Check out this video we found on YouTube, inspired by our post: Five Ways to Observe Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
The intersection of feminism and life
Check out this video we found on YouTube, inspired by our post: Five Ways to Observe Breast Cancer Awareness Month.
October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month. According to the National Cancer Institute, there are approximately 230,000 new cases of breast cancer diagnosed each year and 40,000 breast cancer related deaths annually. Forget the pinkwashing and please spare us the foolish Facebook memes, and do something meaningful. Here are five ways to observe Breast Cancer Awareness month.
One year ago this week President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Vice President Biden was right. It was a big *$% deal. The sweeping reform, which will go into full effect in 2014 will help the currently uninsured, extend benefits through parents’ policies to struggling young adults, offer new tax credits to small businesses and assist senior citizens with costly prescription costs.
The reform has particular significance for women who historically paid higher premiums than men and were penalized for their so-called pre-existing conditions like pregnancy, C-sections and yes, even, domestic violence. Pre-existing conditions can no longer be cause for not insuring someone. Under the reform, women can also access the preventative care that is so critical to their well-being including critical maternity care. The United States has a very high maternal mortality rate. In fact two women die due to pregnancy-related complications each day in the United States. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act covers folic acid supplements, breast feeding support programs and screening for pregnancy-related conditions including anemia, cervical cancer and hepatitis B. And critical to both pregnant and non-pregnant women, screenings for breast and osteoporosis are now more affordable and accessible.
It’s these gains that should spur women to remain engaged and watchful of the political process that still threatens the reform. The House of Representatives voted to repeal the healthcare act in January and opponents of the reform vow to take their fight to the Senate. The house also voted to defund Planned Parenthood which provides millions of people affordable healthcare including sex education, contraception, and screens for cervical and other cancers.
And separate but related attacks on women’s access to a full spectrum of healthcare are being waged at the state level all across the country. There are bills on the books that would require women to have mandatory spiritual counseling and sonograms prior to having an abortion. There are bills that would restrict health insurance from covering all reproductive treatments. There are proposals in play that would prohibit abortions even in life and death situations.
Women’s health is still one of the most hotly debated issues in Washington. We need to pay attention and advocate for ourselves. So as we mark the one year anniversary of the signing of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, we should all do two things. First, stay informed. Subscribe to our updates and feeds from other sites like the National Women’s Law Center and Moms Rising. And second, program your legislators’ phone numbers on your speed dial so you can let them know where you stand on the issues.
For more blog posts on healthcare reform and women, visit the National Women’s Law Center.
Ladies, it’s time to pay attention to the special election in Massachusetts to fill Ted Kennedy’s Senate seat, no matter where you live. When voters go to the polls next week, January 19, women everywhere stand to either gain or lose a lot.
Democratic nominee and Attorney General Martha Coakley is running against Republican nominee and State Senator Scott Brown. There is a third candidate in the race, Independent Joe Kennedy (no relation to the late Senator), but he is not considered a contender.
Until recently no one really thought Brown was a contender either. How could the Commonwealth let “The Kennedy Seat” go to a Republican? Plus, Massachusetts has not elected a Republican senator since 1972.* As a result, the race has been rather dull and garnered very little attention outside the Commonwealth.
And then the Senate passed its version of the healthcare bill and suddenly, things got interesting. Conservative interest groups, fueled by a desire to elect Brown as the 41st vote against the bill, started pouring money and volunteers into the race. The American Future Fund, a group whose members are believed to be behind the Swift Boat ad and the Willie Horton ad that hurt John Kerry and Michael Dukakis’ presidential campaigns, launched a $400,000 attack ad against Coakley. Twitter users started flooding the social media site with pro-Brown tweets, many that reference the Tea Party. Brown even raised $1 million dollars in just 24 hours. And now, polls show the race is very close.
Brown’s million dollars came from across the country because right-wing conservatives want to help support and protect their interests. Women, concerned with protecting their rights, should get involved now too.
Here’s what at stake:
Healthcare: The healthcare bill, while certainly imperfect, removes gender-biased practices and stops insurance companies from denying coverage based on preexisting conditions like rape and domestic violence. In Massachusetts, Brown filed legislation designed to ease regulations on insurance companies. Under his bill, companies may not be required to cover certain medical services including mammograms and cancer screenings.
Reproductive Rights: Coakley has a long history of supporting a woman’s right to choose and control her own body. She has the support of NARAL and Emily’s List. Pro-choice advocates are disappointed that Coakley supports the Senate healthcare bill which includes restriction on abortion. But her opponent’s record on reproductive rights is more disconcerting. He is backed by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. He co-sponsored the Women’s Right to Know Act, which would require a woman to wait 24 hours before having an abortion and view an ultrasound of their fetus. While Brown does say he supports Roe v. Wade, his campaign website reads, “I believe government has the responsibility to regulate in this area…”
Support for rape victims: Brown sponsored legislation that would allow healthcare workers to turn away rape victims from emergency rooms if they objected to providing those victims with emergency contraception.
Equal representation: Women represent 51 percent of the population but only 17 percent of the legislation. Until a group reaches critical mass, at least 30 percent representation in leadership, they are viewed and evaluated as “special interest” rather than representative. Every competent, qualified women we elect, brings us one step closer to critical mass. And, as we’ve written before,
“Women legislators bring much needed attention to so-called women’s issues such as childcare, elder care, fair workplace policies and healthcare. They serve as role models for young girls and increase women’s overall participation in government and civic issues. And women politicians work hard. According to a study from the University of Chicago and Stanford University, women in Congress, on average, introduce more bills and secure more money for their districts than their male counterparts do.”
No candidate is ever perfect ladies. But if we are going to work together to support our interests, we must remove the phrase, “I want to vote for a woman, but…” from our vocabulary and take action.
Here is what you can do:
Donate: Link here to make a donation.
Volunteer: Make calls to voters and help get the message out.
Vote: If you live in Massachusetts, get out and vote on Tuesday, January 19.
Support other qualified women candidates.
*Massachusetts has never sent a woman to the Senate.
This post, by Linda Tarr-Whelan, first appeared on Mom’s Rising. Here’s the link to the original.
Health care for women is in the news these days. But what does it all mean? Having just researched for my new book what different decisions emerge when 30% women are at the table, I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if Congress were made up of 30% women, instead of 17%. But more on that in future posts!
For today, I’m riveted by news stories that a “very prestigious independent medical panel” has recommended big changes in our health care routines. As a colon cancer survivor and former nurse, it leaves me with more questions than answers. They talked about preventing deaths from breast cancer, but then told us to cut out several key steps we have learned to take.
We have walked, done relays, worn pink ribbons and educated ourselves to take practical steps: do breast self-exams, have the mammograms we need after the age of 40 and regular doctors’ visits. Could these common-sense precautions really be unnecessary? Really?.
First I went to the American Cancer Society, to see what they say at www.cancer.org. The chief medical officer is very clear. Even looking at the same studies as the independent group did, they came up with different conclusions. Their guidelines – the ones we know well and try to follow – stay in place.
Yes, there are risks that need careful discussions between a woman and her physician. Yes, we’d like better science so there won’t be false positives on mammography that can cause anxiety. But the bottom-line is clear: we still need to check ourselves and get the tests we need for early discovery and treatment.
Then what about that flap over the House-passed health care reform package that traded a necessary part of health care away for a cynical political deal around abortion politics? Most women don’t even want to think about ending pregnancies; we concentrate on having a safe pregnancy and a healthy baby. Private insurance policies have generally treated women’s reproductive health as part of health care, not a separate political football. That’s important because none of us can know what the future will bring.
Forty special interest members of Congress weren’t thinking about women’s needs. They pushed for and won a provision to effectively prevent women from getting private insurance coverage for the full range of reproductive health options. These Members of Congress knew tax dollars cannot be used for abortion services; for 30 years, by law, no federal money can pay for the procedure. Instead, like recalcitrant children, they held up agreement on the reforms millions of Americans including my family and maybe yours need for health care.
Think about it. Every family knows someone who’s at risk with our fragmented health system. Our daughter’s employer – like many across the country – dropped health insurance coverage in this economic downturn. Individual policies cost far too much for Montessori teachers like her. Our son in the computer field was 36 years old before he had a job where the employer offered group health insurance. My aunt is only able to take the medications covered by her Medicare prescription drug plan. Every family knows what is at stake.
Health care tops the list for moms to take care of their families. Join the Moms Rising campaign. Click here, because our kids need both health care and healthy moms!
Linda Tarr-Whelan is the author of Women Lead the Way: Your Guide to Stepping Up to Leadership and Changing the World. Check out her website at www.lindatarrwhelan.com.
Just days after the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) revised the screening guidelines for breast cancer, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) has revised its guidelines for cervical cancer screening. You can read the revised guidelines here.
Basically, the ACOG is recommending that women should have their first cervical cancer screening at age 21 and be rescreened less frequently than previously recommended. Previous guidelines called for yearly testing for young women, starting within three years of their first sexual intercourse, but no later than age 21. The reason for the revision is to “avoid unnecessary treatment of adolescents which can have economic, emotional, and future childbearing implications.” Cervical cancer is caused by strains of the human papillomavirus (HPV). The ACOG reports that cervical cancer rates have fallen more than 50 percent in the past 30 years and that although HPV infection is high among sexually active teens, cervical cancer is rare in women under 21. Apparently, the immune system can clear HPV infections within a year or two among most young women.
From the ACOG, “Because the adolescent cervix is immature, there is a higher incidence of HPV-related precancerous lesions (called dysplasia). However, the large majority of cervical dysplasias in adolescents resolve on their own without treatment. A significant increase in premature births has recently been documented among women who have been treated with excisional procedures for dysplasia.”
On their own, these guidelines seem reasonable. But many women are frustrated by the changes, and rightly so. After all, there doesn’t seem to be clear consensus on the USPSTF guidelines and now this? The ACOG actually issued a contradictory response to the USPSTF’s guidelines. So did the American Cancer Society. So who do we trust? Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius also issued a statement on the breast cancer screening recommendations. Here’s an excerpt (full text here):
“There is no question that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations have caused a great deal of confusion and worry among women and their families across this country. I want to address that confusion head on. …
“My message to women is simple. Mammograms have always been an important life-saving tool in the fight against breast cancer and they still are today. Keep doing what you have been doing for years — talk to your doctor about your individual history, ask questions, and make the decision that is right for you.”
Her message may be simple but not realistic. When doctors schedule appointments every 15 minutes, when insurance companies make it very difficult for doctors and patients to order and receive testing outside of the recommended time frames, when referrals and co-pays and paperwork make the simplest procedures complicated, managing your health care is easier said than done.
When it comes to health care women don’t know who they can trust. These new guidelines follow on the heels of The House of Representatives trading women’s reproductive rights for the passage of a healthcare bill. Leading up to that vote, many women were surprised to learn that C-sections, rape, domestic violence are all considered pre-existing conditions by some insurance companies. Is it any wonder we are skeptical when told to scale back on preventative measures?
I am not a health care provider and therefore not qualified to comment on the guidelines. But I am a woman and feel quite comfortable telling the healthcare industry and the government, “Get it together with respect to women’s health.”
Yesterday the government issued new guidelines on breast cancer screening. These guidelines are a major change to what we’ve been told for years.
From the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) website:
•The USPSTF recommends against routine screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49 years. The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms.
•The USPSTF recommends biennial screening mammography for women aged 50 to 74 years.
•The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of screening mammography in women 75 years or older.
•The USPSTF recommends against teaching breast self-examination (BSE).•The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of clinical breast examination (CBE) beyond screening mammography in women 40 years or older.
•The USPSTF concludes that the current evidence is insufficient to assess the additional benefits and harms of either digital mammography or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) instead of film mammography as screening modalities for breast cancer.
Here’s what concerns me: The decision to start regular, biennial screening mammography before the age of 50 years should be an individual one and take patient context into account, including the patient’s values regarding specific benefits and harms. I have had too many interactions with condescending doctors who don’t value a patient’s opinion and dismiss intuition or a patient’s personal knowledge of their own body. It’s nice to think that a women interested in early mammography could have a reasonable discussion with her physician – and some will be able to – but the chances seem slim. Every doctor I visit schedules 15 minute appointments, hardly enough time to have a meaningful discussion.
Still, the research is interesting and the new guidelines are apparently more in line with international guidelines. Read more from the USPSTF here.
The American Cancer Society, however, is not changing its guidelines. Read their response to the new guidelines here.
Take a look at both sides. What do you think? Do the benefits of regular mammograms outweigh the risks or vice versa?
There are two sides to every issue. Yesterday the National Women’s Law Center sponsored a day of blogging about healthcare reform.You can read the posts here. Today, the Tea Party Patriots are holding a nationwide rally at the Capitol Steps in Washington, D.C. to “kill the bill.” For those who can’t attend, there is an online “war room” with information on contacting Congress. There is also a website called Don’t Kill Grandma detailing the rally and the group’s take on the issues.
I completely agree we should not kill Grandma. However, since we are going to let her live, shouldn’t we at least offer her – and her daughters and granddaughters – equal coverage for equal premiums, access to quality maternity care and insurance policies at least comparable to Grandpa’s?
It’s only fair.
Do you know who may be denied health insurance?
* Me. I had a Cesarean section. C-sections are pre-existing conditions.
* A good friend of mine. Her husband hit her. Domestic violence is a pre-existing condition.
*The one in six women who will be sexually assaulted. Rape is a pre-existing condition.
*Another good friend of mine. She underwent IVF. Fertility treatments are a pre-existing condition.
Ladies, we are NOT pre-existing conditions.
The list goes on:
*My cousin. She is having a baby. Many health insurance policies do not cover maternity care.
*My sister. She needs a mammogram. It’s not covered by her insurer.
*My neighbor. Her health insurance company charges her more than they charge men but her employer pays her less. She can’t afford coverage.
*You. If you are a non-smoker. Health insurance companies typically charge female NON-smokers more than male smokers.
Most gender-based discrimination occurs in the private insurance market, where the self-employed and small businesses find insurance. But even among the group health insurance market, gender discrimination exists. Insurance companies are allowed to determine premiums based on the number of women a firm employs.
This is appalling. Health reform is NOT a political issue. It is a matter of human rights. Click HERE to contact Congress TODAY and tell them a woman is NOT a pre-existing condition. We deserve equal coverage for equal premiums.
(*NOTE: Clickon the title of this post to view a video.)
Read more on this topic here and thank you to the National Women’s Law Centerfor their report “Nowhere to Turn: Insurance Companies Treat Women Like a Pre-Existing Condition” which you can download here.
Seven years ago, after 32 hours of labor, my doctor recommended I have a Caesarean section. My cervix didn’t dilate and a c-section seemed to be the safest way to deliver my baby. Today, the very decision I made to keep my child safe could be the same reason I can’t provide insurance for him.
As you know, earlier this week the Senate Finance Committee voted to move forward on a healthcare bill known as the Baucus Bill. Now, it must be merged with a separate proposal from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee before it can go to the full Senate for a vote. There is still plenty of work to do. Over the coming weeks, our legislators will continue to examine discriminatory insurance practices and a public option.
Ladies, if you haven’t been paying attention to the healthcare discussion in this country, you need to start now. Here’s why:
- C-sections, evenly medically mandated ones, are considered pre-existing conditions by some insurance companies
- Domestic violence is considered a pre-existing condition by some insurance companies –no not for the batterer, for the victim
- Only 20 states require private insurance companies to cover routine mammograms*
- Women often struggle to find coverage for maternity care. And then they often lose valuable income while on earn maternity leave.
- Women, on average, earn less than men and the wage gap has widened. Our dollars need to stretch further.
- Yet women often pay 30 – 40 percent more for health insurance policies than men do.
I am not a pre-existing condition. I am 51 percent of the population. I am in control of 85 percent of consumer buying power. I am strong—I am able to grow a life inside of me, care for that baby on little to no sleep, recover from abdominal surgery and return to work all in less than three months. I am a breadwinner. I may not make as much as the guy in the office next to me who didn’t give birth, but I’m working on it. I am a registered voter. And I demand equal coverage for equal premiums.
Ladies, click here to tell Congress YOU are not a pre-existing condition. Demand equal care for equal premiums.
Thank you to RH Reality Check for alerting us to the “I am not a pre-existing condition” campaign. Read more here.
*From the National Women’s Law Center Reform Matters fact sheet
