Slight Spoiler Alert! Even as we anticipate watching the women who work at Sterling Cooper struggle with changing gender roles, we are watching that struggle take place in a privileged world. Peggy may be preparing to fight to get a seat at the conference room table, but the fact that she's in a position to launch that battle is the result of her privilege as a white woman. Joan may sit back and indulge in regular countdowns to her wedding while gleefully admiring her engagement ring, but the fact that her character can even contemplate leaving the work force after marriage reflects both her class aspirations and the privilege that makes achieving them possible.
So as for the question of which character will be the next to take a dip in the radical pool, I suspect that we're more likely to see Sally Draper emerge as a young radical feminist than to see any of the adults really participate in 60s radicalism. I anticipate seeing most of the characters of Mad Men experience the radical side of the 60s from the sidewalk and the agency spend a lot of time trying to figure out how to use all that social change in advertising campaigns.
Last week the media got nostalgic over Woodstock and the 1960s, but watching Mad Men's season premier reminded me that there was a mainstream the radicals of the 1960s were rebelling against - a mainstream that resisted change and horded power even as they adjusted hemlines and flirted with trendy liberal causes like voting rights for black people.
But Mad Men is nothing if not unpredictable and I can't wait to see how things shake out!
]]>I don't have the disgusted response to the idea of pre-chewed food being fed to babies because my family has long used the practice when weaning a baby. As a matter of fact, my Grandmother swore by it and freely admitted to feeding pre-chewed food to all of her children and grandchildren. And this story is more than a report of odd behavior - as the ScienceNews piece points out, the findings that there is a probable link between pre-chewed food and HIV transmission from adult to child have important implications and may prove false a long held belief in the late transmission of HIV through breastfeeding.
It is important to put the practice of pre-chewing food for babies into context. There are many parts of the world where baby food is not available in charmingly labeled glass jars sold in conveniently located markets. There are still other parts of the world where pre-chewing food for babies is simply cultural accepted as tradition, including parts of America. My grandmother was born and raised in rural Mississippi where both factors applied - people made baby food at home or they pre-chewed and our family valued pre-chewing baby food as a perfectly tradition for grandmothers and mothers to participate in. Since the practice of pre-chewing food for babies is widespread across the world the implications of the probably transmission of HIV through the practice are huge.
That raises the question of how HIV might have been passed from adult to child through pre-chewing. As reported in the August issue of Pediatrics, three cases of HIV infection were diagnosed in children ranging in age from 15 to 39 months after symptoms prompted doctors to perform testing. In two out of those three cases of positive HIV infection, the mothers were known to be infected with HIV and had not breastfed their children. Perinatal transmission of HIV had also been ruled out in those two cases. In the third case, the mother of the child was not HIV positive but a great aunt who helped care for the child was determined to be infected with HIV. All three children had been fed pre-chewed food on multiple occasions by an individual infected with HIV and in two cases concurrent oral bleeding in that individual was also reported. The Pediatrics report concludes that the children were infected through exposure to pre-chewed food from an HIV positive individual in two out of the three cases studied.
The researchers recommend that doctors educate patients about the new findings linking pre-chewed food with HIV transmission when oral bleeding is a factor so that parents can make informed decisions and take appropriate preventive action where warranted. This research also highlights the need for everyone to know their HIV status and for there to be safe, affordable and confidential opportunities for testing. In poor communities and countries, not pre-chewing food is not a viable option but testing and education should be so that parents and caregivers can have all the information needed to make the best choice for their child.
This study may also play a key role in the analysis of cases where breastfeeding was thought to be responsible for late HIV transmission from mother to child. Armed with this new data, researches are reviewing those cases to see if pre-chewing may have played a role. Given the important health benefits of breastfeeding and the debate over whether HIV positive mothers should nurse, the outcome of those case reviews could have global implications.
It sometimes seems that there is a new study debunking a previous study announced everyday and it is easy for a body to become numb to news of yet another one. This story should suffer that fate. Mothers and caregivers deserve to know the facts about the potential of HIV transmission through pre-chewed food and what, if any, new light that shines on the potential of HIV transmission through breastfeeding.
]]>Welcome to our RH Reality Check roundtable on Mad Men, featuring staff writers Pamela Merritt, Amanda Marcotte, and Sarah Seltzer. Sarah kicked off our salon Wednesday, Amanda responded on Thursday, and Pamela adds her thoughts below. After the premiere (August 16), we'll start a second round of conversation!
I loved Mad Men from the first scene of the pilot episode "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes," which presents an awkward-as-hell exchange at a bar between Don Draper and a black man waiting tables. Draper tries to engage the man in a discussion of cigarette brands; after a few moments a supervisor comes bustling over to make sure the black man isn't "bothering" Mr. Draper. The establishment of discomfort within that scene is amazingly well done. The viewer feels the the black waiter's concern, his expression anxious and his eyes averted, that Don Draper may have just cost him his job by acknowledging him as a human being and asking for his opinion. But we also witness the lack of concern, the lack of discomfort from the other patrons over the dismissive tone and paternal language used by the supervisor toward the waiter. In that one exchange, Mad Men served up a mixed drink of America's struggle with race and class, shaken not stirred.
I was hooked and have been since.
The cast of Mad Men isn't racially diverse. As a matter of fact there were few characters of color in the first two seasons. Mad Men doesn't present an uplifting or empowering view of race nor does it hit a viewer over the head with 1960s Civil Rights history. Rather, Mad Men keeps it painfully and often awkwardly real by exploring race issues within the framework of Sterling Cooper and the people connected to the advertising agency.
From that first smoky scene in the first episode, to a later scene when employees at the agency were asked if they were okay with a black maintenance worker riding with them because the service elevator at the building was out, onward to the acknowledgement of Civil Rights work through the character Paul Kinsey's interest in it, and the introduction of Paul Kinsey's black girlfriend as part love interest part liberal affectation, Mad Men presents an exploration of race, class, and gender in the not-so-distant past that challenges the notion that all was well back in the day and keeps this fan coming back for more.
]]>Unfortunately, not everyone shares that opinion. Soon after the nomination, critics began to claim that, despite her resume and achievements, Dr. Benjamin may be "too fat" to be Surgeon General.
People are actually speculating on the dress size of the Surgeon General nominee and debating whether it is large enough to disqualify her for the position. I’m more than aware that size matters more than health to too many people. But this is different. People assume that a full-figured person must rack up medical conditions with every pound. The media also sends a lot of mixed messages about the connection between health and weight. On one hand there are news stories fretting over women starving themselves to fit into skinny jeans. On the other hand there are features promoting ways to slim down fast. And somehow there’s yet another hand out there raising the alarm that America is in the midst of a costly obesity epidemic.
It is into that storm that the charges that Dr. Benjamin is too fat to be Surgeon General are thrown. Critics charge that Dr. Benjamin sends the wrong message to Americans because she’s not visually thin and thus visually healthy. I contend that that charge sends the wrong message to Americans – thin does not equal healthy any more that a deep tan makes a person "look healthy" or a full figure means a person is unhealthy.
The National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey recently released data that shows that more than half of people labeled overweight are metabolically healthy. The study goes on to point out that examination of metabolic health — blood pressure, cholesterol, sugar levels — are better predictors for future health problems that a person’s weight alone. I am not saying that a person’s weight cannot play a role in high blood pressure, cholesterol or unhealthy sugar levels. What this study says is that there is not an absolute connection and that we all need to start talking health instead of weight alone.
As a full-figured woman of color I was also disturbed but not surprised that some critics of Dr. Benjamin’s weight come from the medical community. Even before research was released connecting the quality of medical care with a person’s weight and race, I knew from personal experience that some doctors make judgments based on their patient’s appearance and then provide medical care based on those flawed judgments. In my case, the flawed care came when I was about 40 pounds lighter and my then primary care doctor assumed that I was the picture of health. I wasn’t...and it took a change in physicians to finally get down to the business of addressing my health concerns. Now that I am 40 pounds heavier I’m alarmed to learn that a recent study found that 40 percent of doctors surveyed reported having a negative reaction to heavy people. Will my weight put me at risk of receiving inadequate care? Is the reward for not looking a certain way substandard medical care?
Another issue raised by the critique of Dr. Benjamin’s weight is whether a person’s health and weight should weigh into their qualification for a job. Do doctors and nurses have to present a physically fit appearance, if the appearance of being fit is all there is? One doctor quoted on ABCNews.com mentioned that she lost weight to set a good example for her patients. But what if a doctor looks fit but is actually unhealthy? To some, health seems to matter less than the appearance of health and that just doesn’t seem like a healthy outlook to me.
Health care reform needs to include more than expanded coverage and access. It needs to include respect and understanding, dedication and empathy. Given the new data challenging previously held beliefs about the connection between weight and health, we might want to revise our definition of what healthy is and how it looks to align with reality. And given Dr. Benjamin’s impressive qualifications we might want to revise our opinion of her as a nominee and hold off on making health care assumptions based on her weight.
]]>The Associated Press recently reported that Black, Latino and Asian lawmakers are seeking to broaden healthcare legislation to include more funding for community health centers that provide care to poor neighborhoods. Among the Asian Caucus, Congressional Black Caucus and Congressional Hispanic Caucus there are 91 legislators with the power to influence and shape healthcare reform legislation. Armed with research showing the ramifications of healthcare disparities in communities of color, these legislators are pushing hard for funding and for the public option.
I've been following the healthcare reform debate and discussing it with family and friends. Most of them are concerned that the public option appears to be in trouble on the Hill while others are concerned about whether coverage for reproductive health care would become a political issue that will threaten coverage through a public option. But one friend pointed me toward the healthcare crisis facing Native Americans as an under-examined example of healthcare gone wrong and an under-utilized guide to what we need to avoid as we seek to reform healthcare for all Americans.
Tim Giago recently tackled the subject
of how healthcare reform would impact Native Americans in an article entitled How Will Universal
Health Care Affect Native Americans?.
Giago, an Oglala Lakota and the publisher of Native Sun News, points out that healthcare
in America may be failing but, by way of comparison, Health and Human
Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius calls the health care of Native
Americans a "historic failure." Our government,
obligated through treaties and agreements, provides healthcare to Native
Americans through the Indian Health Service. So, the "historic
failure" is actually another government failure in a shamefully long
line of government failures involving Native American people.
Giago poses some very important
questions about whether healthcare reform will cover Native Americans
too, how it will impact care on reservations and in urban areas and
whether reform will impact the Indian Health Service. He also
points out that Americans who point to Canada and Europe as examples
of how "socialized" medicine can go wrong may want to look closer
to home and at the government run Indian Health Service.
Giago's piece provides some insight into the key issue funding plays in the failures of the Indian Health Service. He quotes the new head of the Indian Health Service, Dr. Yvette Roubideaux, saying "It's clear that there's a call for change and improvement in the Indian Health Care Service, and it's also clear the IHS has been significantly under-funded for many years. The staff of Indian Health Service has been doing the best it can with limited resources, and in some cases they are providing excellent quality of care with limited resources."
In other words, if we want public healthcare to work we've got to come up with the money to fund it. To that Giago adds a question - as legislators search for ways to fund the estimated $1.5 trillion required to fund healthcare reform, how will the budget cuts anticipated to free up those funds impact the Indian Health Service? The answer to that question is playing out in Congress right now.
Those of us who champion healthcare reform point to that one central fact - our healthcare system is not working. With the perspective provided by the Indian Health Service we should take care to learn how programs might be set up to fail through a lack of adequate funding. How and if a program is adequately funded speaks volumes toward our commitment to that program. Will we rob Peter to pay Paul and, if so, who gets to play Peter and who gets to play Paul? Will we fund healthcare for the long term or set it up to go broke in a few years? We should also take care to address the barriers to accessing healthcare that exist in communities across the nation, on reservations and in urban areas. If we're going to do it we need to do it right lest we expand the historic failure of healthcare for Native Americans nationwide. As advocates and legislators demand that healthcare reform include a public option we should all keep in mind that if we wouldn't want it for our family we shouldn't propose it for anyone else's and we should fund healthcare reform as if our lives depended on it. ]]>Pro-choice groups hoped for a nominee with a judicial record supporting a woman's right to choose. Anti-choice groups busily combed through the records of likely nominees looking for ammunition to block a pro-choice nominee. And everyone seemed to agree that the big issue on the table during the nomination process was going to be abortion.
So, when President Obama nominated Judge Sotomayor many people were surprised to see the nominee's own race and gender, not her position on abortion, emerge as the key battleground issues.
I was not surprised, nor do I think the emergence of race and gender as issues during this pre-confirmation period means that abortion is off the table. To the contrary, abortion is one of the issues being debated by proxy. Charges that reverse racism and sexism might have an impact on Judge Sotomayor's decision making ability are really charges that she might decide cases concerning abortion rights, discrimination, and immigration rights differently than conservatives would like.
America did not miraculously become a post-racial society with the election of our first President of color and the storm over Judge Sotomayor's nomination is just one example of that. The issue at hand is not whether Sotomayor's claim that a "wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life" translates into her being unable to rule without prejudice in favor of people of color. A review of Sotomayor's judicial record shows that she does not reflexively favor any group. In 96 race-related cases, she rejected discrimination claims by an approximate margin of 8 to 1.
The issue is also not whether Sotomayor's views on the role of gender in judicial matters--interpreted for the most part through that claim about what a "wise" Latina woman would do--will somehow translate into her ruling in favor of women and reproductive choice regardless of the merits of individual cases. As Jill Filipovic explores in her piece Fair and Balanced: Weighing Sotomayor's Opinions, "Sotomayor's only major abortion-related case was Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush - and her conclusion isn't going to warm the hearts of reproductive rights activists." The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy lost that case, which allowed the Global Gag Rule to remain in place until President Obama took office. Sotomayor has also ruled in favor of anti-abortion protestors in not one but two civil rights cases.
Jeremy Levitt, in a piece in the Orlando Sentinel (Sotomayor: Race-baiting and the unpatriotic right), asserts that Sotomayor has forwarded the basic premise that the gender, national origin and personal experiences impact a judge's decisions. Levitt, Associate Dean for International Programs and a distinguished professor of international law at Florida A&M University College of Law in Orlando, questions whether that assertion is really a "novel revelation" and he flat out rejects the idea that making that assertion is a public display of racism.
Despite Sotomayor's judicial record on race-related discrimination cases, she has been charged with the task of putting Republican Senators at ease and calming their fears that a wise Latina woman would rule with her heritage and gender in mind rather than the law. So even with pro-choice organizations seeking clarification and assurances from the White House that Sotomayor will uphold Roe and protect reproductive rights, Judge Sotomayor is being painted as a pro-choice liberal activist judge by conservative groups and bloggers.
That's because the overt questioning of Sotomayor's ability to judge fairly because she is a Latina has little to do with her judicial record. Conservative opponents of Judge Sotomayor's nomination fear that she will shift once appointed to the bench, much like they believe Justice Souter did, and they have latched on to her "wise Latina woman" statements as evidence that she is likely to shift toward the left. Another liberal justice on the Supreme Court would do more than maintain the status quo; it would make the next nomination a potential game changer and we should have no doubt that the game being played is over a woman's right to choose.
Judge Sotomayor now faces opposition that appears to agree with her premise that gender, national origin and personal experiences impact a judge's decisions. Conservatives not only validate the premise of her statement through their insistence that judges be "strict constructionists" with clear ties to the Republican party, they also validate it through their over the top condemnation of Sotomayor's assertion that a wise Latina woman would make different decisions that a white man. Beneath the surface is their acceptance that Judge Sotomayor is right; that a woman of color, empowered through the richness of her heritage, would reach a different decision than a white man. They ought to know, since they bet on that logic proving true with both so-called "strict constructionist" conservative judges they welcomed onto the Supreme Court during the Bush Administration. During the pre-confirmation period for Justice Roberts and Justice Alito, pro-choice activists mounted opposition because we knew that one person's stare decisis is another person's debatable precedent. Now conservatives opposing Judge Sotomayor are demonstrating that they know that one person's "better conclusion" is another person's judicial nightmare.
]]>Despite protests from advocates against domestic violence, sponsors and supporters of HCS HB 46 & 434 took to the floor of the Missouri House and claimed to be protecting women from being coerced into having an abortion. The legislation would create the crime of "coercing an abortion" if a woman has experienced threats of having a scholarship for higher education at a public or private institution revoked because she is pregnant; threats of employment discrimination or termination if she continues her pregnancy; stalking, assault or domestic assault. Many of the people with whom I discussed HCS HB 46 & 434 were initially supportive until they looked beneath the surface. The bill would make physicians and anyone assisting them criminals for helping women obtain an abortion "with knowledge" that the woman has been "coerced" and would prohibit the woman from consenting to an abortion as the "victim of a coerced abortion."
Here's an example of this proposed law in action.
Consider a woman who is pregnant as the result of rape who, with her doctor, decides that an abortion is the best course of action. Imagine that rape survivor also mentions to her doctor that her boyfriend agrees with her decision, but has been aggressive with her about it. With HB46, now the doctor must turn the situation over to the government which mandates that the doctor label that rape survivor a "victim of coerced abortion" who "lacks the consent required by law." [Text is quoted directly from the last paragraph of the bill.]
HCS HB 46 & 434 is a clever revision of last year's abortion restriction bill and opponents must navigate some complicated linguistic terrain. No one wants women to be forced to do anything against our will, but denying women our right to make decisions with our doctor if we are survivors of crime is not the definition of protection anymore than forcing a rape survivor to carry a pregnancy resulting from rape to term is the definition of empowerment. Beyond the smoke and mirrors, the reality is clear. In the world that HCS HB 46 & 434 would create, women are denied a voice and subjected to half a dozen new legal hurdles to access reproductive healthcare, doctors and healthcare providers are made criminals for following their patient's clearly expressed wishes, family members and counselors risk criminal prosecution for giving advice and the all powerful state gets an instant medical degree complete with a front row seat to private medical appointments.
What's amazing is how the
same anti-choice Missouri lawmakers manage to contradict themselves
this session. Anti-choice legislators passed the abortion restriction
bill HCS HB 46 & 434 allegedly to protect women from the crime of
coercion. Simultaneously, they are also trying to pass pharmacy denial legislation
House Bills 226 and 533, that would protect pharmacies from
legal action if their employees refuse to dispense emergency contraception
that would prevent unwanted pregnancies. Keep in mind that refusing
to fill a prescription for emergency contraception would not be considered coercion,
even though it could potentially force a woman to carry an unwanted
pregnancy to term. It gets better: anti-choice Senators would
also like to pass SB459 and SB
529, which would
criminalize a pregnant woman who goes to term with a pregnancy before
she is able to overcome her drug or alcohol problem.
I have to wonder if SB459 and
SB 529 would open up the legislature to felony prosecution for committing
the crime of "coercing and abortion" should the abortion restriction
bill HCS HB 46 & 434 become law, because it threatens women with
unemployment, incarceration and the potential loss of scholarships should
they carry their pregnancy to term while addicted to drugs or alcohol.
Missouri has a new pro-choice Governor and many speculate that the anti-choice state legislature is setting up a test of Governor Nixon's ability to sustain a veto. Meanwhile, legislation like the 2009 Prevention First Act and several bills that would promote prevention and health in Missouri languish unaddressed. Now comes word that the same legislative body that passed HCS HB 46 & 434 to allegedly protect women and unborn children has voted to not expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program to cover 27,000 more uninsured born children when Missouri families need it most.
This Missouri resident wishes someone would create the new crime of wasting the people's time while committing legislative stupidity. ]]>Many pro-choice initiatives -- like the Prevention First Act, or zeroing out abstinence-only funding -- require the support of socially conservative Democrats to make it through Congress. With so much hinging on that support, pro-choice advocates need to know who these anti-choice Democrats are, what they believe and what reproductive health policy positions and legislation they intend to support.
Democrats for Life of America (DFLA), the national organization of anti-choice Democrats, has supported many of these anti-choice candidates. Of fourteen candidates endorsed for Congress in the 2008 elections, five candidates won their elections; Rep. Bobby Bright, Rep. Parker Griffith, Rep. Steve Driehaus, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, and Rep. John Boccieri. They join 25 anti-choice Democrats in Congress.
Representative Bobby Bright (D-AL, 2nd District) is the former Mayor of Montgomery. Bright sits on the Agriculture, Armed Services and Small Business committees. Bright is best known for his views opposing evolution in favor of intelligent design and voting against SCHIP. Representative Parker Griffith (D-AL, 5th District) was a member of the Alabama Senate, representing the 7th District from 2006 to 2009. The 5th district includes parts of Madison County and Huntsville. Representative Steve Driehaus (D-OH, 1st District) is a former four-term, Democratic member of the Ohio House of Representatives, representing the 31st District from 2001 to 2009. Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D-PA, 3rd District) is a civic leader and successful small businesswoman. Dahlkemper has served as Director of Lake Erie Arboretum at Frontier Park (LEAF) in Erie, Pa. for the past ten years. Rep. John Boccieri (D-OH, 16th District) is a pilot who served in the Air Force and Ohio Air National Guard.
What all five have in common is their endorsement by DFLA, which endorses candidates that they are confident will work hard to promote and pass legislation that will "protect life at all stages." The DFLA endorsement brings with it the expectation that candidates, if elected, will support and advocate for that organization's key legislative proposal, the Pregnant Women Support Act. The Pregnant Women Support Act proposes to assist low-income women who wish to continue their pregnancies to term. Cristina Page reviews the highlights:
It would provide financial, medical, educational assistance, insurance coverage for those in need who ordinarily would not qualify for it. A woman can get nurse home visits, counseling, shelter, help with child care, assistance to help her stay in school, and a lot of other services that may broaden her choices.
And Cristina points out low-lights. Not only does the bill not once mention family planning initiatives, the bill also would: "Create a new pilot program for "Life Support Centers" to offer comprehensive and supportive services for pregnant women, mothers, and children." Many suspect that measure to be a way to funnel funds to crisis pregnancy centers which often mislead women about their options and bully them into not seeking abortion services.
That's where the new anti-choice legislators and their stance on reproductive justice issues come into play. It would be naïve to downplay legislators' anti-choice ideologies simply because they are Democrats. These anti-choice Democrats are serious about their support of the Pregnant Women Support Act as it currently is written, Life Support Center thorns and all. While pro-choice advocates should reach out to anti-choice Democrats on prevention issues like comprehensive sex education and access to birth control, we should also be mindful that just because someone is hanging out in the Democratic Party tent that doesn't mean that they agree with every part of the party platform.
That is why so many are looking
to the Pregnant Women Support Act to see what, if any, common ground
will be found. In many ways we can use that legislation as a means
evaluate how much give anti-choice legislators have and where they may
have it. Will anti-choice Democrats support revisions that would guarantee
medically accurate counseling at those Life Support Centers? The
bill also seeks to codify the regulation that extends coverage under
the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) to both low-income
pregnant women and unborn children, which is an attempt to create independent
rights in law for a fetus. Will anti-choice Democrats support
revisions eliminating that measure to preserve the life of the bill?
If you Google "do we still need Black History Month?" a ton of articles and posts pop up -- either defending or critiquing what has become a must-do month long celebration for many schools, organizations and companies. Last year, the actor Morgan Freeman added fuel to the already smoldering fire when he called the idea of Black History Month "ridiculous" during an appearance on 60 Minutes. Many share Freeman's views that Black history should be a part of history everyday, while others argue that while a month recognizing black history may have potential, Black History Month as it exists in the U.S. has become too commercial to have any real social value.
Renee of Womanist Musings has a guest post up on Feministe titled Black History Month in which she explains why she has deliberately
not done a "celebration post" for Black History Month.
"For a brief 28 days of the 365 that make up a year, people will briefly acknowledge the contributions of blacks and then return to privileging whiteness in every single social institution."
I tend to agree with Renee and
have been exasperated by the number of people who want to specifically
celebrate this year's Black History Month because we just elected
this nation's first president of African descent. It feels forced,
obligatory and downright inappropriate when so many communities of color
are struggling to survive the same sea of societal toxic waste resulting
from the lack of privilege that they faced last year.
I can't help but think that
Black Herstory Month is destined to that same fate as Black History
Month, even though I really like the idea of studying and honoring the
contributions women of color have made throughout history.
When I was a young child, Black History Month was celebrated through traditional examinations of slavery, the Civil Rights Movement and the struggle for equal education. The unique contributions women of color have made and are making were often overlooked, and I was left feeling invisible during a month that was supposed to increase my visibility. That lack of visibility continues -- and was particularly felt during last year's election coverage when women voters and black voters were spoken of as if black women voters simply don't exist.
So, I wasn't shocked by the continued failure to mention Shirley Chisholm's name during the historic 2008 presidential campaign even though her presidential candidacy in 1972 foreshadowed many of the issues and controversies last year's race resurrected. Chisholm became the first black woman elected to Congress in 1968, and ran for president in 1972. An examination of Chisholm requires an examination of why her candidacy was not viewed as viable and why history has failed to acknowledge her run and it is clear that such an examination wouldn't fit into the "we're gonna make history" election year narrative of 2008. If Black History Month functioned properly, Shirley Chisholm's historic 1972 run would have been top of mind for political pundits searching for examples of the challenges candidates of color face when they run for statewide or national office. If we are ever in a position to assess the impact of Black Herstory Month, name recognition among the general public and within communities of color for Shirley Chisholm, Angela Davis and Cynthia McKinney as African Americans who have run for President of the United States must be a measure.
And I'm not unmoved by the proposal to increase our historical awareness of women of color. In fact there may still be something to this Black Herstory Month idea if we use it right. The Choices Feminist Campus post provides some good suggestions for ways to explore and celebrate herstories in a meaningful and educational way.
We can host regular screenings
of films or documentaries about, directed and written by and starring
people of African descent. A favorite film of mine is Chisholm
'72: Unbought and Unbossed,
which explores Chisholm's 1972 run for president. The documentary
is a fascinating look at herstory too often overlooked when we explore
women in politics. Screening and discussing this documentary provides
an opportunity to learn more about Chisholm's historic run for office
and explore the issues raised during it that are still relevant today.
Or perhaps we would prefer to
host a ceremony or gathering to pay homage for past sheroes and heroes
of African descent who have contributed greatly to our world.
I was able to participate in such an event a few years ago. Participants
were asked to research women in our families who were part of the Civil
Rights movement. We then honored those women through personal
accounts, performances and song. Preparing for the event gave
me the opportunity to collect personal histories from my relatives.
I was able to build a herstory of my Grandmother and get to know her
through the context of the struggle for social justice. I discovered
that my Grandmother was active in the anti-Lynching movement, participated
in boycotts and marches and fought for better access for women to health
care more than 50 year ago. Honoring my Grandmother provided an
opportunity to explore not just what she was able to accomplish but
also what she was prevented from accomplishing.
The ideas presented for Black Herstory Month are all doable as regular projects throughout the year and they all provide opportunities to celebrate as well as identify inequalities in need of correction. The problem is that many schools and institutions see Black History Month as just another diversity "to-do" that, once completed, lets them off the hook for the rest of the year. So they place a few ads on Black radio stations and sponsor a couple of events then call it a day. The challenge is figuring out how we can sell through the benefits of a comprehensive program to those same schools and institutions when so many of them enjoy the ease and sense of accomplishment that comes with single serve diversity initiatives per month.
In many ways it falls on the students and employees of such institutions to push and challenge for more meaningful interactions and events that truly reflect Black History; for the inclusion of Black history as a part of American history and women's history and LGBT history and you get the picture. And there can not be enough emphasis put on the word "meaningful," because celebrating the good is as easy as it is tempting but exploring and addressing the injustices that remain unaddressed is what is required to achieve meaningful.
As Rene of Womanist Musings points out at the conclusion of her Feministe guest post, engaging in dialogue and listening to each other is part of the solution. Without that dialogue Black Herstory Month is doomed to fall short of being an instrument of social justice and far more likely to evolve into just another vacant minority marketing campaign scheduled in the month of February.Anyone hoping for a bold change in US global AIDS leadership has had plenty of news to keep up with in the past few weeks. First, Mark Dybul, the current and controversial occupant of the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator, submitted his resignation in anticipation of being replaced. Soon after, he sent around an email saying he had been asked by the Obama Administration to stay on board. Now, rumors are circulating that his days as the US AIDS Ambassador are in fact numbered. The Global AIDS Coordinator works under the Secretary of State, and with the confirmation of Hillary Clinton--a committed woman's rights advocate--as Secretary of State today, the question of whether Dybul stays or goes is of keen interest to all of those concerned about an effective U.S. response to the global HIV and AIDS epidemic.
To the chagrin of some global AIDS advocates, and to the qualified approval of others, Dybul announced last week that he had been asked to rescind his resignation and stay on as Global AIDS Coordinator for the start of the Obama administration - or indefinitely. In the latter case, advocates are divided on what Dybul's "second term" means for the future of a program that has focused on treatment but been riddled with ideological requirements that have hamstrung efforts to prevent new infections.
No question, Dybul's work is not universally applauded. During the Bush administration, he did not fight his boss's ideological restrictions on global AIDS funding. Many argue that the Obama Administration would be best served by appointing someone new.
On RH Reality Check, Jodi Jacobson has argued that the limitations embedded in PEPFAR, the President's global AIDS relief bill, can only be addressed with a Global AIDS Coordinator who "gets it." "For too long, PEPFAR has been driven by a highly medicalized approach to an epidemic fueled by gender, social and economic disparities and by stigma and discrimination. A critical first step for the new Administration is to appoint a Coordinator who clearly understands these dynamics, who embraces both the public health and human rights dimensions of risk and disease and who recognizes that sex and sexuality are normal attributes of being human," Jacobson writes. And for Jacobson, that Coordinator is not Mark Dybul. "When given the opportunity in Congressional hearings and other fora, Dybul failed to unequivocally support removal of the abstinence-until-marriage restrictions in the original PEFPAR legislation despite mounting evidence that this restriction was undermining efforts to stop the spread of HIV. He did not speak out publicly against other restrictions such as that on syringe exchange. His office failed to use its own leverage in writing guidance that would have supported a comprehensive approach to prevention of sexual transmission of HIV or would have greatly alleviated the adverse effects of the so-called prostitution pledge. In short, even as a medical doctor he supported ideology over evidence, serving his own interests and the interests of politicians rather than those of people at risk."
"Nominating someone new is a necessary first step to signaling that changes needed in US global AIDS policy will be a high priority," said Jacobson.
PEPFAR's ideological restrictions date from the original 2003 act, in which Congress required that only 20% of total PEPFAR funding could be spent on prevention, and that fully a third had to be spent on abstinence-until-marriage programs. Under the tenure first of Randall Tobias and then Dybul after Tobias departed in scandal, the Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator interpreted the one-third stipulation as narrowly as possible, claiming that one-third of all prevention funding, not just the funding spent to prevent sexual transmission, must be spent on abstinence programs. Moreover, while the law said abstinence-until-marriage, the implementation focused on abstinence-only. For example, rather than counting every dollar of a comprehensive program focused on promoting delay of sexual debut toward the earmark while ensuring each individual received all the information, training and methods needed, OGAC instead insisted on funding stand-alone abstinence, or abstinence and faithfulness programs that ignored--and in some cases denied--the possibility of practicing safer sex.
The 2008 reauthorization lacks the specificity of the original act, but requires that at least half of all money directed towards preventing sexual transmission of HIV must be spent on "activities promoting abstinence, delay of sexual debut, monogamy, fidelity, and partner reduction" in countries with generalized HIV epidemics or a report must be made to congress. While some argue this langauge is less directive than the original earmark, most implementers disagree. The requirement of a report to Congress on specific program activities such as these on a yearly basis not only creates more bureaucratic hurdles, but also provides the authors of this language--such as Rep. Chris Smith of New Jersey--the fodder for harassing program providers who are seeking to meet the needs of the populations at risk, not ideological politics in Washington. Only programs working to prevent sexual transmission of HIV are subject to such reporting requirements.
Taking leadership of PEPFAR presents both opportunities and challenges for the incoming Obama administration. The 2008 reauthorization gave a green light to spending of up to $48 billion from 2009 through 2013 that could dramatically increase funding of key programs like those providing treatment and prevention of maternal-to-child transmission. But Obama will also need to address the many controversial Bush administration policies that remain in place, both in law and in guidance, policies that hinder the fight against the spread of HIV/AIDS. Selecting the right person as Global AIDS Coordinator is a critical step. Given that the retention of Dybul may be stopgap measure, President Obama still has an opportunity to bring about real change.
But if Dybul stays on is this an indication
Obama won't make bold and necessary changes to the global AIDS program?
Not necessarily, argues long-time AIDS activist Gregg Gonsalves, currently of the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition. For Gonsalves, a little more Dybul now, with the possibility of the nomination of a strong leader later - someone who is a "leader on global public health, who is good on reproductive rights, needle exchange, and generic drugs, with a lot of seniority and credibility" - is preferable to nominating an unqualified candidate now. Candidates that have been mentioned in the press are CEO of the Global Health Council Dr. Nils Daulaire, professor and former director of the World Health Organization HIV/AIDS department Dr. Jim Yong Kim, and President and CEO of CARE Dr. Helene Gayle. "[The candidates being considered] are holdovers from the Clinton administration who didn't speak out against the ban on needle exchange under Clinton or push for anti-retroviral therapy," says Gonsalves. "So we're going to put in a bureaucratic coward from the Clinton years and call that a victory?"
"Mark Dybul was not a
Tom Coburn, whose entree into AIDS and global health was to drive an
ideology forward. Mark's background is appreciably different than
other Bush appointees," says Gonsalves. "I think he's a scientist
and knows the science. Given more freedom, he very well may be
guided by the evidence. If he continues to push non-evidence based
policies for HIV prevention, then I'm wrong."
While Joseph Amon, the director
of the
HIV/AIDS program at Human Rights Watch,
also wants to see Dybul replaced, he agrees with Gonsalves that none
of candidates recently considered are right for the position.
"All of [the candidates being mentioned] have strong qualifications
and have shown dedication to working on HIV/AIDS, but none of the candidates
under consideration have really fully embraced and articulated the need
to address human rights," said Amon. "It is not enough to see a
decrease in HIV/AIDS prevalence statistics and ignore the underlying
problems. There needs to be more than just a health sector response."
This past December a letter from leading advocacy groups, including the International Women's Health Coalition and the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), exhorted the Obama transition team to "appoint a Global AIDS Coordinator who can lead the transition from a disease-specific, medical model to one which embraces, and can carry out, a broader vision" that rests on an "understanding of the social and economic factors which drive the epidemic and a solid grounding in public health and human rights frameworks." William Smith, Vice President for Public Policy at SIECUS, said that his group was concerned that current Global AIDS Coordinator Mark Dybul would stay on. "I'm willing to give the Bush administration credit for scaling up treatment and care but it has been a disaster on prevention and Mark Dybul has overseen that," says Smith.
Questions remain as to whether the position will remain an Ambassadorship, what role the State Department will have and whether the office will be integrated into USAID. It's possible that Dybul will stay on until OGAC is integrated into a larger office to address international humanitarian and development issues. The latest rumors suggest that Dybul's tenure may well be briefer than indicated by his own open-ended email to staff.
When Obama spoke of creating change in Washington, many in the HIV/AIDS community clearly were thinking about the Global AIDS Coordinator position. Now that Clinton is formally in charge at State, many hope she will quickly turn to appointing a new coordinator who will, to paraphrase Obama's inauguration speech, get the job done -- without compromising either our ideals or the rights- and evidence-based programs needed to stop the spread of HIV.
]]>
The thought of people refusing to serve
a person of color due to their personal objection to desegregation is
now considered indefensible and a violation of the law, but refusal
of service due to personal religious objections is not a thing of the
past. Pharmacists in Washington State can refuse to fill prescriptions,
for example a prescription for Plan B, if they feel that doing so conflicts
with their religious beliefs. Pharmacy refusal and refusals of
service are threats to the rights and health of women and defending
against those threats and the erosion of rights that they represent
is a crucial front in the reproductive justice struggle.
Like most people, I thought
that getting a prescription filled was a simple process. A person
goes to their doctor, gets a prescription, drops it off at a pharmacy
and the pharmacist fills it. The idea that an insurer would refuse
to cover, a doctor would refuse to prescribe or a pharmacist would refuse
to fill that prescription on religious grounds and that her or his refusal
would be protected by law never crossed my mind until my home state
of Missouri's legislature entertained a bill containing protections
for pharmacies earlier this year. As Amanda Marcotte explored
in her piece Freedom's
Just Another Word for Punishing Women,
pharmacy refusal is a key anti-choice tool that has less to do with
protecting religious freedom than protecting misogyny and forcing women
to bend to the will of the religious right.
So how did this happen?
Shortly after the landmark Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, Congress passed
the Church Amendment
that allows healthcare providers to cite religious grounds in order
to refuse to provide services. Specifically, the Church Amendment
prevents the government, as a condition of a federal grant, from requiring
healthcare providers to perform or assist in abortion or sterilization
procedures against their moral or religious convictions. It also prevents
institutions receiving certain federal funds from taking action against
personnel because of their participation, nonparticipation or beliefs
about abortion or sterilization. Within five years of passage of the
Church Amendment, the majority of states adopted refusal clauses and
refusal clauses have been extended to include assisted reproductive
technologies, contraception and emergency contraception, human embryonic
or fetal research, in vitro fertilization, and stem cell research.
That brings us to the example
of Washington State, where pharmacists can refuse to fill prescriptions
if they feel that doing so conflicts with their religious beliefs.
On April 12, 2007, the
Washington State Pharmacy Board adopted rules
requiring pharmacies to ensure that patients are able to get prescriptions
filled on site and in a timely manner. The rules require pharmacies
to dispense all lawfully prescribed drugs and devices, clarifying that
a pharmacist's personal and/or moral judgments have no place at the
pharmacy counter. On September 27th, 2007, a judge presiding over a
pharmacy refusal lawsuit issued a preliminary order preventing those
rules requiring pharmacies to fill all lawful prescriptions without
discrimination or delay from taking effect. As The Northwest Women's
Law Center pointed
out in their statement about the ruling, the rules were adopted to promote
the health of Washingtonians and the ruling preventing those rules from
being applied put the health of all Washington residents at risk.
Sarah Dunne, legal Director of the ACLU of Washington, pointed out in a
statement issued shortly after the prevention ruling that "The Pharmacy Board rules
strike the appropriate balance between patients' rights of access to
medication and pharmacists' individual rights. We hope the court ultimately
will recognize this and reinstate the rules."
Access to reproductive healthcare is being denied on religious grounds through refusals to cover prescriptions too. One key question is whether a healthcare insurance provider can refuse to cover services on religious grounds if they receive federal funds. Catholics for Choice (CFC) approached that question from the angle of the Catholic healthcare system and its impact on reproductive healthcare. Some Catholic HMOs receive payment for services from federal programs like Medicaid, which mandates a provision of family planning services. In their report Catholic HMOs and Reproductive Health Care, CFC explored the growth of Catholic managed care and the question of refusal of services and found that, of the 48 Catholic managed care plans CFC identified serving some 2.5 million Americans, 25 (representing 52% of all the Catholic plans identified) are providing contraceptive coverage for enrollees and some of those specify that they will only cover oral contraception.
The public policy implications
are clear, since coverage is a key factor in access to reproductive
healthcare and federal mandates should protect that access. But
the CFC report found that there are few formal regulations that require
health plans that refuse to provide family planning services to disclose
this clearly on marketing and enrollment materials. As a result,
employers may select a plan and have no idea that it limits or denies
access to reproductive healthcare due to a lack of coverage. Employees
would then be left to seek reproductive healthcare elsewhere and shoulder
the additional costs or go without that healthcare entirely.
It's not as if there aren't ways to balance individual freedoms. In their report, CFC identified several methods that Catholic healthcare plans may use to make reproductive health services available to enrollees without compromising their organizations beliefs. The key element is distancing the Catholic plan from the direct provision of and/or direct payment for forbidden services. The Catholic plan can contract with non-Catholic providers, such as another hospital or clinic, to provide the services. They could also arrange for the money they receive from enrollees or their employers that goes to pay for reproductive health services to go through third-party. Or a Catholic plan may arrange for another insurer to handle payment and provision of reproductive health services.
So let's rewind to my earlier exploration of going to the doctor, getting a prescription then going to the pharmacy and getting that prescription filled - things clearly aren't as simple as they initially appeared to be. A woman may be denied access as a result of her healthcare insurance provider's refusal of coverage, she may have a doctor refuse to treat her or she may actually make it to the pharmacy only to find that the pharmacist refuses to fill the prescription on religious grounds. And access to reproductive healthcare looks more like a grueling obstacle course where the game is based on luck and chance than a protected freedom. ]]>The female condom is a proven HIV and pregnancy prevention method that can be inserted independently and well in advance of intercourse. As Lauren Sisson points out in her article Female Condoms: Freedom Doesn't Come Free, the lack of access to and availability of female condoms has nothing to do with their effectiveness and everything to do with a lack of investment. Female condoms can reduce the rate of HIV transmission among women having sex with an infected partner by more than 90 percent and studies show that effective promotion and programming of the female condom results in a significant increase in the total number of protected sex acts between partners. Misconceptions and biases against the female condom have delayed international investment and, as a result, there is a high cost-per-unit price. National governments, bilateral aid agencies, and international donors could drive down the price of the female condom by making bulk purchases, as they have done with virtually every reproductive and sexual health technology, including male condoms.
The FC2 has been approved by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Population Fund for distribution by HIV/AIDS and family planning organizations. FDA approval would enable USAID to purchase larger quantities of female condoms and distribute them to non-governmental agencies providing services to the millions of women living in nations with high HIV/AIDS infection rates.
For more information about this issue and CHANGE visit the Prevention Now! web site. Again, individuals are encouraged to sign-on in support of this effort (click here) and representatives from organizations wishing to sign on to the letter are asked to email Jessica Terlikowski at jterlikowski@aidschicago.org no later than 5:00pm Central Time on Wednesday, December 10 to endorse the letter. Take action now and sign on to urge the FDA to approve the FC2!
]]>Loretta Ross, National Coordinator for SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Health Collective, shares some of SisterSong's priorities has for the Obama Administration: "The Hyde Amendment restricting abortion funding for poor women should be eliminated. In fact, all abortion restrictions should be removed, including the Global Gag Rule, and federal prohibitions that affect Native American women, women in the military, women in the Peace Corps, incarcerated women, and women in the District of Columbia. The sexual rights of young people should be respected and protected, including the rights of young mothers. Women should have the right to accept or refuse medical care, ending forced Caesareans. Women should have the right to use midwives to deliver their babies and midwives should not be criminalized for providing these services. New reproductive technologies should be regulated to ensure they are not socially abused by greedy profiteers. Disabled, immigrant, gender non-conforming, transgender and queer people should have the same reproductive rights as everyone else.
"Stop shackling pregnant, incarcerated women during labor and delivery and, in fact, investigate all reproductive abuses against incarcerated women to ensure they have the optimal opportunity to have healthy babies and to use contraceptives. End citizenship documentation requirements for healthcare. Healthcare should be affordable, accessible and safe for all people. The human right to health is not negotiable based on immigration status. Eliminating STIs and HIV/AIDS should be reprioritized with adequate funding for ending these diseases in communities of color, including supporting female condoms as well as male condoms, and expanding research on microbicides."
Ann Whidden, Internet Director National Sexuality Resource Center, says: "I, and my colleagues at the National Sexuality Resource Center, feel like this is a huge opening to re-examine how healthy sexuality is thought about and promoted. We don't want to think about merely regaining the ground lost by damaging abstinence-only policies, because moving back to 'comprehensive' sex ed would be doing just that -- moving backwards. We would like for the administration to pay heed to the data and research out there and implement policies and programs that make comprehensive sexuality education that is truly comprehensive -- that are based in the promotion of healthy sexuality, not just disease or pregnancy prevention -- and that look at how faith, gender, culture, orientation and age intersect with our sexual selves. This is our moment to truly re-vision how we want our young people to function as sexual beings, and to give them the tools, the knowledge and the context to allow them to make fully informed, healthy decisions about all aspects of their reproductive and sexual health."
Jill Filipovic, Feministe, says: "I think first he should focus on health care -- universal coverage, of course, but also on the myriad other ways to help Americans live their best, healthiest lives. A lot of that has to happen before people actually get sick, and a lot of the things that make us sick -- or that make us need care -- can be dealt with policy-wise. That means food policy -- making sure that fresh, healthy food is widely available and affordable, and that pesticide-free and additive-free foods aren't only for the privileged that can afford it. It means holistic aid to low-income families with children -- making sure that parents and children have the care they need, and that single moms don't have to work two or three minimum-wage jobs in unhealthy environments just to provide the basics. It means responsible environmental practices so that we're breathing clean air and eating clean food. And it means reproductive health policies that treat women like human beings in need of health care, not political ping-pong balls -- requiring insurance companies to cover birth control just like any other prescription, fact-based sexual health education, abortion access, and high-quality pre-natal and well-baby care for all women."
Jessica Arons, Director Women's Health and Rights Program Center for American Progress, says: "I'd like an administration that respects women, shares information rather than hiding or distorting it, and works hard to improve people's lives."
Mikhaela Reid, feminist cartoonist, of Boiling Point, writes: "For a cynical, jaded angry political cartoonist such as myself, the fact that I feel any hope at all is a REALLY huge deal. I am surprisingly hopeful for reproductive justice under an Obama administration. Of course, after Bush, we're all suffering from lowered expectations. We can realistically expect he'll appoint progressive (or at least somewhat liberal) Supreme Court Justices who will defend Roe v. Wade and interpret laws in favor of reproductive justice. We can expect that he'll repeal the global gag rule, which I hear is very likely (though our next GOP president will probably reinstate it). Beyond that, I'm not yet sure. I'm not sure how much he will or can do about the state-by-state erosion of reproductive justice -- the laws, policies and intimidation that make it near impossible to get a safe legal abortion in so many states. The onerous waiting periods, the parental notification laws, forced ultrasounds, and so on. Despite Roe, it's near-impossible -- whether financially, geographically, or otherwise -- for many women to exercise anything even approximating a 'choice.' And even though Obama is pro-choice, I'm not sure how much of a focus reproductive justice will get in his presidency, or how much of a priority it is for him amidst all the other shit currently hitting the fan-the economy, the war, and so on. He'll do the right thing when it comes up, but will he really dig into the issues beyond just the basic legal rights? He does have a background as a civil rights lawyer, so I'm cautiously optimistic."
These women expressed many of my own hopes and concerns for the Obama Administration. I am optimistic in a way I haven't been for nearly a decade and yet I worry that our nation's economic challenges will limit what we can actually accomplish. When I discussed the historic election with a woman I mentor at a local shelter and asked her what she wants to see out of the new administration, she replied, "I've already seen it and felt it. We've got hope, right? And a nation excited for change." I'll add that we have a lot of work to do and I'm excited to get started. ]]>Like many people with a developmentally disabled family member I welcome the introduction of the needs of the developmentally disabled into national policy debates. Special needs children, including my autistic older brother, grow up to be adults with special needs who depend on government programs for support. When funding for those programs is insufficient or eliminated, too often services are not delivered as a result and families like mine struggle to fill the gap. In light of the recent economic crisis, both presidential campaigns have been asked what initiatives or programs they would have to set aside due to lack of funding. Both have avoided giving specific answers, although McCain suggested he would freeze funding for all programs except military spending, support for veterans and entitlements. But those of us with developmentally disabled loved ones know all too well the specific impact funding cuts have on services. Many programs serving Americans with special needs were under-funded before the recent economic crisis and are now once again at risk of more cuts or even elimination.
Although Palin has taken ownership of the disability issue, Senator McCain has the Republican ticket's record of action on the issue. McCain was an original co-sponsor of the landmark anti-discrimination law, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and he has supported legislation to improve voting accessibility to people with disabilities. McCain and Obama both supported the ADA Amendment Act, which clarifies the protections of the ADA. The Obama and McCain campaigns have done outreach to the disability community and both campaigns have staffers working to win the disability vote. The campaigns have also pledged to appoint a White House staffer to focus on disability issues should they win the presidency. But the McCain-Palin ticket has yet to offer a specific agenda to address the needs of Americans with disabilities. In contrast, the Obama-Biden ticket has presented Barack Obama and Joe Biden's Plan to Empower Americans with Disabilities.
When I became my 38 year-old autistic brother's co-guardian I was immediately launched into the world of funding battles in our home state of Missouri. My brother is profoundly autistic, dependent on government programs to fund everything from his residential program and supported employment to healthcare and food. But changes in federal policies between 2002 and 2005 have resulted in a severe financial crisis in Missouri that has in turn trickled down to impact my brother's life in the form of funding cuts. Tax cuts that have reduced state revenue due to the link between federal and state tax systems, the federal ban on state taxation of purchases made over the Internet and unfunded mandates like No Child Left Behind have combined to cost Missouri an estimated $1 billion a year. Missouri's response to the budget challenges of 2002-2005 was to cut deep. Social services took the largest cut in the state budget (40% of the total core budget cut).
Over this time period, we saw an $11 million reduction in funding for services for people with mental retardation and developmental disabilities like respite care, day rehabilitation, and therapy. As of July 2004, the state had a waiting list of more than 4,000 individuals for residential services and non-residential services. Those burdens have shifted to families and many disabled children and adults have been forced to go without specialized care.
On the federal front, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), the federal law passed in 1975 that mandates equal educational opportunity for children with disabilities, has been under-funded since passage. When the law was enacted, the federal government promised it would fund 40 percent of the additional costs that the law requires states to incur. Federal funding over fiscal years 2002-2005 in Missouri fell nearly $858 million short of meeting this goal.
McCain's education plan fails to mention specific funding for special education and the McCain campaign has not proposed any increase in overall federal education funding - and that includes funding for IDEA. In comparison, Senator Obama's disability platform plan calls for IDEA to be fully funded.
The Community Choice Act presents another point of distinction between the campaigns. Proposed by Senator Tom Harkin and co-sponsored by Senator Obama, the bill would make government funds for institutional care available for home-based services so that more disabled people could remain in their homes. Missouri's "family stipend" program, which helped some 800 families care for their disabled children at home rather than institutionalizing them, was completely eliminated in fiscal year 2004. McCain opposes the bill because of concerns about cost.
While the debate over how to address the economic crisis rages on and the presidential campaign closes in on Election Day, families with disabled members are looking for more than a campaign promise without policy and a funding pledge to back it up. Many of us know the impact of spending cuts and insufficient funding all too well. The economic crisis will further hinder the ability of states to fund services, making full funding for IDEA and passage of the Community Choice ACT necessary priorities for the next president.
]]>An examination of the sexual and reproductive health related legislation taken up by the Senate during the 110th Congress identifies the Senate's focus regarding choice and the candidates' positions. NARAL Pro-Choice America tracks choice-related legislation and has put together a report (NARAL Pro-Choice America Congressional Record on Choice, 110th Congress, 1st Session) detailing the measures introduced and each Senator's votes.
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) offered an amendment to codify the Bush administration's controversial "unborn child" regulation that allows states to make an embryo or fetus eligible for healthcare coverage. The amendment was an effort to further erode the legal framework for abortion rights by recognizing an embryo as a separate beneficiary of government programs from the moment of conception. A pro-choice vote opposed the amendment; Senator McCain voted for the amendment while Senators Obama and Biden voted against the amendment. The amendment was rejected by a vote of 49 to 50.
Senator Sam Brownback (R-KS) offered
an amendment to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) appropriations
bill that sought to strike language from that bill that would have helped
ensure that the president could not unilaterally cancel the Unites States
contribution to UNFPA. President Bush has cancelled the appropriation
for the program, which is an important reproductive health program,
for each of the last six years. A pro-choice vote was against
the amendment. McCain, Obama and Biden
did not vote on the amendment, which passed by a vote of 48 to 45.
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and Senator Olympia Snowe (R-ME) proposed the full repeal of the Global Gag Rule, which denies United States assistance for any overseas health clinic that uses its own private funds to provide or counsel individuals about abortion care or that takes a pro-choice position. A pro-choice vote was against the amendment. Senator McCain, Senator Obama and Senator Biden did not vote on the amendment, which was rejected by a vote of 40 to 54.
Senator Brownback proposed an amendment to the Global Gag Rule that would strike a provision from the bill that would allow overseas health centers that are otherwise ineligible for USAID funding under the global gag rule to receive United States-donated condoms and contraceptives. A pro-choice vote was against the amendment. Senators McCain, Obama and Biden did not vote on the amendment, which was rejected by a vote of 40 to 54.
Senator David Vitter (R-LA) proposed
an amendment to Federal Health Grants that would have defunded family
planning clinics nationwide by denying all federal health grants to
any health center that provides abortion care with other funds.
A pro-choice vote was against the amendment. Senator McCain voted
for the amendment. Senators Obama and Biden did not vote
on the amendment which was rejected by a vote of 41 to 52.
For the 2007 first session of the 110th Congress, NARAL Pro-Choice America rated Senator McCain 0% pro-choice. They rated Senator Obama 100% and Senator Biden 75%.
Since the 2008 second session
of the 110th Congress has not yet closed, NARAL Pro-Choice
America has not completed a report on choice related legislation for
that session. But we are able to review the choice-related activity
thus far and look at how McCain, Obama and Biden have voted.
Senator Vitter offered
an amendment to "recodify" the Hyde funding ban on abortion care
at Indian Health Service clinics as part of the Indian Health Care Improvement
Act Amendments. A pro-choice vote was no. Obama
did not vote; McCain did not vote; Biden voted
no. The amendment passed by a vote of 52 to 42.
As part of the FY'09 Budget Resolution, Senator John Ensign (R-NV) proposed an amendment to create a reserve fund for enforcement of the Child Custody Protection Act. The Child Custody Protection Act, also known as the Teen Endangerment Act, would create a series of requirements that would restrict young women's ability to obtain an abortion outside their home state. The act contains no exception for when an abortion is necessary to protect a young woman’s health and requires a 24-hour waiting period and written notification even if a parent accompanies the woman to an out-of-state abortion provider. The act also creates criminal penalties for grandparents and other concerned adults who try to assist the teen. A pro-choice vote was no. Senator Obama and Senator Biden voted no. Senator McCain did not vote. The amendment failed by a vote of 49 to 49.
Also related to the FY'09 Budget Resolution, Senator Allard (R-CO) proposed an amendment to codify the Bush administration's controversial "unborn child" regulation. A pro-choice vote was no. Senators Obama and Biden voted no. Senator McCain voted yes. The amendment failed by a vote of 46 to 52.
Even though the demands of primaries and general election campaigns kept the candidates away from the Senate, the votes they did cast make their positions on reproductive justice known. Senator McCain failed to cast a single pro-choice vote on the key choice-related legislation taken up by the 110th Congress to date. Senator Obama cast pro-choice votes on all choice related legislation he was present for as did Senator Biden. Looking at the candidates' votes is a great resource for pro-choice voters looking to weigh each candidate's actions against his rhetoric before casting their ballot in November. ]]>