Blogs Comment On Health Reform, 'Common Ground' Abortion Policies, Cancer Screenings, Other Topics

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Abortion;  Cancer / Oncology
Article Date: 26 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.

• "Why Women Should Push for Health Care Reform," Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report's "On Women": Kotz reports on women's health advocacy groups that "are fighting for the final health care bill to right what they see as some very serious wrongs" with how the U.S. health system treats women. Marcia Greenberger, co-president of the National Women's Law Center, believes supporting health reform "should be a no-brainer if you're a woman," according to Kotz. Advocacy groups like NWLC and Planned Parenthood "have been launching offensives this week to ignite a little activism," including a video on the NWLC Web site that features women declaring that they are "not a pre-existing condition." In a Senate hearing last week, Greenberger testified that "the health insurance industry is rife with 'unfair and discriminatory practices, ... including gender rating, the exclusion of health care services that only women need, and pre-existing condition denials,'" Kotz writes. According to an NWLC report, a "whopping 95% of insurance companies charge women more than men for the same coverage for individual policies," and "[s]ome 25-year-old women are charged up to 84% more than men of the same age for individual health plans that exclude maternity coverage," Kotz writes. Gender rating "also occurs in group plans provided by employers," and insurance companies in most states "are allowed to charge a business more for coverage of its female employees," she continues. Greenberger is "lobbying Congress to include mandatory [maternity] coverage as part of health reform," and would "also like to see contraception and Pap smears covered as part of the preventive health package in the reform bill," Kotz writes. While the House bill (HR 3200) and two versions of the Senate bill (S 1796, S 1679) include some of these elements, Greenberger is "worried they could fall out of the final version sent to the president to sign" but "has been maintaining her positive attitude that legislation benefiting women will pass," according to Kotz. Greenberger said, "It's been energizing. The fact that we now have versions being considered in the House and Senate is further than the country has ever gone" (Kotz, "On Women," U.S. News & World Report, 10/21).

• "Insurance Company to Peggy Robertson: Want Coverage? Get Sterilized ... and By the Way, Your Son Is Too Small," Jodi Jacobson, RH Reality Check: A series of health care reform advocacy videos co-sponsored by the Service Employees International Union highlight the story of Peggy Robertson, a woman who testified at a congressional hearing last week on her experience being denied health insurance over a previous caesarean section, Jacobson writes. Robertson's "story takes us further down the rabbit hole of the insurance and health care crisis in this country, as if any of us thought there was any further to go," Jacobson says. Robertson says in the first video that UnitedHealthcare's Golden Rule Insurance said in a letter that "she cannot be covered ... unless she got sterilized," Jacobson writes, adding that Robertson "is unable to afford a third child" due to her lack of insurance. "On one hand, we are in a battle to allow women to prevent pregnancy when they desire not to become pregnant, and on the other, women who want to have a child are denied coverage if they have had a c-section and told to get sterilized," Jacobson continues. She adds, "Anyone else see the irony here?" She writes, "'Gender discrimination' is written all over these policies with a massive Sharpie." The "greatest shock is not that these stories are coming out and that they are absurd and demeaning on their face," but that "so many stories like this are out there untold," according to Jacobson. She concludes, "I say the insurance industry as currently constructed is too sick to function and should be declared a national 'pre-existing condition' of which we should rid ourselves permanently" (Jacobson, RH Reality Check, 10/21).

• "Pro-Life Pretense," Cristina Page, RH Reality Check's "OnCommonGround": Although President Obama has not yet released his agenda on "common ground" policies to reduce the need for abortion, it is "already having a profound and largely overlooked effect" by "expos[ing] deep fault lines in the pro-life movement," Page writes. Obama's goal of reducing the need for abortion "has been embraced by some practical-minded pro-lifers," but "[f]or the traditional pro-life establishment" the "pro-life outcomes" produced by Obama are "less worthy" than if they were produced by a president who opposes abortion rights, Page writes. "Since Obama takes [traditional pro-lifers], their beliefs and their proposals seriously, they have been forced to justify some fundamental hypocrisies, the kind that have in the past led to rhetorical victories and little progress," such as so-called "crisis pregnancy centers," she writes. The "most persuasive" arguments used by CPC staff is that women "facing crisis pregnancies can make it work by depending on a network of publicly funded social services," such as Head Start, Medicaid, state health departments and the Women, Infants and Children program, Page writes. She adds, "For the vast majority of women convinced to become mothers, CPCs are a gateway to the welfare system." In theory, "a pro-life, common ground approach" would be to consider CPCs as "referral agencies" to services to support women "who really do want to keep a pregnancy" and to make sure these services are well-funded, she writes. However, this is "where the old-guard rhetoric runs into the brick wall of common ground (and fact-based) reality," because even though antiabortion-rights groups "profes[s] their love for [CPCs'] work, they batter the social programs on which the CPC movement places its trust," according to Page. Obama's common ground initiatives are "just the sort of agenda designed to appeal to a nascent pragmatic and moderate pro-life movement," Page argues, adding, "let's hope this rising voice of reason can lead the CPC movement to support an administration plan to help struggling families and indigent pregnant women." She concludes, "Praise for CPCs can't come packaged with attacks on the very support they rely on. It not only defeats common ground; it defeats reason" (Page, "OnCommonGround," RH Reality Check, 10/23).

• "What Bubbe Hannah Knew: Lessons for Health Reform From a 19th-Century Midwife," Cindy Raphael, RH Reality Check: The "pending" health care reform legislation "recognizes [the] simple equation" that "healthy women have healthy babies," Raphael writes. Maternal mortality is "a key indicator of health worldwide and reflects the ability of women to secure not only pregnancy-related services but also other health care services," she continues, noting that if health reform is passed, women would "be able to participate in a health care system in which they won't be charged up to 45% more than men for identical coverage, and maternity and reproductive health will be part of a basic care package." Experts advocating women's health reform "understand [that] taking care of women really means taking care of everyone, because women have a major stake in decisions about health care for their entire families, and they often play a significant role in the health care that their children, spouses or parents receive," Raphael continues. She adds, "By ensuring coverage of prevention and basic health services such as maternity benefits, the proposed reforms will create a system that provides not just 'sick care' but true health care for women and ultimately for all citizens of our nation" (Raphael, RH Reality Check, 10/23).

• "Abortion in Ancient Rome (or Why I'm Glad I'm Living in the Present)," Feminists for Choice: The blog post responds to a conservative claim that "abortion came from feminism" -- as one conservative Twitter user told the blogger -- by contending that the practice of abortion has existed for centuries. For example, "Abortion in ancient Rome carried no shame along with it and was often not prosecuted," the blog says. The only way a woman who received an abortion could be charged with a crime was if her husband opposed the abortion. The blog explains that Roman doctors' surviving records indicate that Romans "had laundry lists ... of abortion techniques and potions." Strenuous labor or bareback horseback riding were prescribed for early pregnancies, but more often, "Roman women turned to various concoctions and potions to induce abortions." A plant called silphium caused abortions when ingested, and other options included wormwood, myrtle and wallflower. "But there were also some non-plant things women would take orally and vaginally to induce abortions," she writes, including iron slag, composed of the impurities melted out of iron. Toxic lead was also used. "My Twitter sparring partner also said at one point during our conversation that night that if abortion were illegal, women wouldn't seek it because it'd be too dangerous." But, she explains, in ancient Rome as in modern times, "we have a precedent here of women risking their own lives to have an abortion" (Feminists for Choice, 10/20).
  
  
• "Did the American Cancer Society Really Change Its Tune on Screening?" Los Angeles Times' "Booster Shots": The American Cancer Society, responding to a New York Times article earlier this week, recently clarified its position on cancer screenings, saying that all women older than age 40 should continue to get annual mammograms, "Booster Shots" says. The New York Times story reported that ACS, spurred in part by a Journal of the American Medical Association analysis, is developing a plan to modify its message about the risks and benefits of breast and prostate cancer screenings. The JAMA report indicated that increased screenings have detected more early-stage tumors but haven't translated into a similar decrease in aggressive tumors. But "Booster Shots" notes that ACS Chief Medical Officer Otis Brawley has a long history of making the case for the imperfections of cancer screenings. In a statement released this week, Brawley said the organization stands by its existing screening guidelines. He said that "the bottom line is that mammography has helped avert deaths from breast cancer, and we can make more progress against the disease if more women age 40 and older get an annual mammogram." ACS Deputy Chief Medical Officer Len Lichtenfeld also sought to ease the confusion, writing on ACS' blog, "The American Cancer Society is not working on any stealth project to change commentary on our Web site to emphasize the shortcomings and risks of screening. If we are, I would know about it, and I haven't heard anything about such a plan. We don't have to. You see, we already discuss these issues right there in plain view, including on this blog" (Kaplan, "Booster Shots," Los Angeles Times, 10/21).

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.