Blogs Comment On Oklahoma Abortion Law, New Female Condom, Other Topics

Main Category: Abortion
Also Included In: Women's Health / Gynecology;  Sexual Health / STDs;  Health Insurance / Medical Insurance
Article Date: 12 Oct 2009 - 2:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   view / write opinions   rate article

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

• "The Details of Your Abortion Online?" Lynn Harris, Salon's "Broadsheet": Experts say that "anyone tracking antiabortion legal strategy nationwide needs to keep a watchful eye on Oklahoma," where the Center for Reproductive Rights filed a lawsuit to block a law "that would collect detailed data about each abortion performed -- and post it all on a public Web site," Harris writes. Advocates of the law argue that the "extensive abortion data ... will help health officials prevent future abortions," Harris says. CRR argues in its suit that the law violates the state constitution because it "covers more than one subject," Harris writes. "If this seems like a peculiar procedural-only attack, well, it's an effective one" because "it worked for the CRR last time around," when the group successfully blocked a law that "would have (among other things) made Oklahoma the proud home of the most severe ultrasound law in the nation," according to Harris. "So, with any luck, the CRR ... should prevail in court again," Harris continues, adding that a victory in court "doesn't mean ... that we should toss these wild salvos in the buncha-crazies bin of reproductive rights history." She concludes, "No matter what, these guys'll be back again, sowing stigma and straw men, wasting time and money -- and their allies will be watching, and learning. So should we" (Harris, "Broadsheet," Salon, 10/7).

• "Baltimore Finds a Common Sense Solution to Crisis Pregnancy Centers," Sue Kettner, Below the Waist: "Everyone can agree that women seeking information about pregnancy, birth control, abortion or sexually transmitted [infections] should receive timely and accurate information, not false political propaganda" like the information provided by antiabortion crisis pregnancy centers, Kettner writes. She says that Baltimore's Limited-Service Pregnancy Centers Disclaimer bill, introduced recently by City Council President Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, is a "common sense measure that will ensure that women visiting a Baltimore CPC are informed that they will not receive comprehensive birth control or abortion services or referrals." According to Kettner, "The measure does not ask CPCs to provide services they find objectionable" but rather "asks them to be honest and straightforward with the women, so that they know up front whether the facility will suit their needs," thus offering women "a more complete picture about the services that are and are not offered." Kettner continues that NARAL Pro-Choice Maryland and Planned Parenthood of Maryland "are committed to ensuring that every woman has the best medical care possible" and "have no objection to a center that offers women who have decided to carry their pregnancies to term any help they like." However, "lines are crossed when a CPC is not up front about their services, or when a center misleads women," Kettner says. She concludes that the bill is "a common sense approach to a goal we all share -- getting women the care they need" (Kettner, Below the Waist, 10/7).
  

• "Oklahoma Law Requires Details of Every Abortion Performed Be Published Online," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: Several bloggers on Wednesday wrote about the Oklahoma law "that will require the details of every abortion to be posted on a public Web site," Jacobson reports. She adds that advocates of the law "say this will prevent abortion -- apparently by shaming and burdening women and doctors." Jacobson includes excerpts from two of the blog entries. One entry said the law "mandates that a 34-item questionnaire be filled out by abortion providers for each procedure." While the questionnaire "doesn't include the woman's name or 'any information specifically identifying the patient,'" it "does ask for age, race, level of education, marital status, number of previous pregnancies and the county in which the abortion was performed," the blog entry said. In another blog entry, Lynn Harris wrote that it is "unlikely that those who devised the questionnaire intended for it to be used for objective science" because the questions "seem geared toward figuring out the best way to keep women from aborting." The "questionnaire itself looks like one more way of shaming women out of the abortion process," Harris wrote (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 10/8). MSNBC's "The Rachel Maddow Show" on Thursday also reported on the Oklahoma law, including an interview with Megan Carpentier, editor of news and politics at Air America. Carpentier said advocates for the law are "trying to make it as difficult as possible" to obtain an abortion. She added that "if they can't make you believe as they believe about abortion, ... they'll just make it so difficult that for many people, it becomes a series of impossible hurdles" (Maddow, "The Rachel Maddow Show," MSNBC, 10/8). />

• "White House Religion Adviser Trying To Hijack Health Care for Anti-Choice Cause," Adele Stan, Mother Jones blogs: Stan writes that the Rev. Jim Wallis -- who President Obama appointed to the President's Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships -- now has "the ideal platform from which to try to subvert the debate over health care reform for his anti-choice cause." According to Stan, "Despite his talk about not allowing abortion issues to 'derail' health reform, that seems to be exactly what Wallis is up to." Stan continues that "after winning a major point when Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.) amended the House bill with a conscience clause exempting anti-choice health care providers from having to cover or perform abortions, as well as an explicit prohibition on the use of federal funds to pay for abortions in accordance with the Hyde amendment and a prohibition on the use of federal subsidy dollars by private plans in the coverage of abortion, Wallis continued his crusade" by attempting to mandate that premiums in plans that covers abortion cannot be used for the procedure. Stan writes, "It's a chip away strategy, a nuisance plan on Wallis' part to gum up the health care works." Stan asks, "[W]hat the heck is Wallis doing advising the White House, when he appears to be working against the president's health care agenda?" (Stan, Mother Jones blogs, 10/8).

• "Women Democratic Senators Take On Reform, Show Their Male Colleagues What it Means To Have Cojones," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: "As the manipulation, posturing and bickering over health reform led primarily by conservative male congressional leaders, pundits, anti-choice organization leaders and 'anti-reform town hall' groupies drones on," eight Democratic female senators on Thursday "stepped up" on the Senate floor to speak "strongly and succinctly about the disparities in access to affordable health care in the United States, each one hitting on separate but related issues," Jacobson writes. The senators also appeared "in a brief segment" on Thursday's edition of "Larry King Live" on CNN, where they "made clear that the practice of denying women coverage based on the 'pre-existing condition' of being a woman would no longer fly," Jacobson says. She continues, "In their floor statements, the senators made clear that health reform must address discrimination in insurance costs and in access to care based on sex, especially the refusal to cover basic needs such as sexual and reproductive health care, labor and delivery care, and other essential health needs." Jacobson also notes that the eight women's "statements shed light on the various ways in which the high costs of health care and the lack of insurance coverage disproportionately affect women ... as women, as mothers, as employees, and as caregivers to aging parents and family members." Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) "made clear that while they were standing up for women, they were standing up for all Americans: 'The rising cost of health insurance is hurting women and our country,'" Jacobson reports. Sens. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) "focused on the exclusion of women victims of domestic violence from insurance coverage because of the pre-existing condition of having been abused" in their speeches. On King's show, Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) "said the senators planned to make sure that women can get affordable and equitable coverage; that pregnancy is not a pre-existing condition and that maternity coverage is included," Jacobson notes. According to Jacobson, "The senators' obvious frustrations -- and even anger -- at the slow progress on health reform legislation, the fact that untold numbers of Americans continue to become ill or die due to lack of timely health care, and the political games being with played reproductive health services was refreshing, frank, and long overdue" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 10/9).
  

• "The Female Condom 2: Cheaper, Thinner and a Lot Less Squeaky," Feministing: The new version of the female condom, called FC2, "has officially hit U.S. markets" after being approved by FDA last spring, the blog reports. FC2 is made of a thinner material than its predecessors, "is less likely to squeak during use, and is about 30% cheaper than the original FC," according to the blog. The blog continues that of many criticisms about female condoms are "understandable" because they are a "relatively new form of contraception and ... not many of us use FCs on a regular basis, or even know someone who does." However, "much of the criticism surrounding female condom usage in the U.S. mimics the criticism faced by most forms of contraception, at one point or another in their product history," according to the blog post, which includes a link to a recent Akimbo blog that makes a similar argument. The Feministing blog states, "So it kinda makes you wonder -- is it the female condom itself that's drawing criticism, or is it the idea of a barrier method that's actually conducive to increased female agency surrounding sex?" It continues, "This might be one (of oh-so-many) cases in which the U.S. is just not that culturally progressive when it comes to women's health and rights," since "[m]uch of the FC opposition is actually quite particular to the U.S." In other parts of the world, FCs are growing in popularity, and "a lot of the FC criticism is reduced or nonexistent in an international context" (Feministing, 10/7).

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.