Blogs Comment On Health Reform, CDC Circumcision Recommendations, Other Topics

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Abortion;  Health Insurance / Medical Insurance;  Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 02 Sep 2009 - 4:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions

The following summarizes selected women's health-related blog entries.

• "The Abortion Distortion: Setting the Record -- and John Boehner -- Straight on the Capps Amendment," Jessica Arons, Huffington Post blogs: Arons -- director of the Center for American Progress' Women's Health and Rights Program -- writes that a GOP Leader Alert released Tuesday by Rep. John Boehner (R-Ohio) "contains numerous distortions" about the Capps Amendment. The alert included a "tag line that reads 'Despite Democrats' Claims, the 'Capps Compromise' was Just for Political Cover,'" and includes quotes from an Associated Press article "that do not support the contentions made in the alert itself," Arons writes. She adds, "Note to Boehner: Neither of these quotations actually says that abortion coverage would be paid for with government money" because "under the Capps Amendment, it wouldn't." She explains, "In fact, a 'federal plan' or a 'federally subsidized private plan' that covers abortion would be required ... to use money from private premiums to pay for abortion care." Arons includes several arguments health reform proponents can use to refute false claims about abortion coverage in the proposals. She also notes that the Capps Amendment "is meant to be a compromise" and that the abortion issue "is a red herring" that opponents are using to derail a health overhaul they never wanted to succeed. During the debate over health reform, there has been "a lot of intentional blurring of the lines," and while "many opponents of health care reform seem allergic to the facts, ... the public deserves more," Arons writes. She concludes, "Yes, this is a controversial topic and deserves vigorous debate, but let's have a dialogue that is based on actual facts, not hyperbole, misinformation and outright distortions" (Arons, Huffington Post blogs, 8/26).
  
  
• "The Abortion Question," Michelle Andrews, New York Times' "Prescriptions": Andrews writes, "Whether health care legislation pending in Congress will cover abortion services -- and if so, how those services would be paid for -- is proving predictably divisive." However, if the Capps Amendment were to become law, "coverage probably wouldn't change much at all," Andrews says. According to Andrews, "Insurers who sell policies to individuals and some small businesses through a national insurance exchange ... would not be required to offer abortion coverage." She continues, "Neither would they be prohibited from offering it," which "would be true both for private plans and for any government-run plan offered in the exchange." Andrews writes, "This approach is consistent with the way that the private insurance market currently handles abortion coverage. It's up to insurers and employers to decide whether their plans will pay for abortion services." She also notes that Medicaid coverage of abortion would be unchanged and "continue to be restricted by the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits federal funds from being used to provide abortion services except in cases of rape, incest or danger to the woman's life" (Andrews, "Prescriptions," New York Times, 8/27).
  
  
• "Why Hasn't RU-486 Changed the Game?" Lynn Harris, Salon's "Broadsheet": Recent research from the Guttmacher Institute shows that although mifepristone "has -- at the very least -- become an 'integral' part of the abortion landscape," it has not changed what is "possibly the most important aspect of legal abortion: access to the procedure in the first place," Harris writes. Although advocates thought that approval of the medication would increase the numbers of providers -- by enabling private physicians to prescribe the drug without drawing the attention of antiabortion protesters -- "it was largely those who already provided abortion who added mifepristone to their practice, not new doctors getting into the game," according to Harris. Physicians "can't just add" the drug to their practice because of training, liability and state regulations on abortion services, "not to mention lingering stigma and yes, fear," Harris says. Mifepristone also "made its debut at a time when -- broadly speaking -- the antiabortion movement had just begun to take some of its business from the sidewalks to state courts and legislatures, where specious and cruel laws could restrict abortion more effectively than signs and rosaries," she continues. Although mifepristone "has not substantially changed the game," the Guttmacher research "should serve as a reminder that when it comes to abortion, there's 'the debate,' and there's the reality," Harris writes, adding that the "debate shifts here, and the terrain shifts there, but the bitter pill is this: despite certain victories ... so many women, right now, remain able to exercise their legal right to abortion only with unacceptable difficulty, or not at all" (Harris, "Broadsheet," Salon, 8/26).
  
  
• "Should the CDC Push Circumcision?" Emily Bazelon, Double X's "XX Factor": As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention considers recommending routine circumcision as a way to reduce the spread of HIV, Bazelon writes she "still think[s] neutrality on circumcision is the way to go." Although studies have shown "stunning" results in reduced HIV transmission among circumcised South African men, the finding "says little about the United States, where the risk of contracting HIV is low for most people," according to Bazelon. She adds, "Which is why the American circumcision debate probably will never be settled by science." Physicians at CDC who advocate circumcision for infants "talk about this as one more 'tool in the toolbox' of AIDS prevention," Bazelon writes, saying that such "rationale works for me, personally." However, "I don't think it really makes sense as medical policy," she continues, concluding that CDC "shouldn't push circumcision on American parents who don't want it until the agency has a better answer than, hey, it might help here, too -- it just might" (Bazelon, "XX Factor," Double X, 8/27).
  
  
• "Randall Terry Ejected From Rep. Moran's Town Hall," Matt Corley, Think Progress: Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry on Tuesday was "kicked out" of a town-hall meeting hosted by Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) and former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean (D) "after he interrupted and accused Democrats of murdering babies," Corley writes. According to Corley, Terry in July "warned that his supporters might engage in violent act of terrorism unless Congress prohibits abortion services from being covered in the new health reform legislation." Terry's "injection of violent rhetoric into the health care debate continued recently as he staged protests where he stabbed baby dolls," Corley writes. The blog entry includes a summary of Terry's recent protests (Corley, Think Progress, 8/26).
  
  
• "The HPV Double Standard," Feminists for Choice: On the issue of the human papillomavirus vaccine, the "argument against getting teen girls vaccinated was always the same: if we get them vaccinated for a sexually transmitted disease now, it will encourage promiscuity," a Feminists for Choice blog entry states. The blog asks, "What is so wrong with protecting your daughters against a disease, whether or not it's transmitted sexually?" The blog adds, "I have an easy solution to making sure teen girls know that this vaccine won't protect them from everything sexually. It's called education and communication." It also notes that the maker of the vaccine is seeking approval for use in men, but there is little controversy over whether it would encourage promiscuity in boys. The blog states, "The fact is, vaccinating both genders from this virus helps all of our youth," so "instead of complaining about how girls will become sluts and whores with this vaccine, teach them the value of not having sex until they're absolutely ready" (Feminists for Choice, 8/27).
  
  
• "Screwed by Science," Amy Benfer, Salon's "Broadsheet": Benfer asks, "Why is there no male birth control pill?" She includes a link to a Science Progress article that "argues that we would have solved this problem decades ago, if not for 'social factors' that have effectively made contraception a 'woman's problem' while simultaneously denying men the same option to control their fertility." According to Benfer, in U.S. culture, "Women take on a greater burden for preventing pregnancy, while men can only hope their partner did so." She continues, "What would solve this problem is a long-acting reversible contraceptive, or LARC, for men." However, progress has been delayed by lagging scientific research on LARCs and outdated gender ideologies -- such as the notion that men "cannot be trusted to be honest about birth control" or that men "wouldn't put up with the kind of unpleasant side effects that women take for granted." Benfer writes, "We need more funding for research, untainted by outmoded gender assumptions" to help correct men and women's "unequal control over their sexual autonomy" (Benfer, "Broadsheet," Salon, 8/28).

Reprinted with kind permission from http://www.nationalpartnership.org. You can view the entire Daily Women's Health Policy Report, search the archives, or sign up for email delivery here. The Daily Women's Health Policy Report is a free service of the National Partnership for Women & Families, published by The Advisory Board Company.

© 2009 The Advisory Board Company. All rights reserved.