Posts Tagged ‘ stupak ’

Guest post: What’s a woman to do?

November 24, 2009
By

This post, by Linda Tarr-Whelan, first appeared on Mom’s Rising. Here’s the link to the original.

Linda-Tarr-WhelanHealth 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.

What’s Lacking in Women’s Healthcare? Trust

November 20, 2009
By

healthcareJust 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.”

Mass Confusion: Stupak and the Senate Race

November 12, 2009
By

capitolLast Saturday the House traded a woman’s right to choose for healthcare reform. Even though President Obama has promised that reform will not cause any U.S. citizen to lose benefits they already have, the House passed the Stupak Pitts amendment which takes away a woman’s right to full reproductive health coverage

Over the weekend several representatives threatened to vote down the healthcare bill unless the House passed the amendment.  The amendment, by prohibiting coverage of abortion in the public option, effectively bans abortion coverage across the board. That’s because it also prohibits private insurers from offering full reproductive coverage through the exchange to both subsidized and unsubsidized individuals. Remember: abortions are legal, medical procedures.

The amendment does make a provision for an abortion rider that women could purchase in the event they are planning an unplanned pregnancy. But Planned Parenthood says these riders don’t really exist. Many claim that the amendment is in place to make sure no federal money is used to pay for abortions. But that protection was already in place. The Stupak Amendment, which was backed by the Catholic Bishops, is far more restrictive.

I spent too many years in the Catholic Church to take abortion lightly, but women must have the right to control their own bodies. According to Planned Parenthood, 1 out of 3 women in the U.S. have an abortion by the time they are 45 years old. 

I have also been pregnant three times. Sadly, my first baby didn’t make it. Somewhere between eight and ten weeks, his or her heart stopped beating and I underwent a surgical procedure, known as a D&C, to remove the dead fetus from inside me. The procedure ensured I would not get an infection from the tissue and, more importantly to me at the time, it gave me closure while I mourned a baby I never knew but absolutely loved. Under the Stupak Pitts amendment, hospitals might not distinguish the reason for a D&C, which is often used to perform abortions, and another woman in my situation may not have access to the surgery. What will she do then?

Sixty-four Democrats and 176 Republicans voted in the Stupak amendment, and in doing so, essentially traded women’s rights for so called healthcare reform. But this reform would not live up to Obama’s promise that we will be better off after reform than we are now.  And many of those same lawmakers then voted against the healthcare bill later that night. Women’s rights were used as a political bargaining chip in the House of Representatives last weekend and that’s not okay. However, there is hope that the Stupak Pitts amendment will be stripped from the Senate healthcare bill.

In Massachusetts, the issue is heating up the Senate race for Ted Kennedy’s seat. Congressman and Senate candidate Mike Capuano voted no on the Stupak amendment but yes for the healthcare bill that included the amendment.  Following the vote, Attorney General Martha Coakley took a firm stance on the issue with this statement, “The inclusion of the Stupak/Pitts amendment violates the very intent of health care reform, which is meant to guarantee quality, affordable health care coverage for everyone.  I believe that the Senate has a responsibility to fix this by eliminating the provision in whatever reform legislation moves forward.”

Capuano then jumped on Coakley’s statement and said, “Unlike a prosecutor, a legislator must have the skills to build consensus and the courage to make difficult decisions, and the wisdom to know when to choose progress over perfection.”  His statement echoed the idea that women’s rights are just collateral damage in the game of politics. Candidate Steve Pagliuca is also willing to choose healthcare over women. His statement read, “if the choice is between providing healthcare to over 30 million people without federal coverage for abortion or to leave them with no coverage at all, I could not, in good conscience make the choice to leave them out in the cold.” Yet he could in good conscience take away women’s rights?

Days later, in what appeared to be a complete reversal, Capuano told The Boston Globe he would not support a healthcare bill that included the controversial amendment.  And then, just yesterday, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the women behind the machinations last Saturday, endorsed Capuano citing his “courageous vote for this historic legislation” and his “proven record of standing up for progressive values and what he believes is right.” What exactly does he believe is right?

Know your candidates, ladies. Women should never be compromised for some greater good. We need unwavering advocates in Washington. Period.

Why We Need Women in Office

November 10, 2009
By

politician

Last night, in the town where I live, we had a warrant review in preparation for a special town meeting. On the table are some critical items to do with education, raising taxes and smut zoning. As I looked around the room, I observed how few women are in power:

-9 person finance committee: 2 are women

-5 person board of selectman: 1 is a woman

- 7 person school committee: 2 are women

- 5 person planning board: no women

And yet the town population over the age of 18 is 54 percent female and 46 percent male. That is not representative government.

We’ve written before about the need for women to lead. Diverse leadership leads to better problem solving, more creativity, representative government. Girls need role models so they know they too can grow up to serve and lead some day.

And then this weekend, we witnessed the House trade women’s rights for healthcare reform. The Women’s Campaign Forum writes that if there were more women representatives, the Stupak amendment would have been defeated.

she shoudlrunThere are some great organizations that support women who want to run for elected office. I encourage you to take a look. Start with She Should Run.

(Logo used with Creative Commons license.)

Wild Weekend

November 9, 2009
By

bishopIt was a wild ride for healthcare reform and for women this weekend. Saturday started with women Democrats in the House trying to speak about gender discrimination by insurance providers. However, they were repeatedly interrupted by their male counterparts across the aisle. Watch the video here.

 

 The day ended with the House passing healthcare legislation, but somewhere in the middle women were used as pawns.

Before voting on the healthcare package, the House approved the Stupak-Pitts amendment, which severely restricts access to abortion. Women can, however, purchase a costly abortion rider in case they are planning an unplanned pregnancy.

Representative Stupak and others had threatened to vote down the final healthcare bill unless the amendment passed. And ultimately 64 Democrats and 176 Republicans voted in favor of it. Many of those same lawmakers then voted against the healthcare bill later that night.

Regardless of personal or religious beliefs, how can women not find it disturbing that our lawmakers were so comfortable trading our rights in exchange for their end goal? The media has framed the move as “pragmatic” and a “concession,” but those words are merely euphemisms. It speaks volumes that our politicians knew just how easy it would be to trade women in exchange for political gain.

Starting with the blatant disrespect shown on the floor Saturday morning, to the passage of the amendment later in the day, this weekend felt like anything but progress.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes