Reporting Back from WAM!2009: Putting Reproductive Health Coverage Front and Center

Pat Robertson once famously declared that feminism was a movement that, amongst other things, encouraged women to "practice witchcraft."  If he knew about it, he'd probably have an aneurysm over the annual WAM conference, a collection of women (and a few men) who get together to talk politics, hang out, and have a good old time while crafting ideas for another year of media and activism.  Which is exactly the sort of thing that puts fears of witchcraft into the souls of the misogynist and superstitious.  This was my second year going and my first year just taking it all in and not presenting.  But I'll make up for my non-work then by reporting back to RH Reality Check readers now.  After all, when you put a bunch of progressive women (and a few men) in a conference center to talk politics and media, issues of reproductive justice tend to arise. 

In fact, our very own Emily Douglas moderated a panel called "New Administration, New World Order: The Top Five Reproductive and Sexual Health and Rights Stories You'll Want To Track - And How."  Panelists Kiki Zeldes from Our Bodies Ourselves and Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas from the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health discussed the "what", and Dana Goldstein from The American Prospect explained the "how."  

Zeldes started by talking about the rapid pace of change for the better since the election, both from the executive branch but also from other areas of government.  She invoked an executive decision to improve the sexual health information on the CDC website, a court decision relaxing standards for over-the-counter access of emergency contraception, and most interestingly, talked about the government's new commitment to fund a form of drug research that tests not only safety, but relative efficacy between different drug types.  This struck me, especially in light of the discussion that happened during the Q&A section, as an interesting topic that merits further discussion amongst reproductive health advocates.  While sexier topics dominate the critical discourse around pharmaceutical companies, very little attention is paid to the substantial problems with the industry, and the lack of comparative testing is one of those problems.  Often, there will be two treatments available with similar safety levels but different efficacy rates, and the drug companies will push the more expensive option without even asking if it works better than the cheaper option.  If we're to have universal health care, this issue needs to be addressed. 

Gonzalez-Rojas discussed the need for reproductive health advocates to expand our view of what needs to occur to maximize the health outcomes for all women, regardless of race, class, or immigration status.  This, she stated, is only going to be a bigger issue when and if universal health care becomes the focus of national attention--who will have reproductive health care covered, and will it be covered at all, or will anti-woman, anti-immigrant, and religious activists seek ways to shut down women's access to complete health care?  She also talked a bit about the issues regarding mandatory HPV vaccines for immigrant women, a particularly grueling requirement when the shots cost $360.  Unfortunately, merely raising the question of Gardasil meant the Q&A was dominated with discussions of feminist concerns with the drug that go back not so much to actual science but abstract, badly defined fears about Big Pharma.  Personally, I find the vaccine paranoia to be a distraction from the actual problems with Big Pharma.  It's sexier to fear that they're poisoning us, but the more mundane problem is they spend too much R&D money on trying to come up with new variations on Viagra and less on innovative drugs to tackle other problems. 

Goldstein used a number of examples from her own extensive writing about sexual and reproductive health issues to educate on how to find new angles to keep the topic fresh, which in turn helps keep attention on it.  She demonstrated how a little digging around an issue you read about in passing can reveal many unexamined aspects, even if you do something as simple as use regional examples to illustrate or illuminate national stories.  And, of course, some stories are just begging for more coverage all the time, such as examinations of how the Hyde Amendment will increasingly become an issue if we have universal health care.  She also demonstrated how to keep your ears attuned to culture war and/or women's rights angles to stories such as the infant abandonment laws, the potential HIV-fighting benefits of male circumcision, and dog whistle politics in elections. 

For those out there looking to sharpen their reporting and activism skills, I can't recommend WAM enough.  I learned quite a bit from all the panels I attended.  The keynote panel "Women Reporting From the Global Frontlines" powerfully illustrated the importance of investigative journalism around the globe, which in turn caused anxiety because the money to fund such work continues to dry up, and is only slowly being replaced by non-profit sources.  The "FOIA For Feminists" panel showed how easy it really can be to start digging for dirt, with the panelists proudly showing off how they helped expose Joe Arpaio of Arizona, shame Eric Keroack out of office, and get some wealthy deadbeats to pay back taxes to the city of Boston.  And, to make it a little more light and fun, Sarah Haskins showed how you too can make fun of sexist media.   

But really, it's not just the panels.  It's the energy, the parties, the fact that every time you turn around you're meeting another awesome, hard-working, and often hilarious feminist.  For feminist lovers, it's like dancing through a field of ice cream cones.  And who doesn't want to do something like that?

Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter, @amandamarcotte