Blogs Comment On Obama's First 100 Days, Swine Flu's Effect On Women, Other Topics

Main Category: Women's Health / Gynecology
Also Included In: Swine Flu;  Abortion;  Sexual Health / STDs
Article Date: 03 May 2009 - 1:00 PDT

email to a friend   printer friendly   opinions  

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

~ Blog Posts Examine Women's Health During Obama's First 100 Days, Cristina Page/Cecile Richards: President Obama's administration is "off to an incredible start" following Obama's first 100 days in office, Cecile Richards, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, writes in a RH Reality Check blog entry. Richards notes that Obama has repealed the "global gag rule," also known as the "Mexico City" policy, and taken steps to repeal the HHS provider "conscience" rule. Obama also has called for "evidence-based, medically accurate sex education," increased spending for family planning for low-income women, access to affordable contraception and expanded access to the emergency contraception Plan B, Richards writes (Richards, RH Reality Check, 4/30). Obama also "wisely" appointed "key positions that impact women's health and rights," when he selected Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Cristina Page writes in a Birth Control Watch blog. Page adds that Obama also has "committed his administration to finding common ground in the abortion conflict" by "assign[ing] the Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships to work with his Council on Women and Girls on the task," noting that "[b]oth sides of the abortion debate have much to gain from this common ground effort." Page writes that in his first 100 days, Obama has "reversed course in favor of the policies that have proven, wherever tried, to result in dramatic declines in unintended pregnancy and abortion rates," concluding that it would be "wrong to say only pro-choice people have reason to rejoice from this stellar" 100 days (Page, Birth Control Watch, 4/29).

~ "Swine Flu Poses Work Dilemma for Working Moms," Deborah Kotz, U.S. News & World Report's On Women: "The swine flu outbreak has all of us in a near panic, stirred up by relentless media coverage of what could happen if things get worse," Kotz writes, adding, "Fearing a spread of contagious and potentially deadly illness, more than 100 school systems in 14 states have shut their doors, leaving 160,000 kids home and their parents trying to figure out how to adjust their work schedules. In many cases, women are the ones doing the juggling." According to Kotz, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "tells us we should 'stay home from work' when we are sick -- in this case a mild cough could qualify -- but that's easier said than done. Employers aren't required to provide paid sick leave, and many folks can't afford to forgo pay." Karen Minatelli, director of the work and family programs at the National Partnership for Women and Families, said, "The CDC is making good suggestions, but they don't give any thought to the half of workers who don't have paid sick days. With the economy the way it is, many are afraid they'll lose their jobs if they take time off. We'd like to hear the CDC or President Obama call on employers to be a partner in this effort." Kotz adds that even "companies that do provide paid sick leave may not be legally required to provide it in the instance of school closure." In addition, Kotz writes that Fatima Goss Graves of the National Women's Law Center says that the "bigger issue ... is that many parents don't have guaranteed sick leave, paid or unpaid, and they could be in danger of losing their jobs if they take off a week or two while their kids are off from school." Kotz writes, "Regardless of the sick leave policies, the onus is on parents to work things out with their employers in the event of school closures. Many bosses will probably let employees work from home or use accrued sick or vacation leave." She concludes, "But some folks, especially single moms, may be left with just two unacceptable options: leave kids home alone or risk losing their jobs" (Kotz, U.S. News & World Report's On Women, 4/30).

~ "Fair Pay = Access to Contraception," Judy Waxman, RH Reality Check: Fair pay for some women "means the difference between having the financial ability to make one of the most fundamental decisions in life -- when and if to have a child," Waxman of the National Women's Law Center writes. She continues that the cost of reproductive health services is "prohibitive for many women," particularly during the economic downturn that has made it more difficult for many women to access and pay for reproductive health care services. She notes that men working in low-paying positions can "expect to make an extra $2,970" per year compared with women, adding "[t]hat amount of money would certainly come in handy for the average American woman who spends approximately three-quarters of her reproductive life in the costly pursuit of trying to postpone or avoid pregnancy." Waxman concludes that "providing women equal pay for equal work is an important step in ensuring that all women have the financial ability to afford reproductive health and family planning services" (Waxman, RH Reality Check, 4/28).

~ "Authentic Common Ground on Abortion," Thomas Reese, Washington Post's On Faith: Considering all of the recent criticism directed at the University of Notre Dame for inviting President Obama to deliver its commencement address, "you would think that the American Catholic bishops have written off the administration and anyone who is pro-choice as unredeemable," Reese, senior fellow at Woodstock Theological Center at Georgetown University, writes. He continues that although some abortion-rights opponents "will not even cooperate on programs to reduce abortion because that would infer that you find legalized abortion acceptable," this is "not the position" of all U.S. Catholic bishops. Reese describes the recent actions of Cardinal Justin Rigali, chair of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, who wrote a letter to Congress calling for them to support the Pregnant Women Support Act (H.R. 2035). According to Rigali, the bill would provide increased health and financial support for pregnant women, as well as increase access to abortion alternatives such as adoption. Reese writes that such programs "will help women choose life and not be forced to have an abortion because of economic constraints." According to Reese, both abortion-rights supporters and opponents should demonstrate support for the act, which would "show that pro-choice advocates really want to give women a real choice and it will show that pro-life advocates truly want to protect life." He continues that it is "disconcerting" that Rigali's letter has received little media attention, concluding, "This story deserves more coverage" (Reese, Washington Post's On Faith, 4/28).

~ "The Rebranding of Abstinence-Only Has Begun," Joe Sonka, RH Reality Check: Faced with the facts that "[i]ndependent studies have definitively shown that abstinence-only programs are a failure" and millions in federal funding for such programs is in "serious jeopardy," the National Abstinence Education Association and allies "discussed a new strategy to continue its federal funding stream," Sonka writes. He adds that one of the recipients of federal funding for abstinence-only education is WhykNOw, which has changed its name to OnPoint and "'broadened its focus and taken on a whole new look.'" According to Sonka, "[I]nstead of touting abstinence, it is all about teaching 'healthy decision-making skills,'" which he adds is the "[s]ame garbage, different packaging." According to the Sexuality Education and Information Council of the United States, "much of this information" in the old curricula is "outdated, inaccurate and misleading" and information on condoms is "focused on exaggerated failure rates, and contains almost no information about other forms of contraception." He writes that WhykNOw is one of the "largest providers of abstinence-only curricula to public schools all over the country," concluding that it is important government officials know about "this rebranding rouse of abstinence-only organizations ... We must not let Obama and Congress fall for this silly rebranding scheme" (Sonka, RH Reality Check, 4/29).

Antiabortion-Rights Blog

~ "Hardly A 'New Way of Thinking About Abortion'," Dave Andrusko, National Right to Life blog: During a press conference Wednesday, President Obama appeared to give a "something-for-everybody answer" regarding the abortion debate, which is the "kind of Obamaspeak that sends thrills up and down the spines of his media admirers," Andrusko writes. According to Andrusko, Obama in "essence" said that abortion is not "simple, but the 'complex' answer is that the decision to dispatch babies is entirely up to the woman" and that the U.S. "really ought to 'reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies,' but don't bother me while I reduce to rubble every legal protection built in the past 36 years -- no matter how small or widely supported by the public -- and in the process greatly increase the number of dead babies." Andrusko notes that Obama's full response to the question regarding abortion included the comments, "I think abortion is a moral issue and an ethical issue. I think those who are pro-choice make a mistake when they suggest ... that this is simply an issue about women's freedom and that there's no other considerations" (Andrusko, National Right to Life blog, 4/30).

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.

• Additional
• References
• Citations