls Gone Wild! I choose my choice!) - is that drinking is a serious problem for young women and men. But instead of serious, nuanced media coverage on what to do about the drinking culture among American youth, we get article after article hawing about the consequences of equality.

And frankly, Morris' argument is the exact same one used when conservatives and anti-feminists talk about "hooking up" or casual sex - that young women now "act like men" sexually. (Equality: the slutmaker!) Seriously - it's tired. Not to mention incredibly sexist : the underlying message is that gender equality is bad for women.

So if folks are actually concerned about young women and drinking, how about we talk about the consumer culture that markets liquor (something Morris touches on before quickly returning back to feminism) or how drinking is being used to blame women who are raped? Because despite the picture that Morris paints of young feminists boozing it up (cause it's empowering and stuff!), we're actually out there working our asses off. Maybe its time others followed suit.

So, I suppose we can start to put together the list of things that the Bush Administration is going to try to pull before they leave office, one of the most nefarious being the "right of conscience" rule.

via LA Times.

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

So, essentially, even if you have the right to obtain an abortion, you may not have access to the information necessary to actually know all your options. I would never deny how smart a doctor is, but I don't really think it is up to a doctor to decide what is morally right for me or for my body. If the law has already decided that I can have access to reproductive technology, then why is a doctor allowed to tell me something different? I would like the advice I get from my doctor to be based on my health needs, not their religious and moral beliefs. I am sorry that is crazy.

According to Raw Story this change could hurt rural and poor women the hardest. Melissa Harris-Lacewell in conversation with Maddow over the subject discusses.

Harris-Lacewell explained that regulations like this "right of conscience" rule have "been the new strategy of those who have been opposed to women's reproductive rights. ... Rather than fight this out in the courts ... what you do is limit access. You limit the education that doctors are getting in medical school. You limit the ability of these doctors to practice in various states and localities. You just keep reducing, reducing, reducing."

"That has a disproportionate effect on poor women, on rural women," Harris-Lacewell stated. "Women who have private health insurance, women who have private physicians, tend to have plenty of access to a variety of reproductive rights options. Poor women and women with less access are the ones hit hardest."

Related:
Bush not done fucking with you yet.
Bush to Issue Midnight HHS Regulation.
Clinton moves to Block HHS Regulation.

If only you knew Betty, if only you knew...

This is a stark reminder: women smokers lose 14.5 years off their life span.

I'm going to disclose a little, shameful secret: I'm a smoker. Well, not your average pack-of-cigarettes-a-day smoker, but depending on my stress level, I can be a pack-of-cigarettes-a-week smoker. And I hate it. I've been smoking casually, socially, whatever you want to call it, for over 10 years.

But that "I'm a social smoker" excuse is a complete cop-out. I'm in the process of trying to quit, and if you're a smoker, this is a great time to kick the gross-ass habit too. Reasons? Gee, let's see...

Are there any former smokers out there who can share their quitting stories? I know I can use all the help I can get.

Please file this under-horrid short term solution plagued with serious ethical questions while not creating long-term change. It is unfortunate that this is considered a viable solution for the increase in rates of HIV infection in the state of Papua.

Indonesia's Papua province is set to pass a bylaw that requires some HIV/AIDS patients to be implanted with microchips in a bid to prevent them infecting others, a lawmaker said on Saturday.

Under the bylaw, which has caused uproar among human rights activists, patients who had shown "actively sexual behavior" could be implanted with a microchip to monitor their activity, lawmaker John Manangsang said.

"It's a simple technology. A signal from the microchip will track their movements and this will be received by monitoring authorities," Manangsang said.

If a patient with HIV/AIDS was found to have infected a healthy person, there would be a penalty, he said without elaborating.

Talk about big brother. What I don't see is how is this preventative (the only-ONLY-effective solution to stop the spread of HIV), if the purpose is merely to punish people after they have infected someone. Are they planning on monitoring these people at all times? That is enough resources surely to put into safe sex education, creating a healthier culture around sex, while having all types of support programs for "high-risk" populations.

Please, someone, help me here. This seems really fucked up to me.

An article in Newsweek chronicles a new phenomenon: outsourcing US health care to Mexico. People have been going abroad to save money on cosmetic procedures for quite some time (Brazil is an infamous destination for this) but this is something different:

Dorthea, 72, a retired bank teller, lives in Harlingen, Texas, a city of about 67,000 in the heart of the Rio Grande Valley. Like a lot of Texans, she's crossed the border to Mexico a few times to buy cheap medication. But she'd never considered undergoing complicated medical procedures there--at least, not until she was quoted the prohibitive price of $30,000 for a gastric-band procedure, a treatment for obesity in which a band is placed around the stomach to limit food intake. It wasn't covered by her insurance, so Dorthea, who asked that her last name be withheld for privacy reasons, opted to drive south and pay less than $10,000 for the outpatient operation at an American-owned hospital in Reynosa, Mexico, 10 minutes over the border and about an hour from her home. The outpatient surgery was a success, and she's planning on returning for follow-up care. "It was very good treatment," she says.

We all know there are obvious gaps and fissures in the US health care system, even for those who are insured. Particularly with the economic climate, people are going to come up with inventive solutions to get the care they need. But now as Newsweek reports even US hospitals are getting in on it by building facilities across the border and charging far less for the procedures there. We need some serious solutions for lowering health care costs inside the US. Not everyone has the luxury of going to Mexico.

When you pair these types of cross-border transactions with projects like a new border fence and super-stringent immigration laws, you start to see the contradictions of a global free market that allows goods and services to cross borders, but not people.

Via Nuestra Vida, Nuestra Voz

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Meredith for the link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via Times of India.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Grishma for the link.

Today is National Latino AIDS Awareness Day.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would you or your partner use remote control sperm control?

From USCIS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to Raquel for the links

Via FoxNews

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

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

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

Thanks to reader r_bastet for the link

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

The good news

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

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

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

The perhaps-sketch news

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

Thoughts?

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

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

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

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

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

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

They could face flogging or prison terms.

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

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

Thanks to Matt for the link.

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

Via RMJ at the Community blog.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contributed by Janna A. Zinzi, Guttmacher Institute

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

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

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

Here's Hanaa...

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?

Sounds like a stupid question right?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Via.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Photo from People magazine.

Are we really surprised?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any one with sleep problems want to weigh in?

Via RH Reality Check and the Big Push for Midwives:

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

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

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

Fun facts about your clitoris:

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's right, spitting.

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

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

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

Thanks to Auden for the link.

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

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

Thanks to Lauren for the link.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's Judy...

I went to an awesome lecture last night about health--largely defined--and one of the take-aways that I wanted to turn-key is that there is a huge vitamin D deficiency among so many women who are afraid of getting too much sun. It may be contributing to some cancer increases and other autoimmune diseases. Experts recommend that you get 20 minutes of sun on 20% of your body between 11 am and 2 pm every day. After that it's good to protect yourself, but it's important to get a little bit of direct sunlight first.

So unchain yourself from those cubicles and computers and go outside right now!

Martha Ma is a food and media educator and producer, community chef and health counselor. She is the host and producer of "The Tasty Life," a bi-weekly television show on Manhattan Public Access channel 57, and the editor of the e-newsletter, "Eater's Digest."

Martha is also executive producer of the Food for Thought Film Festival. If you're in the NYC area this weekend, check out the last weekend of the festival at Cooper Union's Wollman Auditorium, 51 Astor Place at Third Ave. Feature films include King Corn, Black Gold, and Life and Debt. Shorts include The Meatrix I, II and II 1/2 and The True Cost of Food.

Here's Martha...

I know I don't. And it's not the duck lips speculum exam, or the awkwardness of sitting half naked in a rough paper gown, or the oh-so-personal questions they ask you. I just moved to a new city, so I had the fun job of trying to find a new provider (not that I had found one I liked in my last city either). Many of you are probably familiar with the process. First you have to ask around to everyone you know for a recommendation of someone good. Then once you've collected the references, you have to call all of those providers (maybe after you've googled them to see what other random people have to say) and see if they accept your insurance. Talk about rejection. Then, if you're lucky enough to find someone, you have to wait who knows how long to make an appointment. So fun, and we haven't even gotten to the gyno's office yet!

I know I was nervous from the moment I got in my car (in which I had to drive 45 minutes to get to someone who accepted my insurance). It was a little absurd really, I was kind of sweaty and my heart was pounding. For all the writing and advocating I do for sexual health and reproductive rights, I was a mess. Maybe it was the uncertainty of the whole experience, not knowing if the provider was going to be friendly, totally dismissive, or just rude. I've had all of those experiences and never been truly satisfied with a provider. I know that being queer adds a whole other level to it (why aren't you on birth control?!?) but I'm sure some of you straight women have similar feelings.

Then there is the part where you try and squeeze in all those questions that have been accumulating over the past year. What about this? Is this normal? How can I treat this? I've had a variety of experiences in terms of response to my questioning (and I always have A LOT of questions) but in most situations the provider always feels super rushed, which doesn't put me at ease. What if I forget something?

For a lot of these reasons, I choose to see a midwife (a nurse midwife actually). Did you know you can go to a midwife for regular gynecological care? You can. It definitely made things better, but not perfect.

What have your experiences been with gynecological care?

Cartoon from Natalie Dee

The New York Times published an interesting article yesterday about the continuing story of the Bush Administration trying to protect drug companies from lawsuits being brought against them for drugs that were approved by the FDA.

The Bush administration has argued strongly in favor of the doctrine, which holds that the F.D.A. is the only agency with enough expertise to regulate drug makers and that its decisions should not be second-guessed by courts. The Supreme Court is to rule on a case next term that could make pre-emption a legal standard for drug cases. The court already ruled in February that many suits against the makers of medical devices like pacemakers are pre-empted.

In the case of Ortho Evra (the birth control patch), that question is very much up in the air. When making the results public, Johnson and Johnson applied a “correction factor� to the results of a test showing the higher levels of estrogen in the patch. An attorney for the company explains:

“The judgment was made by the pharmacokeneticists at the time that in doing the calculation, it was probably appropriate to make that correction,� Bob Tucker, a lawyer representing Johnson & Johnson, said in an interview Thursday. “Later on when people looked at it in a different time frame, they concluded that probably the correction shouldn’t be applied.�

But, if the Bush administration and the drug companies get their way, consumers won’t be able to sue in cases like this. That’s just ridiculous. Cases against Johnson and Johnson are pending, waiting to see if they can move forward at all. In the meantime, we're all stuck hoping the greedy drug manufacturers and the overworked FDA don't kill us.

I was hanging out with some Skidmore gals after my talk there Tuesday and we got to talking about that old, itchy foe, yeast infections. One of the pre-med students had just prepared a paper about alternative treatments, including...drum roll please...sticking yogurt in your vagina ("not strawberry, not vanilla," she warned us, "plain yogurt.") A couple of the other female students freaked out at this suggestion (ahem, Carly, ahem). I googled it today and, lo and behold, it's a bonafide treatment (along with garlic and tea tree oil).

So level with me, what do you all think about these alternative va-jay-jay remedies? Do you use them or resort to the man's Monistat? I went to the Monistat website, and in addition to lots of smiling women pics, I found this warning:

CAUTION: If you are taking the prescription blood-thinning medicine Warfarin, ask a doctor or pharmacist before using any MONISTAT® products, because bleeding or bruising may occur when miconazole nitrate is taken at the same time as warfarin.

There's no question that the personal is the political, even when it comes to our most individuated health and wellness choices. But it's got me wondering, is it "less feminist" to resort to store-bought cures or is this one of those things that we should lay off on politicizing?

*Note to all: douching is bullshit. If you don't know, now you know.