Amie Newman's blog

Anti-Choice Amendment: "I Am Confident...That It Won't Be There"

2009-11-09T15:38:01-05:00

Speaking on MSNBC this morning, Representative Schultz (D-FL), sounds certain that the House health care reform bill, passed this Saturday, won't pass final muster with the anti-choice Stupak Amendment in it:

"I am confident that when it comes back from the conference committee that that language won't be there..."

If You Want A Say In Your Own Birth Process, Please Leave Now

2009-11-05T17:18:14-05:00

Whose idea of customer service is this? If you want one of those fancy "support people" while your birthing or have some newfangled idea that you'll be making your own decisions about how you'd like to birth, well you can just turn that pretty little head of yours around and leave right now.

Thank god for The Unnecesarean.com calling travesties like this out in such a hilarious way.

Here's the friendly message from the physicians at the Aspen Women's Center to pregnant women:

And here's just a sample of the spoofs on the sign that Jill at Unnecesarean.com is calling for (You can still enter the contest and win a copy of childbirth educator Penny Simkin's book "The Birth Partner"):

Confused About Condoms? The Seven Best Condoms Rated for You

2009-11-05T15:29:58-05:00

And you thought Consumer Reports was only the place to go for the safest automobile or the best buy on a vacuum cleaner.

How about the most reliable condom?

One lucky, lucky mystery shopper was tasked with purchasing 15,000 condoms so that Consumer Reports products testers could provide you with a list of the top seven condoms on the market. Before you read any further, be advised that in order to access the ratings for these top brands, you need to be a subscriber to Consumer Reports.

What I can tell you is that, according to the magazine, "Seven of the 20 models we tested earned a perfect score, indicating they were not only stronger and more reliable than most, but also had no leaks or flaws in their packaging. Those top seven include one Durex, two Lifestyles, and four Trojan models..."

What did CR put these poor condoms through?

Lab technicians then unrolled them, stretched them, measured them, visually examined them, dunked them in liquid (to check for leaks), and inflated them with air until they burst to determine which ones are strong enough to put your trust (or you or your partner) into.

There's even a humorous video with lots of sexual innuendo!

Be advised, however, if you're the type that goes for the kitsch-factor when it comes to condoms (really, you should stick to funky lamps or quirky collectibles if you're into kitsch - not pregnancy and disease prevention but anyway...), there is one in particular to beware of:

Alas, one of the more playful condoms we tested, the Night Light glow-in-the-dark model, didn’t fare as well, earning our lowest score for strength and exceeding the allowable number of samples with holes. But it did live up to its name on the glow front.

The condom test and results can be found in the November 2009 issue.

Push, Push, Push - Certified Professional Midwifery In Health Care Reform

2009-11-04T14:23:13-05:00

From The Big Push for Midwives Campaign comes a huge plea:

We are down to the wire days left before the final deadline for including Certified Professional Midwives in the Senate health reform bill!

We need everyone to CALL or FAX your TWO U.S. SENATORS today!

Please ask them to take the lead in sponsoring an amendment to the Senate health bill to provide Medicaid payment of Certified Professional Midwife services.

With the state of health care as it is, especially for women, it is more critical than ever that health care reform measures address the many ways to remedy these challenges. Women in the United States are still dying (at rates higher than almost any other developed nation in the world) during pregnancy and childbirth from preventable conditions. African American women die during childbirth almost 3-4 times more often than White women, in the U.S. We also know that the C-section rate in this country has skyrocketed so that one out of every 3 women undergo major surgery during chidlbirth in this country.

I mention these statistics because ensuring greater access to certified professional midwives (CPMs) is one way to address some of the distressing challenges facing pregnant and birthing women in this country. The Big Push, specifically, is asking for the Senate bill to include an amendment that would ensure CPMs are covered under Medicaid; this would encourage a uniform certification process for midwives in this country as well as make homebirth and CPM facilitated birth accessible to all women - not just those who can afford to pay for these services out-of-pocket.

So, from The Big Push:

Ask that your Senator take the lead in sponsoring an amendment to provide Medicaid payment for the services of Certified Professional Midwives, who are the only type of midwife in the U.S. with specialized training in out-of-hospital maternity care.

To find your Senators and their contact information, click here.

Need talking points? You can use these from The Big Push for Midwives!

Pregnant women are being denied access to maternity care thanks to an oversight in Medicaid law that denies low-income women who seek out-of-hospital maternity care access to Certified Professional Midwives (CPMs) in all but 11 states.

Because of this gap in Medicaid law, thousands of women in states across the country unable to utilize the services of providers with a proven record of improving outcomes.

Denying pregnant women access to Certified Professional Midwives saddles our health care system with hundreds of millions of dollars in additional costs each year.

Across the country in rural and urban communities, Certified Professional Midwives are already meeting the needs of pregnant women and their infants who have nowhere else to go at a time when many other maternity care providers have abandoned these communities to practice in more affluent suburbs and exurbs.

Demand for access to out-of-hospital birth under the care of Certified Professional Midwives -- who are specially trained to provide it -- has increased 27% since 1996.

Research consistently shows that low-risk women who plan out-of-hospital births under the care of Certified Professional Midwives experience outcomes equal to low-risk women who give birth in the hospital, but with far fewer costly and preventable interventions, including a five-fold decrease in cesarean surgery.

Certified Professional Midwives have a proven history of reducing low birth weight and preterm birth, the main causes of neonatal death in the United States and two of the primary contributing factors to racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes, as well as to the costs associated with long-term care.

Roundup: National Day of Action for Women's Healthcare Reform, Anti-Abortion Dems Stall Reform?

2009-11-04T12:15:27-05:00

I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition

Today a broad coalition of progressive organizations are unifying to address the inequities in health insurance, through health care reform. The Women's Day of Action includes a 12 hour vigil on Dupont Circle in Washington DC where women will read their personal health care stories. But there are rallies, events, house parties and other actions happening around the country. In a statement released today, The National Women's Law Center's Marcia Greenburger says,

"We want women to know that health care reform isn't something that shoudl be debated only in Washington - because it affects women everywhere...That's why we’re taking our campaign outside the Beltway and bringing it to the women and families whose lives are affected the most. Women need to make their voices heard and speak out to demand health care reform that works for women.”

Lucinda Marshall of the Feminist Peace Network says the conversation needs to be about health as a human right,

The conversation we need to be having right now is not about how to ‘reform’ health care but about reclaiming our health as a human right.

Marshall writes passionately about the benefit, not just to women, but to society overall when we deal with the disrimination against women in health care,

When a woman decides to have a child, it should be the standard of society that she receive the best prenatal care possible so that she and her baby are healthy. When she goes to a hospital to deliver the baby, there should never be a question of whether she has enough money to do so. If a rape or domestic assault victim seeks medical care, she should never be penalized for doing so. And if she or her children are sick, she should be able to stay home from work without fear of losing her job. And women should NEVER be charged more than men for access to health care as many are now. The benefits of such a re-statement of health and care as a right would be significant.

Some of the organizations involved in this national day of action include Momsrising.org, Americans for Democratic Action, Raising Women's Voices, Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, and PHI Health Care for Health Care Workers.

And here's more information on the day of action and the NWLC's "I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition" campaign.

The Great American Abortion Access Stall in Health Care Reform

As Rachel Maddow repeatedly reminded us last night, President Obama has said over and over and over again that Americans would see final health care reform bills before Congress' August recess. Of course that didn't happen. And, as Maddow reported, yesterday, "Just moments after announcing that the Republican strategy with health care reform was to delay, Senator Reid announced - yes - further delays. He says he doesn't even know if they will pass reform this year. 'We won't be bound by any time lines.'"

Maddow goes on to say, "That sound you hear in the distance is Republican cheering."

And, of course, one of the biggest obstacles in the House, it seems, is anti-choice opposition to including legal abortion access in the bill.

Anti-choice Democrat, Bart Stupak, is doing eveything he can to rally Democrats to fight even private insurance coverage of abortion in the House health bill. It certainly may not be what he's saying outright but how else to interpret his leadership on this issue? Stupak's struggle to ensure that those Americans who, under health care reform, maintain a combination of private insurance and public assistance, are barred from abortion access is a fight to roll back abortion rights, plain and simple.

Pro-choice legislators want to include an amendment called The Capps Amendment in the House health care bill. The amendment would ensure that, according to the Christian Science Monitor, "private healthcare plans included in a new insurance marketplace...would cover abortion, as long as the funds were segregated. In other words, an individual’s private funds would be used for abortion coverage, not federal monies."

The Hyde Amendment bars federal funds from being used to pay for abortions. It's been in place for almost 40 years, since 1976. Private insurance companies, for the most part, cover abortion services because abortion is legal. So, what is the problem?

Planned Parenthood Director's Holes in Story Revealed In Recent Radio Interview

2009-11-03T12:02:16-05:00

Updated as of 6:15pm EST, 11/3/09

Last week, Abby Johnson, the director of a Texas Planned Parenthood health center that provides abortions, among its other services including birth control, annual exams and sexually transmitted infection prevention and treatment, resigned citing a "conversion" that caused her to see abortion in an entirely new light. Her resignation came just weeks after the 40 Days for Life anti-choice campaign wrapped up its annual protest in front of the clinic.

Television and online news outlets are reporting that her change of heart was the result of viewing an ultrasound. From Fox News, Johnson is reported as saying:

“When I was working at Planned Parenthood I was extremely pro-choice,” Johnson told FoxNews.com. But after seeing the internal workings of the procedure for the first time on an ultrasound monitor [editor's note: emphasis mine], “I would say there was a definite conversion in my heart … a spiritual conversion.”

From a television interview on a local Texas station:

One of the most basic questions I have is this: How did Ms. Johnson become the director of a Planned Parenthood center that provides abortions up to 14 weeks - that is technically a second trimester abortion - without having seen an ultrasound image of a fetus in utero or an actual abortion being performed? When a woman comes into a health center and takes a pregnancy test to confirm pregnancy and then requests an abortion, providers need to give her an ultrasound to ensure that the pregnancy isn't ectopic and to figure out how far along in the pregnancy the woman is, among other things. Ultrasounds, at the health center I worked at for seven years, were a routine part of care. Marcy Bloom, former executive director at Aradia Womens' Health Center (the clinic at which I worked), says, "Pre-abortion ultrasound is the standard of care in the United States."

Some women wanted to see the ultrasound image and some didn't. It almost never swayed them, of course, because (shock!), the women knew there was a fetus growing inside them and didn't need an image on a screen to make them aware. But, also, because 61% of women who get abortions are already mothers - mothers who generally receive ultrasounds during pregnancy - they are aware of what an ultrasound will reveal.

All employees at the feminist women's health center I worked in - from the communications and outreach staff to the women who performed client intake - were offered the chance to view an abortion as a means of understanding how abortion is performed and how best to assist women undergoing the procedure. This was all done with the consent of the client, of course. Now, as with any surgical procedure, there were certainly employees who did not work directly with clients for whom viewing an abortion was the last thing in the world they wanted to see. And that makes sense. Of course, this was a feminist health center and we did do things differently. However it is still hard to understand how Ms. Johnson didn't know what an actual abortion entailed.

The 40 Days for Life campaign started in Bryan/College Station, TX - the campaign that seemed to spur Ms. Johnson's conversion. The 40 Days for Life campaign web site puts it this way:

Abby Johnson worked at Planned Parenthood in Bryan, Texas for eight years. She was there when the first-ever 40 Days for Life campaign was conducted outside of her workplace in the Bryan/College Station community in 2004.

She was there for the next 40 Days for Life effort as well — the one that helped to launch the first nationally coordinated 40 Days for Life campaign in the fall of 2007.

And she was there for the one after that, and the one after that, and the one after that — and the one after that!

40 Days for Life is run by a man named Shawn Carney who also runs the local Coalition for Life which, yep, Ms. Johnson has now aligned herself (her television interview is done with Mr. Carney by her side). In fact, the 40 Days for Life folks are so thrilled by Ms. Johson's "sudden spiritual conversion" that the blogger on the site practically explodes with this news,

"I’ve known about this for the past few weeks, but now I can finally share the HUGE NEWS!"

This might yet raise another eyebrow (if I had more than two). It seems Ms. Johnson's conversion wasn't so sudden, huh? I'd love to know how these events went down. Ms. Johnson sees an abortion on an ultrasound for the first time, goes home and realizes - oh my god, I've worked at an abortion clinic for years, I've advocated strongly for reproductive rights, supported women's health issues - but now I need to call the leader of 40 Days for Life to tell them about this? And have them keep it secret for weeks?

Why? Why would she have the leader of 40 Days for Life keep this secret for weeks before the great reveal?

Though I cannot answer that, the restraining order Planned Parenthood of Texas has issued against Abby Johnson and Coalition for Life may makes more sense now.

From a statement released on Friday, Octobert 30th from Planned Parenthood of Southeast Houston and Texas officials:

“Today, through our attorneys, we requested and Judge X of the District Court of Brazos County issued a Temporary Restraining Order against the Brazos Valley Coalition for Life and former employee Abby Brannam Johnson. We regret being forced to turn to the courts to protect the safety and confidentiality of our clients and staff, however, in this instance it is absolutely necessary.”

At the time of the writing of this post, Planned Parenthood has not released any further information about why the restraining order is needed but, according to Planned Parenthood officials in Texas, they are working on a statement currently.

What might be the most shocking juxtaposition, however, is this interview aired on September 20, 2009, just weeks ago on KEOS, a small college radio station.

During the interview, Ms. Johnson not only makes clear that her Planned Parenthood center's abortion services make up only 3% of their services, which, according to Diane Quest, National Media Director for Planned Parenthood Federation of America, is about on par with the national numbers - "Planned Parenthood’s focus is on prevention. Nationwide, more than 90% of the health care Planned Parenthood affiliates provide is preventive in nature, including wellness exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraception, and STD testing and treatment." She also says that the "entirely separate" 501(c)3 (nonprofit) corporation that funds their abortion services received a $30 million grant from a private anonymous donor recently to keep their abortion services running.

From the interview:

Interviewer: What percentage of your services are abortion?

Johnson: About 3%.

Interviewer: So, it's not really much.

Johnson: No.

Interviewer: So when people label you an abortion facility are they being truthful when they are saying that?

Johnson: Well not unless you think 3% is an overwhelming amount I guess, but no, we don't think so. We think 3% is a very small amount and our - I guess our goal has always been that every pregnancy is intended and wanted and um, when we see a dip in abortion numbers we consider that a success.

When the interviewer asks her specifically about funding for PP's programs, here's what Abby Johnson says,

PP is a Medicaid provider. First off, PP is divided up into separate corporations. So, there is a Planned Parenthood 501c3 non profit that is a family planning corporation. Also, there is a PP surgical services corporation that is our abortion and vasectomy services. They are totally separate corporations. The surgical services corporation, regardless of what you might hear, receives no government funding - all private donations. And then almost two years ago we received about 30 million dollars in an anonymous donation from a foundation to help women receive abortion services where money was a barrier.

That sort of runs roughshod over her allegations made in the television interview that some unnamed higher-up at Planned Parenthood encouraged her to increase abortions for financial reasons, doesn't it?

But what's more fascinating is the myriad ways (and keep in mind this interview was done, seemingly, around the same exact time in which she has apparently had a conversion and is keeping it a secret from all except 40 Days for Life) in which she passionately discusses her deeply held belief that women need access to abortion services for their well-being and health:

Interviewer: Why did you become involved in reproductive health care?

Johson: It's important to me because i think it's a human rights issue. I had talked with some physicians who performed abortions pre-Roe v. Wade and listened to them talk about their horror stories of women who had to have illegal abortions and the way they would perform them and how they would have to watch women die from illegal procedures and that really hit home for me as a woman and as a mother. I don't ever want to go back to the days where women have to take their own lives in their hands because of an unintended or unwanted pregnancy. So, it was very personal for me.

Where did Ms. Johnson's concerns for women's health and lives, her plea for things never to "go back to the days where women have to take their own lives in their hands because of an unintended...pregnancy" go? Where do these fears live now, Ms. Johnson?

Perhaps the most damning and confusing parts of the interview, however, are related to the lengthy conversation about 40 Days for Life, Coalition for Life, their protests and anti-choice violence as of late.

When the interviewer asks her about all of the protests that her center has had to endure as well as the overall effect of anti-choice campaigning against them including a claim by Coalition for Life that her PP had failed a health inspection, Ms. Johnson responds by calling the Coalition for Life liars, essentially, and denigrates them,

The Coalition (for Life) made claims that we didn't sterilize instruments - that was absolutely not true. The only thing that had anything to do with patient care - right now we're on electronic records but back in 2006 we still had charts. The Texas Department of Health wanted to take a significant number of charts outside the clinic and we didn't allow it and they wrote it up as a deficiency. They said because they are the state they can take out whatever records they want and we argued that we promise our patients we won't allow their records to be removed and we stuck to that. We got written up for protecting patient confidentiality. And when the Coalition found that report they thought they had hit a gold mine but they took what was on there, misconstrued it and made it look like we had failed it.

And when the interviewer specifically asks about the protests 40 Days for Life organizes (you know the one that occurred immediately before Ms. Johnson experienced her "spiritual conversion"), Ms. Johnson makes no bones about her frustration:

It is a protest where they stand outside of our facility for 12 hours a day, during business hours. We call it 40 days of harrassment. They stand outside and harrass our patients.

Ms. Johnson goes onto explain how the coalition offers inaccurate information and harrasses women who are coming in for pap smears, breast exams or birth control and try to convince them to go to providers who are either extremely expensive or don't provide the services these women are seeking.

Johnson: So it's confusing to our patients and we actually have had some patients that have talked to members of the Coaliton protesting and have been convinced and every single time they come back to us. So, the information they are giving is inaccurate.

Perhaps what is most disturbing about Ms. Johnson's claims that she is now "pure of heart" is her decision to sweep the violence and harrassment she and her own family - including her daughter and her husband - as well as her former employees have been experiencing at the hands of the very same folks she is now choosing to align herself with in the name of religion and purity:

Interviewer: Have you ever been targeted? I've seen how aggressive these protestors can be -

Johnson: Sure. Back about a year and a half ago, I was receiving death threats that were targeted at me and my husband and my daughter. The rest of the staff - they received harrassing things in the mail. Things that will go to them and the rest of the neighborhood announcing that they are an abortionist. And all these gruesome things that they do not participate in. Things they put out there for shock value. And send out to neighborhood. They - some of our staff members have had pickets at their homes. You wake up in morning, have coffee and there are people protesting outside at their home. Some of us have been followed different places in oru cars. We go to the mall and we notice there are people following us. It's very serious. This group of people that claim to be "peaceful prayer warriors" or whatever they call themselves. It's kind of ironic that some of them would be sending death threats and that they would be harrassing and stalking some of our staff.

Somehow in the span of a few weeks (a few days? An hour? A moment?), Ms. Johnson's fear of those who rely on violence and intimidation has simply dissipated.

When the conversation turns to Dr. Tiller's murder in May 2009, Abby Johnson makes it clear that her belief is that Scott Roeder, the accused killer, had clear ties to the anti-choice community; the same community with which she is now intimately a part of:

Interviewer: Did Scott Roeder, the accused killer of Dr. Tiller, make any death threats?
Johson: I'm not sure about death threats.

Interviewer: He was active in the community,

Johnson: He was active in the anti-choice community, active with Operation Rescue. He did make some covert threats which are some of the things that we receive. But it [the threats] doesn't seem menacing until something like that happens. And then you think, 'Oh maybe we do need to be a little more cautious, a little more worried. I think it really hits home for our families and you know. I remember the day we found out George [Dr. Tiller] had been murdered my husband was like, please don't leave the house. because it's very real. The risk is very real.'

...Now we've seen increasing numbers of clinic violence and vandalism and hate mail. We receive hate mail at the clinic all the time. Religious sorts of mailings that come to us - fire and brimestone - that comes to us all the time.

Does something feel absolutely wrong here? How is is that Ms. Johnson can now turn to those whom she's feared, been the target of just weeks prior and now stand side-by-side? And, according to Ms. Johnson, just days before her religious awakening, none of what 40 Days for Life or the Coalition for Life does makes any difference whatsoever. So, what exactly does she think she's doing? Is it religious fervor that has overtaken her causing her to take leave of her senses such that she is willing to either forget that these anti-choice advocates have harrassed her very own family and staff or to just simply not care?

Interviewer: We talked about 40 days for life earlier and the protest in front of the clinic and we should note they stay out their for 24 hrs day supposedly. and they have a new building basically right next door, down the street from you all (PP). How do you think that is going to affect you all? Now it's going to be easier for them to do this sidewalk counseling, is what they have said.
Johnson: I think they think it's going to be fantastic. I don't think it's going to make any difference at all. I think that when people come to PP they know they are coming to a trusted health care provider and then they have these people standing out there on sidewalk screaming at them. Patients are confused thinking why are people screaming at me from the sidewalk? They just don't understand. They just want to come in, go to their appointment, get taken care of and leave. I think their belief is that they are going to talk to all these people who are pregnant and are "abortion minded" walk them over to their little house (we call it the guilt house) and change their mind. We haven't seen it happen once. Um, our patients, generally are annoyed that someone is out there trying to change their mind on what they shourl or shouldn't be doing - give them grief on their choices and now they are providing pregnancy tests over there. They aren't a medical facility so they can't get medical grade pregnancy tests - so basically dollar store pregnancy tests. So, the majority of our business is not pregnancy tests so I'm not sure what kind of business they think they'd be taking from us. They've been down the road from us for ten years and our numbers continue to increase every years so I'm not sure what they think they're going to do.

She clearly states that none of what Coalition for Life or 40 Days for Life does helps women in any shape or form.

Ah, but the final dig, as the interview wraps, is reserved for Fox News. Yes, the very network on which Ms. Johnson will appear this Friday. The station on which Abby Johnson was interviewed was running a pledge drive when the interview was being conducted and so Ms. Johnson is asked why people should donate to KEOS.

Johnson: People should donate. Because if you believe in getting accurate information and not information from FOX News, then you should donate...

Abby Johnson may have honestly experienced what feels to her like a thunderous religious conviction, rattling her to the bones. But from this interview, conducted possibly days before, there are far too many holes in this story to let it be. Clinic staff workers at this Planned Parenthood likely feel no more safe today, no more protected from the death threats, no less harrassed by those who Johnson herself claims do nothing to help the women of their community but with whom she has now aligned herself, though probably much more firm in their own conviction that providing health care services to women who need them is an honorable, noble and necessary cause.

Richard Schroeder, Former Security Guard For Dr. Tiller, Found Dead

2009-10-30T16:22:37-04:00

From The Wichita Eagle today:

Authorities today are investigating the "very suspicious" death of a Newton man identified by sources as Richard Schroeder, a retired former U.S. marshal who has worked as a private investigator.

Schroeder spent many years providing security for Dr. George Tiller, the physician and abortion provider assassinated in May of this year, in his church by anti-choice activist Scott Roeder:

From The Wichita Eagle:

Richard Schroeder helped protect Dr. George Tiller - first as a U.S. marshal and later as a private detective. Schroeder also got to know Tiller on a personal level and thought of him as a friend.

Schroeder first provided protection for Dr. Tiller during 1991's "Summer of Mercy" series of protests. Most recently. Richard Schroeder was set to run a work release center in Wichita to accomodate overflow prisoners from a county jail.

Schroeder was allegedly found last night by his wife, in his driveway with head injuries. Though he was taken by ambulance to the hospital, he was pronounced dead upon arrival.

The National Organization for Women released a statement today expressing condolences on Schroeder's death.

What's The Truth About Abortion and 'Unresolved Issues' In House Health Reform Legislation?

2009-10-30T14:30:08-04:00

Is anyone else as confused and irritated as I am about the obfuscation of the facts regarding abortion care coverage in health care reform legislation?

According to CQ Politics yesterday, a "showdown" is shaping up over abortion services, among Democrats in the House. Anti-choice Democrats are demanding that the bill "explicitly ban abortion funding." But why?

While the issue is being reported on and discussed as if its a question of whether or not to extend the current ban on federal funds for abortion services (as is layed out in the 40 year old Hyde Amendment) to any health care reform efforts currently underway, the truth is (as it usually is) much different.

The Hyde Amendment bans federal funds from going towards abortion care. This means that government subsidy programs like Medicaid cannot cover the cost of a woman's abortion though, of course, each state is free to pass their own laws governing how state taxpayer money can or cannot be used. This means that for women who do not have health insurance that covers abortion care or for women who have no health insurance, abortion is only an option if you cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket or if you are lucky enough to be the recipient of financial assistance from an abortion fund.

The Hyde Amendment is not going anywhere under health care reform. Nor does the current version of The Affordable Healthcare for America Act mandate federal funding for abortion coverage. But anti-choice Democrats in the House, led by Rep. Bart Stupak, want assurances:

The anti-abortion Democrats want to win language that would essentially extend the existing abortion funding ban known as the “Hyde amendment” to the new and expanded programs that would be created by the health care overhaul.

This is seriously coded language: "extend the...ban...to the new and expanded programs created..." What does this mean? Under current law private insurers obviously cover abortion care. And why shouldn't they? We're talking about a procedure that is legal and part of the scope of women's health.

So, what are anti-choice legislators up-in-arms about? What does this coded language really mean?

(And, before I go on, please take a moment to sit and meditate on the fact that this - this- is what some activists are spending millions of dollars, countless hours and bodies full or rage focusing on. Not poverty. Not disease prevention. Not ensuring that pregnant women receive adequate coverage under reform measures. Not ensuring that our this country's inflated mortality rate is addressed under reform. Nope.) This is what they're using precious resources to fight:

Banning abortion coverage in private insurance as well.

Anti-choice legislators and advocates will not accept that since some private insurers (well, most) cover abortion care for women, if we have a government-funded/government-run, public option of some kind, some Americans will need to rely on a combination of both private insurance and public insurance to meet their health care coverage needs. So, for instance, if a woman who receives federal tax dollars to assist her health coverage is also a part of the private insurance pool which covers abortion, this is essentially the same as the federal government paying for abortion services.

Although Speaker Pelosi and her team have discussed a compromise to ensure that these monies are kept entirely separate,

The compromise language is similar to current restrictions on the use of federal Medicaid funds. The provision would ensure that federal dollars are kept in separate accounts when they flow into health insurance plans, and that federal accounts could not be used to fund an abortion.

it's apparently not enough ("too weak") for Stupak and his crew. Clearly, anti-choice legislators are using this as another opportunity to impose their political agenda upon a piece of legislation with little regard for women's health and lives. And if anti-choice legislators were as vociferous and active as Speaker Pelosi and other reproductive justice and women's rights activists when it came to exposing and correcting the injustices surrounding discrimination against pregnant women, mothers and domestic violence victims at the hands of insurance companies in this health reform effort, I may be less apt to call their political posturing loathsome and self-serving.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, talking about the legislation, calls the abortion coverage concern "the most important unresolved issue" as leaders attempt to bring it to the floor, reports CQ Midday.

But it's more accurate to say that it's anti-choice Democrats - and not abortion care - that is blocking movement on this measure.

Roundup: Is Abortion a Deal Breaker?, Righting the Discriminatory Wrongs in Health Care Reform, Too Late for Nadya Sulyeman

2009-10-30T12:55:15-04:00

Is Abortion Access A Deal-Breaker In Health Care Reform Efforts?

In The Hill's Congress Blog yesterday the question, "Could abortion be a deal-breaker in health care reform?" was posed to a group of legislators, advocates, and commentators. While the newest incarnation of The Affordable Healthcare For America Act does address public funding for abortion, it also explicitly states that this bill cannot override any existing federal and state laws regulating abortion access and coverage.

None-the-less, anti-choice advocates answer the above question by painting scenarios in which their worst nightmares will most certainly come true. Senior Vice President for the Family Research Council, Tom McCluskey warns:

Now that both Chambers have released their bills one things is clear - they both include federal funding of abortion. Such a move would turn American taxpayers into the permanent funding stream of the abortion industry and guarantee that abortions will increase.

And Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee doesn't even bother to remember that Roe v. Wade and The Hyde Amendment are still federal laws. He goes right down the "all elective abortions will be paid for" road:

Page 110 of the new bill explicitly authorizes the public plan to pay for all elective abortions. As CRS as confirmed, all funds spent by the public plan, a federal agency program, will be federal funds. So this will be direct federal funding of elective abortion, pure and simple.

Suzanne Poppema, a long time physician and abortion access advocate reminds us that,

None of the bills Congress is considering would fund abortions with taxpayer money, or expand access to abortion beyond the coverage women currently have. The majority of Americans support this compromise, just as a majority of Americans believe women should have access to safe, legal abortion.

What's Good for Women's Health Is Good for The Nation's Health

And, according to the blog of SEIU, the just released version of health care reform legislation includes measures that would put an end to the much of the discriminatory practices women face at the hands of insurance companies. Not only would domestic violence be disallowed as a "pre-existing condition" classification and therefore used as a reason to deny coverage to women but:

Gender rating would become illegal so that insurance companies would not be allowed to chage women more than men for the same coverage.
Charging women more or denying coverage on the basis of a "pre-existing condition" such as pregnancy, or a previous c-section would also be against the law.
Maternity care services would be included in the essential benefits package in the Health Insurance Exchange (a marketplace for those who do not have insurance through their employers). And, according to the information sheet distributed by Sen. Pelosi's office, "over time plans outside the Exchange would be required to do so as well."

In addition, says SEIU, there's this amazing news:

Both the department of Health & Human Services and the Center for Disease Control will now have an office dedicated to studying women's health issues.

Is it too much to ask that these new offices dedicated to women's health ensure that racial health disparities are acknowledged such that any heath issues studied or researched are always broken down along these lines?

Newest Findings on Multiple Birth and IVF Come Too Late for Nadya Suyleman

According to the Daily Women's Health Policy Report, new findings from a study released in the New England Journal of Medicine, reveal that women who are implanted with one embryo are just as likely to give birth as women who receive two. Women who do receive two, however, are more likely to give birth to multiple babies as compared to women who receive one embryo - 28% as compared to 2.3%.

Assisted reproductive technologies are a boon in many ways but because we are still learning about the full impact of these technologies, we sadly see women like Nadya Suleyman used almost as guinea pigs by a system overpowered by medical advancement, without full regard for what these technological advancements and decisions may mean for women's lives.

More reproductive and sexual health and rights news from around the web...

10/29

Foreign adoptions -- Agency unfairly demonized Minneapolis Star Tribune

How to Burn a Pro-Choice Halloween Effigy In 10 Easy Steps Washington City Paper

Channeling Oprah: The One Thing I Know for Sure Blog for Choice

NARAL Pro-Choice NY Mails For Dede New York Daily News

Misremembering Dr. Tiller: How Law & Order Got It Wrong HuffPo

Birth Control Used to Be Utterly Terrifying Gizmodo.com

The History of Birth Control Newsweek

Unexpected pregnancies researched Etownian

Intrauterine contraception most popular long-term solution for Europeans World News

Limited access to emergency contraceptives Cherwell Online

A look back at natural family planning BusinessWorld Online

Pro-Life Democrats Hold 40 Votes to Help Pass Health Care Reform in House Christian News Wire

Three Pro-life Advocates Arrested at Unveiling Christian News Wire

Pro-Life or Anti-Choice? Amador Ledger-Dispatch

Pro-life group calls for boycott of cosmetics company Catholic News Agency

Pro-Life News: House Health Care Bill Pro-Abortion, Obama, Gallup, New Jersey ... LifeNews.com

Pro-life supporters gain strength Suffolk News-Herald

Graphic Obama-Themed Abortion Display Clashes Catholic News Agency

I am not trying to kill health reform; abortion remains key concern The Hill

Pro-abortion news misleading Tulsa Beacon

Package evacuates abortion clinic WTNH

Stupak Town Hall Video: I Would Ultimately Vote for Abortion-Expanding Health Bill Catholic Online

Bishop Tobin asks Rep. Kennedy to Talk after Abortion/Healthcare Remarks Lifesite

Kan. medical board won't say why top staffer left The Associated Press

Planned Parenthood sues over abortion, stem cell petitions St. Louis Post-Dispatch

Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice Supports Maintaining Status Quo Reuters

Lawmaker Tries to Have It Both Ways on Health Care Reform and Abortion? FOXNews

Barriers to abortion rise, even in Brookline Boston Globe

Choice: Late Term Abortion Feminists for Choice

Judge puts off start of abortion-information gathering Tulsa World

10/30

Campaign urges more adoptions in Tennessee The Tennessean

Battle of Ideas: a matter of choice Times Online

Flathead Family Planning still open Daily Inter Lake

White House Changes Its Rhetoric on Abortion Funding in Health Bill CNSNews.com

Teen Mother Speaks Out WSET

House Faces Fight With Industry, Abortion Foes Over Health Plan Bloomberg

Abortion: Debates on Sproul Plaza Daily Californian

Uprising Radio Asks Wendy Norris: Where's the Meat of the Media Discussion on Shriver Report?

2009-10-22T14:31:21-04:00

In case you missed Wendy Norris' excellent analysis of The Shriver Report: A Woman's Nation Changes Everything, on RH Reality Check, Media Ignores Women's Health Disparities in Shriver Report, you can listen to an interview with Wendy on KPTK's Uprising Radio archived from this morning (click below to play):

For the first time in U.S. history, half of all American workers are women and the report is being heralded for its' focus on how far women have come in this country. This should be applauded, of course. And yet, as Wendy Norris points out, there are still dramatic disparities and inequities in our system. While the media has proclaimed the "closure of gender gap", Sonali Kolhatkar, host of Uprising, says that "disturbing disparites on women's well-being are being downplayed or completely ignored."

"The Battle of the sexes is over!" the media keeps prematurely declaring in conjunction with the roll-out of The Shriver Report, says Wendy Norris during the interview. But, Norris says, though strides have been made we still have a very long way to go.

"Who is feeding into that glossing over of very shocking disparities that still remain between the sexes, discussed in this report? Maria Shriver herself is a part of the NBC week long programming of this report. What has NBC's programming been like and is she being fair to her own report?" Kolhatkar wants to know.

According to Norris, NBC has broadcast, thus far, 40 different segments on the report and only 2 have actually mentioned our countries' distressing health care disparities along race/class/gender lines. One of the more egregious examples, says Norris, is a particularly appalling seven minute segment with Shriver on Hardball with Chris Matthews where a full minute was spent about a study cited in the report that found that there were higher rates of marital sex when men did more housework and childcare.

"It was jaw-dropping that's what he decided to focus on..." says Norris. And, she says, Shriver was clearly taken aback, during the interview, that this is what he decided to highlight from the 450 page report. To date, there has been no serious media discussion, resulting from this report, focused on the systemic problems that cause these sorts of dangerous health care disparities.

Norris says it's especially concerning right now when we hear of Senator Kyl complaining that he shouldn't have to pay for maternity care services in his insurance policy because he won't need them.

And as Kolhatkar notes, "It's amazing when maternity care services are discussed only as a women's issue and not necessarily a societal issue that concerns women and children and whole families."

Listen to the segment and get more outraged and energized...

Roundup: Health Care Reform a "No-Brainer", Re-thinking Mammograms?

2009-10-22T13:12:12-04:00

If You're A Woman, Healthcare Reform Should Be a "No-Brainer"

It's what Deborah Kotz at US News & World Report has to say today, in a thorough and uplifting post today about women and health care reform efforts, Why Women Should Push for Healthcare Reform. The piece discusses the much-covered (on this site and many others) issue of gender discrimination and health care reform but wraps things up on a positive note, as she quotes Marcia Greenberger of the National Women's Law Center:

But Greenberger, who also worked on the Clinton health reform bill, says she has been maintaining her positive attitude that legislation benefiting women will pass. "It's been energizing. The fact that we now have versions being considered in the House and Senate is further than the country has ever gone."

Re-thinking An Overly Simplistic Breast-Cancer Message?

From the New York Times to Alternet, people are talking about breast cancer screenings and questioning the efficacy of breast-cancer screenings. From the New York Times today:

Overdiagnosis and overtreatment as a result of cancer screening are a major concern. It is estimated that for every 100 women who are told they have breast cancer, as many as 30 have cancers that are so slow-growing they are unlikely to be life-threatening.

In an article on Alternet today, "Saving Women From Breast Cancer: Are Mammograms Really the Answer?", Naomi Freundlich of Health Beat notes that,

"...researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark and elsewhere had raised serious questions about the benefits of mammography, especially in women under 50 and over 70...

Freundlich goes on to explain,

"...one out of three cancer diagnoses turned out to be lesions that either went away on their own or otherwise never progressed. In some cases, patients would have died of something else before their symptoms progressed.

Meanwhile, the women who received these diagnoses likely went on to have surgery to remove the lesion or the entire breast, radiation and chemotherapy. This seems a substantial cost—both in terms of a woman's psychological and physical health and in terms of health care dollars -- for questionable gains."

For more reproductive and sexual health and rights news:

Catholic Exchange: U.S. House Bill Would Coerce States to Allow Homosexual Adoption
OneNewsNow: The connection between 'the Cure' and abortion
[Here]: Anti-abortion campaign underway across U.S. and Canada, but is it a cause worth fighting?
Springfield News-Leader: Birth control ends need for abortion
Swissinfo: All birth control pills said to carry same risks
Denver Daily News: Abortion coverage battle

10/21
AlterNet: Limbaugh Calls for NYT Environmental Writer to Kill Himself
Beliefnet: Towards a Consistent Pro-Life Ethic
LA Times: Judge bars restrictive Oklahoma abortion law requiring online posting of patient data
Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers debate sex ed
NBC DFW: Women Have High Stake in Health Care Reform
WSJ: Sheldon Segal, Leading Developer Of Contraceptives, Dies at 83
Catholic News Agency: 'Abortion crushes hope,' says Rep. Chris Smith at health care press conference
LifeNews: North Carolina Teen Shot and Killed After She Refused Abortion, Document Show
LifeSiteNews: U.S. House Bill Would Coerce States to Allow Homosexual Adoption
Earth Times: Nurse Charges Dangerous Yaz Birth Control Drug “Altered My Life”
The Guardian: Evangelicals and abortion
Catholic Exchange: Majority of Peruvians Oppose Attempt to Depenalize Abortion in Rape and Deformity Cases: Poll
BBC News: Clashes over Peru abortion move

"The Final Solution"? Gay Ugandans Could Face Death Penalty Under New Law

2009-10-22T07:00:00-04:00

In Uganda, the blogger known as the GayUgandan is calling it "the final solution."

Though homosexual acts are already illegal in that country, a new bill would penalize homosexuality with tougher penalties - along the lines of life imprisonment and the death penalty. Yes, you read that right. The "Anti-Homosexuality" Bill imposes stricter definitions for "homosexual behavior", extending the definition according to the blog Box Turtle Bulletin, from sexual activity to "merely touch[ing] another person with the intention of committing the act of homosexuality", and harsher sentences for what the Ugandan Parliament is calling "aggravated homosexuality." It sounds more like aggravated, fearful heterosexuals with hate in their heart. But "aggravated homosexuality"? What is that?

According to the BBC, "aggravated homosexuality" would warrant the death penalty for "repeat offenders" and includes such "crimes" as having sex when you're HIV positive, having sex with a partner who has a disability, or when your partner is under 17 years old.

Haute Haiku, writing on Global Voices Online, shares that, "The bill further prohibits adoption by gay couples; any person who aids, promotes, counsels any acts of homosexuality in any way will face up to seven years imprisonment, or risk a fine..."

These sorts of sympathizers include friends (who are required to "report" when a gay person comes out to them within 24 hours), NGOs that offer services to gay Ugandans along the lines of HIV prevention, producers and/or distributors of materials geared towards gay Ugandans and - yes - bloggers.

The GayUgandan is a blogger who covers "issues concerning gay, lesbian, transgender, bisexual and other sexual minorities in Uganda and Africa" and he writes,

"Oh, the gayuganda blog is one of the things which are illegal, as per that bill. I am furiously promoting homosexuality on this blog, complaining about a law like this. So, 5 years in prison, and my (non existent) bank balance will be set back by 100M Uganda shillings…! And the people who dare to give us condoms and lubricant for sex… Or, if you dare to have an HIV prevention programme for homosexuals in Uganda... or even try to teach safer sex. Well, the penalties are stiff. Very stiff. Jail, and jail and other things."

Lest you think, says the GayUgandan, that international human rights' treaties will somehow protect gay Ugandans from this law,

"Oh, someone in Colombia asked me to run there when things become serious here. You know what, I will have to give up my citizenship. I cannot be gay, and Ugandan. Because if I go to Colombia and have sex with my lover, then, even if it is years afterwards, I will be liable to the punishments so legally laid out in law…!

And, and, and, you are thinking of the international laws and treaties and conventions that protect other human beings? They are not going to be protective. Not to a gay Ugandan. No. Because they are going to be neutralized by the law."

And how will law enforcement know of your illegal acts? Your illegal sexual identity? Michael Madill, writing in The Monitor, an independent publication for Ugandans, warns fellow citizens of the real possibility of Nazi Germany like methods being employed,

"Since you can’t tell a gay man or woman just by looking, everyone is at risk. This puts power into the hands of the snitch, the aggrieved spouse or employee, the wronged friend or election opponent. Once you are branded, the stigma and its judicial consequences will be hard to shake. Are you prepared to suffer imprisonment and possibly physical violence because someone says they saw you commit an act or saw your name in an e-mail list?"

Frank Magisha, a gay human rights activist in Uganda interviewed by the BBC, calls these new laws, "a total abuse of human rights." He says his organization agrees that if Uganda wants to criminalize sexual violence, sexual acts with a minor, or having sex with someone without revealing that you are HIV positive, these laws should be entirely separate from laws governing sexual orientation in his country.

Magisha tells the BBC that it's evangelicals in his country who are spreading anti-gay, hateful propaganda in order to drum up support for this bill - a bill that seems only to legislate their own, religious dogma.

Bishop Ntgali, head of an Anglican church in Uganda, is quoted in The Christian Science Monitor today, "Homosexuality is a big issue in Africa. The Bible says that only men of good standing, following the word of Christ can be leaders of the Church. We disagree with our counterparts in England and America, who ordain homosexuals as priests."

The Christian Science Monitor also notes that,

"Nowhere is this issue more intense than in Africa, where many see homosexuality as an affront to the community as a whole. In South Africa, for instance, it is not uncommon for women thought to be lesbians to be gang-raped in the belief that they will be "cured" of homosexuality."

The current Ugandan law, along with the harsher one on the table, may be born from the influence of the Ugandan church but some see that they are also influenced by an alliance between a well-known American church-leader and a well-known Ugandan pastor as well. Pastor Rick Warren, best-selling author extraordinaire, leader of the Saddleback Church, is a compatriot of the paranoid, religious-extremist voice of Uganda, Pastor Martin Ssempa. Ssempa, according to Max Blumenthal, engages in outrageous acts in the name of denouncing homosexuality in Uganda:

"Ssempa’s stunts have included burning condoms in the name of Jesus and arranging the publication of names of homosexuals in cooperative local newspapers while lobbying for criminal penalties to imprison them."

The Formers Blog's Debbie Thurman writes of this bill and the not-so-curious connection to American anti-gay church leaders,

The American Church has high-profile folks like Rick Warren touting his PEACE plan and traveling to Uganda and reportedly lobbying behind the scenes while also hosting Martin Ssempa at his own Saddleback AIDS conference in the past. I don’t think Warren can pretend he doesn’t know what is happening or come off looking as if he doesn’t care. He ought to be speaking up, and I and others have called on him to do just that.

Warren's success at infusing PEPFAR (The President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) under President Bush with church- and ideologically-based prevention efforts (focusing on abstinence-only and monogamy as the only prevention behaviors over proven, evidence based HIV and AIDS prevention efforts), is well-known. Pastor Warren and Pastor Ssempra, along with the Saddleback Church, have worked closely with Janet Museveni - Uganda's First Lady - and former President Bush, to craft U.S. international AIDS prevention plans and efforts in Uganda with Christian ideology. Warren's and Saddleback Church's actions thus far, of course, cannot be separated from the strong anti-homosexuality message in Uganda, whether by overt influence or more subtle impart.

As Kathryn Joyce wrote back in January of this year, on RH Reality Check,

"As journalist Michelle Goldberg noted at Religion Dispatches, one of Warren's protégés in Uganda, the rabidly anti-gay pastor Martin Ssempa, has interpreted Warren's faith-driven solutions to the HIV/AIDS epidemic by burning condoms at universities and offering faith-healing to disease-stricken congregants."

There is clearly a connection between these kinds of anti-gay, faith-based HIV and AIDS "prevention" efforts and the homophobic, hate law being considered in Uganda. The stigma associated with being gay in Uganda and the faith-driven ways in which the countries' leaders, with support from church and government leaders in the United States, attempt to address HIV and AIDS will only lead to more deaths should this new incarnation of the anti-homosexuality bill pass.

The International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission is taking action, encouraging people to contact Ugandan government officials demanding the "swift dismissal" of the Anti-Homosexuality Bill. Their sample letter can be sent to officials in both Uganda and ambassadors in the United States.This is about sexual identity, on one level, but about the rights of all of us to live in accord with who we really are, without fear of retribution. What gay and lesbian people are going through in Uganda should be a red, flashing, ear piercing siren that holocausts and genocides begin with this kind of propaganda, fear-mongering and hate.

The Democrats' Missing Message For Women and Health Reform

2009-10-19T13:57:28-04:00

Health care reform measures currently making their way through Congress would radically alter health care coverage for women in this country, for the better - and American women don't know.

Why?

Democrats and President Obama aren't speaking to us. The message that health care reform would eradicate gender inequities currently at the core of our health insurance system isn't trickling down to the average woman in the United States. According to an article on Politico about this missing message yesterday,

“There has been a lot of attention this year on the need for health reform,” Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) said last week, “but there has been too little focused on how health reform will work to improve the health and well-being of more than half our nation’s population — America’s women.”

There are dramatic changes underfoot - changes that address heinous discrimination about which commentators and advocates writing on RH Reality Check have been discussing for weeks now. In the Democrats' plan, Politico notes:

Maternity care would be guaranteed. Insurance companies could no longer charge higher premiums for women than men.

And insurers now allowed to label a Cesarean section or even domestic violence a pre-existing condition to deny coverage would be barred from the practice.

If Democrats need anyone to get on board with this plan, it's women. Celinda Lake, one of the most respected Democratic pollsters in this country, says that women are conflicted about health care reform measures at the moment but they are precisely the ones making the majority of health care decisions. From Politico:

“Women are the ones who are going to pay attention to health care, women are the swing vote on health care, women are the ‘influentials,’ meaning if women like the plan, then the men in their lives like the plan,” Lake said. “So in that sense, it makes sense to target women.”

Advocacy organizations, individual activists, progressive media and others are working hard to ensure that Senators and others on the Hill get the message: women are not pre-existing conditions and "gender rating" is no longer an acceptable form of discrimination in this country.

At a Senate Committee hearing last week, chaired by Senator Mikulski, called "What Women Want: Equal Health Care for Equal Premiums", legislators heard eye-opening testimony from women on the inequality inherent in the system. One woman, after having had a c-section, was told by her insurance company to get sterilized or lose coverage.

Another one testified that she had to drop her $5,000/month premiums for maternity care after she went into debt for her pregnancy and birth costs with said insurance company. Robin Marty, writing on this site, told readers of her exponential increase in premium payments while pregnant as her insurance company apparently saw her pregnancy as an "unhealthy lifestyle choice".

Jodi Jacobson, on RH Reality Check, writes about the eight female Senators who stood up on the floor of the Senate last week to tell their colleagues in Congress: Enough is enough!:

Eight women senators spoke strongly and succinctly about the disparities in access to affordable health care in the United States, each one hitting on separate but related issues. The Senators also appeared the same evening in a brief segment of Larry King Live. Though King consigned them to a couple of minutes at the end of an otherwise largely vacuous show, the Senators nonetheless made clear that the practice of denying women coverage based on the "pre-existing condition" of being a woman would no longer fly.

The word is spreading within the halls of Congress, then, that to oppose health care reform measures is to oppose the elimination of serious discrimination against women in insurance coverage. Sen. Sherrod Brown calls the health care reform effort to get rid of gender inequity "historic" and compares it to the successful legislation outlawing unfair and unequal treatment between men and women in the workplace, in sports, and in education. But, still, most regular women around the country haven't heard the message that health care reform measures will benefit you.

So, what's next?

Well, Politico reports that Linda Douglass, head of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, says that more events targeting women are in the works as part of a vigorous outreach program.

But what else can we do - as activists, advocates, writers, women? Tell our stories. Share our experiences. I didn't know that some women, during a home birth, beg not to be transferred while in labor, to the hospital, because of the possibility of crushing medical costs. Does this sound like an experience you've had? Write us and let us know: editor@rhrealitycheck.org. Were you denied coverage of a VBAC (vaginal birth after ceserean)? Tell us your story or jot down a note and let us know it's happened to you. Did your insurance company drop you when you became pregnant? Denied you coverage because you are the survivor of domestic violence? Has it been impossible for you to find coverage for maternity care services? Again, let us know at editor@rhrealitycheck.org.

If we share our stories and our experiences, we can all work together to inform and educate women across the board. Health care reform measures will help eliminate the gross gender inequity in our current system but will only happen if women know what's at stake.

A Midwife Speaks: When Birth Costs Are Too High, Health Can Be Compromised

2009-10-14T17:02:30-04:00

RH Reality Check continues to look for and accept personal stories of women being denied coverage based on a pre-existing condition related to reproductive and sexual health issues.

As noted, the practice of denying coverage for pre-existing conditions like pregnancy, previous c-sections, or being the victim of domestic violence is not only unfair, it can be dangerous to women's health. Yes, covering pre-existing conditions may cost the insurance companies more money (and we wouldn't them to have to compromise profit by actually covering necessary health care costs, would we?!) but as the system is set up currently, no matter what the pre-existing condition is, we are forcing Americans to sacrifice their health to the deity of the almight dollar.

I asked a Certified Professional Midwife, Erin Curtiss, what all this can sometimes mean for women who seek her prenatal, postpartum and out-of-hospital birth services. Does she see this denial of coverage for pregnancy frequently? What, then, do her clients do to cover the costs of the pregnancy, birth and postpartum period?

Erin says she sees couples denied coverage "several times a year" in her practice. In her words:

Dad (or mom) gets a new job and also new insurance coverage and pregnant mama is denied coverage because she's pregnant and this is a pre-existing condition so the couple either qualifies for DSHS medical coupons or they don't and have to pay my fee out of pocket...I haven't ever seen a situation where an insurance company is willing to reverse their stance on this pregnancy as a pre existing condition thing. We all just kind of hang our heads and say, "Well gee, this sucks, huh?". Doesn't seem to be too much we can do about it. I've had some women make phone calls and write letters but to no avail.

Since Erin is a midwife working in Washington state, I followed up with a question about what a woman can do in this situation but the specifics apply to Washington state medicaid programs and are not necessarily the same in other states: If the pregnant woman is denied coverage and qualifies for DSHS medical coupons (Medicaid), do the coupons cover the kind of care she would receive with insurance or are we usually talking about a severely compromised range of services? Erin's response:

"If she/her family makes below a certain income then she will be offered Healthy Options pregnancy coverage (DSHS Medical Coupons) [Editor's note: "Healthy Options" is a Washington state program]. She is covered through her pregnancy, for her labor and delivery, and for 6 weeks postpartum. During that time she is eligible for dental, vision, and any other emergent or routine medical event that may occur for her. But, here's the sh**** part, it ends COMPLETELY at 6 weeks postpartum. I tell all my mamas in this situation to go for it and do it up now, i.e. go to the dentist, get your vision checked, get your IUD put in etc. and go see their primary care physician NOW because she'll be completely cut off a month and a half after giving birth.

So, for women who are denied health care coverage because pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition, we're not just talking about the lack of coverage for pregnancy and birth costs but postpartum costs as well. What if a woman suffers from post-partum anxiety and needs medication? If her symptoms are diagnosed quickly enough, prior to the 6 week cut-off date in Washington state, maybe she'll be lucky enough to receive medication. And after 6 weeks, then what? It is not safe or advisable to stop medication or even pause medication for anxiety or depression. If a switch to a government subsidy program is necessitated, there is bound to be bureacratic red tape to wade through before obtaining coupons. If you don't qualify, medications like these are prohibitively expensive, out-of-pocket, for many. And what about assistance with breastfeeding? Lactation consultants? Follow up visits with a midwife with breastfeeding concerns? If it falls within that 6 week time period, you're golden. If you're body and concerns don't fall on a 6 week cycle in Washington state, I suppose you fall into the health care system whirlpool - spinning around, hoping to obtain coverage in some way, shape or form under which you can continue receiving similar care. Either that or you go into debt paying for these services yourself. Or, of course, you just forsake your own physical, mental or emotional health because it costs too much money to address them.

And that is the most looming issue, according to Erin - a woman's health is sacrificed, while pregnant, or immediately postpartum if she suddenly finds herself without insurance coverage or needing to switch from private insurance to Medicaid. Of course, this isn't unique to pregnancy or other reproductive health care but pregnancy brings special circumstances to the table as well. But needing to prioritize finding health care coverage, in some capacity, instead of taking the time to care for yourself while pregnant or postpartum is not just twisted; it's dangerous, according to Erin.

Making people work so hard to get coverage costs time. Instead of dealing with their insurance companies they should be receiving care. Many women delay care because they are trying to get coverage. Luckily, DSHS reimburses retroactively. If a woman does not qualify for DSHS coverage then she pays me out of pocket. My fees for an entire course of prenatal care, labor and delivery, and postpartum and newborn care costs a total of $2,800.00 dollars. These women literally beg me not to transfer them to a hospital because they wouldn't be able to pay the doctor/hospital/c-section bill. They literally beg me. It's a tough situation to be in. Of course it's dangerous.

This is, of course, rather shocking to those of us who are not privvy to the inner workings of midwifery. Women begging not to be taken to a hospital because of the associated costs? It's no secret that out-of-hospital birth, with a midwife, costs considerably less than an in-hospital birth with an Ob-Gyn. Hospital births can run as high as $30,000 or more, if a women needs or requests a c-section. Home birth costs fall more in the range of $2-3,000 if there are no medical interventions needed. So, it would make sense that for some women home birth is an option purely because of its economic favorability and not for any heart-felt belief in natural childbirth:

I've delivered women out of hospital not because they believe in homebirth but because they can't afford doctor and hospital care. It's really terrible to deliver a baby at a beautiful homebirth only to have the woman tell you, "That was the most painful...thing I've ever done. I would have had drugs in a hospital if I could have afforded it. I felt like an animal and I'm embarassed. I didn't really want to do that but I had to." This very thing has happened twice in my career and it still makes me feel icky. I'm all for homebirth but if you want your epidural you should be able to have one.

And yes, women have begged me not to transfer them because they know they can't afford the cost of a hospital delivery. Of course, I always transfer women if that's what they need but it's sad. I'm not sure how they end up paying for the bill. I think it ends up being a sliding scale type situation or a make-payments-for-the-rest-of-your-life type situation.

Women and their families are forced to sacrifice their own health when the fear of debt outweighs concern for ones' safety. That's not how a healthy health care system should operate. Not at all.

I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition

2009-10-14T14:10:26-04:00

Is the fact that women experience discrimination in regards to health insurance coverage even debatable at this point? It is critical that health reform discussions address the health issues that disproportionately affect women in this country. Whether we're discussing a public option or more equitable private coverage, women's health must be front and center. The Service Employees International Union has done extensive research, promoted actions and continues to raise awareness around these issues so special gratitude is due to SEIU for the facts and figures below.

Did you know?

Only 14 states require insurance companies to cover maternity care
Only 12% of individual insurance plans include comprehensive maternity coverage
Insurance companies can consider prior cesarean sections as a "pre-existing condition" and deny a woman coverage for childbirth. Additionally, in Florida for example, women who have had c-sections are charged 25% more in premiums if they want to retain their health insurance coverage of birth.
In Illinois, according to a Chicago Sun-Times article on 6/26/07, a woman's emergency c-section (much to her physician's consternation) was denied coverage by BlueCross BlueShield.
For that matter, pregnancy itself is often considered a "pre-existing condition" by insurance company, therefore a reason to deny coverage. According to a 2008 study conducted by the National Women's Law Center, "The vast majority of individuals market health policies that NWLC found do not cover maternity care at all. Even if a woman is not currently pregnant, it is unlikely that an insurer will provide or even offer maternity benefits as part of her regular insurance policy."
Victim of domestic violence? As the SEIU flyer says, in eight states and Washington DC it is legal for insurance companies to deny health coverage to victims of domestic violence. In fact, when the vote to ensure coverage for individuals in this situation came to the floor of the Senate in 2006 (through a proposed bill by Washington state Senator Patty Murray), ten Republicans voted against it, killing the bill.
In 2007, Senate Republicans voted to override regulations requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms in more than 20 states. The year prior, ten Republicans voted against requiring insurance companies to cover mammograms.

For the above reasons and so many more, advocates, bloggers, and activists have come together to create an awareness campaign, "I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition" and demand stronger reform on these issues. What follows is a round-up of some of the posts written thus far. If you'd like to start off by joining the campaign, sign the petition to ensure that health reform measures address gender discrimination and tweet away!

Also, if you do have a twitter account, consider changing your avatar (your profile picture) to the image created by the National Women's Law Center and support change.

Special thanks to Tracy Viselli for these links and for the excellent round-up work done on this issue!

'I Am Not A Pre-Existing Condition' Round-Up of Posts

Being A Woman Is Not A Pre-Existing Condition

Being Pregnant an "unhealthy lifestyle choice" (10/12/09)

Breastfeeding infant labeled obese, denied health insurance
*Update - the insurance company reversed its ban citing the fact that babies who are "fat but healthy" will be covered. Seriously.

Women Senators Show Their Male Colleagues What It Means to Have Cojones

VIDEO: Congresswoman Gwen Moore says, "If you're fortunate enough as a woman to have insurance, you're going to pay 68% more of it. Why? Because you have a pre-existing condition: you're an actual, former, or potential, mother. I don't know how you escape those statistics."

Larry King Live: More Democratic Senators' appearances (VIDEO)

Speaker Pelosi: Did You Know That Having Had A Pregnancy Is A “Pre-Existing” Medical Condition?

Women and Insurance: Paying More, Getting Less

Abused then denied care: 8 states allow practice Some insurers say victims of domestic violence are too high risk to cover

Emily's List Alums Join Speaker Pelos to Promote Health Care Reform

Democratic Women Senators Unite Behind Health Care Reform

Domestic violence is a "pre-existing condition"?

Republican Senators Vetoed Insurance Protection for Domestic Violence Victims

Rep. Kucinich has opportunity to question insurance

Panel witnesses speak out against denial of coverage for victims of domestic violence: VIDEO

Part of insurance industry's money-making plan: Denying coverage to victims of spousal abuse

Insurance Companies Consider C-section Birth "Pre-Existing Condition"

Rep. Watson questions insurance execs on why domestic violence is a pre-existing condition

Michelle Obama joins Echo Chamber on Domestic Violence as a "Pre-Existing Condition"

Women vs. insurance companies

Pregnant? Don't look to your insurance company for help

Four Senators stand up for women's health care rights

Polls show Republicans just don't get it (but we already knew that)

VIDEO: Female Senators talk women's health care

Taking Congressmen back to school

Women's health care in the news

Speaker Pelosi speaks out against "domestic violence as a pre-existing condition": VIDEO Video of Speaker Pelosi talking about the need to fix DV pre-existing condition loophole.

Domestic violence is STILL a pre-existing condition

Is There Gender Disparity in Health Insurance? Read what girls have to say at New Moon Magazine!