According to the Big Push For Midwives, a campaign to legalize and regulate Certified Professional Midwifery (CPM) in all 50 states as well as Puerto Rico and DC, HB2081 passed the Missouri Senate today by a strong majority. HB2081 would provide for the licensure and regulation of Certified Professional Midwives. CPMs are currently allowed in 40 states, 24 of which license and regulate them.
“This bill ensures that midwives who have met the national standard and state regulations are legally available to provide care for families who desire out-of-hospital births. It also provides transparency and accountability through the state agencies that oversee midwife licensure and birth records.” said Debbie Smithey, President of the Missouri Midwives Association.
CPMs provide crucial pre-natal, childbirth and post-natal care options for healthy women who do not wish to birth in a hospital, or for whom care from a midwife is more desirable.
What about the House version? Steff Hedenkamp, of the Big Push, says they have heard rumblings that the Missouri House is wondering when the bill will make its way back to them for a vote and adds:
"We believe we have the votes to pass the legislation as is, but of course, we can take nothing for granted. Our extensive state network of families are contacting their representatives now to help push the bill through to Missouri Governor Matt Blunt for signing."
However, there is an emergency clause that will allow the law to go into effect as soon as the governor signs the bill, instead of waiting until the end of August.
This is great news for women who practice Certified Professional Midwifery in Missouri but it's even better news for women in Missouri who want to have children. Midwifery provides a birth option for women and their families that grounds birthing women in their own strength, offers a relatively medical-intervention-free birth and brings childbirth in healthy women out of the realm of "sickness" into the world of "health" where it belongs.
For the back story, check out Pamela Merritt's coverage of the "fierce debate" leading up to today's victory.
]]>
PolitickerOR had the initial story:
"I was surprised to see that the Mike Erickson, who in 2000 was having wild parties involving cocaine use on his house boat, was running for office," the e-mail states. The author said she was driven to speak out by campaign literature that discussed Erickson's pro-life stance. According to the Mannix campaign, the woman wrote "where were these ideals in the year 2000 when he drove my friend (whom he impregnated) to an abortion clinic in NE Portland, handed her some cash, and left her at the door."
But according to the Portland Tribune, the incident happened before Erickson's 2006 run for the same seat, and Oregon Right to Life knew about it then, but covered up the incident. Apparently abortion is okay as long as your politics are in synch with Oregon Right to Life:
Lois Anderson, the Oregon Right to Life political director, confirmed in an interview earlier this month that she talked to the woman at length in 2006 and was convinced she was credible. “In her mind, he knew she was pregnant and she told him it was his child,” Anderson said.
Leaders of the group spoke with Erickson about the allegations during the 2006 race.
With another anti-choice candidate in the race, Kevin Mannix, Oregon Right to Life in 2008 is calling on Erickson to drop out. Where were they for the past two years? Why with this knowledge didn't they speak up sooner or use the political clout they claim to have to keep Erickson out of the race?
Wizbangblue.com points out the hypocrisy, linking it to a pattern that has long been known to exist among anti-choice leaders who say one thing and do another:
The Erickson abortion bombshell story is yet another example of GOP candidates for office attempting to paint themselves as "pro-family" to conservative voters, even if the truth may be far from the reality. During the 2000 election campaign, HUSTLER Magazine publisher Larry Flynt hit candidate George Bush with allegations that he got a 15 year old girl pregnant in 1971 while serving in the National Guard in Texas, and that his father's Congressional office might even have been used to help arrange an abortion which was illegal under Texas law back in 1971, prior to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.
The Bush family may even have acted to quiet down any family scandal that might hurt the father's standing among voters in his Texas Congressional district according to the story. However, in the case of the Bush abortion story, while the woman denies the story in the Erickson case the woman involved now confirms the story to two major Oregon newspapers, THE PORTLAND TRIBUNE and THE OREGONIAN.
But Erickson, in his first public comments on the issue, is denying he knowingly paid for an abortion or ever encouraged the woman to get one:
Speaking publicly for the first time... Republican congressional candidate Mike Erickson denied that he knowingly paid for an ex-girlfriend's abortion. He acknowledged dating a woman named Tawnya for "a couple of months" in 2000 and helping her with financial problems but said he was unaware she became pregnant or had the procedure."I never asked anybody in my life to have an abortion," Erickson said. "Did I pay for an abortion? Absolutely not."
Even anti-choice blogger Jill Stanek gets this one right, and you know how it pains me to say that. She writes:
Oh, come on. He gave her $300 but didn't know why? He drove her to a doctor's office but didn't know what for?
Oddly, though, neither Jill nor Oregon Right to Life discuss the issue of hypocrisy. That's okay, the voters are doing that already.
]]>
In reality, these folks those same old men who know that things were good for them in the old days when they didn't have to worry about meddlesome women or black people running the country because everyone knew his or her place. I know it may seem a little alarmist to talk like this, but it's true.
Here's evidence: the Family Research Council, the organization that has been spearheading the call to cripple Title X, our nation's only dedicated funding stream for family planning, hosted a panel discussion just this past Monday, after a screening of the film "Demographic Winter." You can see video of the discussion on their site. And here they are, a group of old white men decrying the declining fertility rate in the Western world. They complain that folks have lost focus and that women don't care about families and see babies as "burdens instead of blessings." Of course there is little discussion of how to be prepared to have children, about how to best be able to provide these blessings with all that they may need. They also correlate providing increased social benefits with a declining fertility rate, advocating for a decrease in funding for "welfare programs." Whaaa?? How do you plan to feed these babies? My favorite part of this discussion is the speaker who argues that mandated education programs have contributed to this declining fertility rate. You can see him itching to start a conversation about how we should dismantle public schools.
These folks are not fooling anyone. These attacks to limit access to counseling, education, contraception and preventive health services are couched in the fact that they want life to be how it once was -- when they controlled everything. They don't care that the current rules and regulations of Title X are well thought out and compliant with widely accepted clinical guidelines. Even though family planning service providers have never been able to provide abortion care with federal funds, have been consistently audited for potential violations of this provision but have never been cited for violating it, anti-family planning extremists keep calling for even more restrictions on this successful, important, and severely under-funded program.
We cannot afford to ignore those who are adamantly anti-family planning. They are against access to reproductive health care for those who need it most, the low-income and uninsured. Most of the people who receive services through Title X are between the ages of twenty and twenty-nine. The extremists endeavor to limit our lives to fit into their narrow world view of how to live, and we can't stand by while they use their political influence to limit our choices. Take a moment, write to HHS Secretary Mike Leavitt, write to your legislator and tell your friends and family how these people really think. It is our responsibility to push Members of Congress to respond aggressively to politically connected folks like the FRC before they once again succeed in instituting out-dated regulations that restrict our freedoms.
Related Posts
The FRC, as a reminder, has apparently decided to act on their contention that federal contraception funding (Title X program) is too connected to centers that also provide abortion (because we all know how silly it is for a woman who has received an abortion to be given access to birth control afterwards or for women to be able to receive all or most of their reproductive health care in one place).
But here's the interesting part:
Who oversees the above mentioned Title X program? Why, it's Susan Orr. And who is Susan Orr? Dr. Orr is a former top official with the Family Research Council, the very same organization that is now petitioning to severely impair family planning access for low-income women and men in this country.
If you remember, Susan Orr was the focus of a media frenzy back when she was appointed to her current position as head of our country's contraception program last year. As a vocal opponent of contraception, it was (and still is) a slap in the face to, well, all Americans who use and access contraception - including the 98% of women who will use birth control at some point in their lives.
Orr is responsible for gems like these:
The questions to explore are: was this all a part of a larger strategy conceived of by the FRC once Susan Orr was appointed as head of the Title X program? How could they not have thought, at that time, they would have a real opportunity to inflict severe damage on this public health program with their former colleague and leader at the helm?
And, finally, was this aforementioned strategy discussed with Susan Orr prior to the letter they recently sent? Isn't this a bit like the oil companies setting energy policy with Dick Cheney?
The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) is working hard to fight these proposed regulation changes that would impose a "domestic gag rule" on what health care providers can and cannot tell their patients as well as significantly restricting funds for family planning programs in this country.
Planned Parenthood relies on Title X funding to provide family planning and contraceptive services to milions of low-income women and men around the country. Which organizations would pick up that slack should the funding be cut off?
More to come as it develops but if you haven't yet please take a moment to send a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt (and mention Susan Orr's curious ties to the FRC in your letter as well).
“Has it been in the past? Yes. Do I think the face of the choice movement is different today and do I hope Naral plays a role in that? You bet.”
Ain't I a Woman? Rev. Valda Jean Combs writes a firece and forthright take on the issues of race and gender in the Democratic primary in today's edition of Women's eNews. Rev. Combs writes that
Rather than challenge racism, the Clintons have affirmed those for whom race is a barrier to supporting a black Democratic nominee. In their quest for the White House, the Clintons have sacrificed the black vote and the black loyalty that helped to put Bill Clinton in office.
She then invokes the story of Sojourner Truth and the suffrage movement to parallel the black woman's role in the feminist movement of the 20th century: "Women of color fought alongside white feminists in the 1970s and 1980s, but found our perspective elbowed aside; our loyalty taken for granted." She then asks if it is any wonder that black women are supporting Barack Obama by huge margins. She concludes:
My support for Obama is a repudiation of the politics that have reigned supreme since Sojourner Truth, a politics that says my dream must wait until someone else's has been realized.
Catcalls Not Compliments Amanda has a short but sweet take on a recent CNN article asking whether or not catcalls are compliments. Amanda says the headline "reads like something from the Reader's Digest circa 1970 wedged between articles on why kids don’t appreciate waltzing anymore and how smoking marijuana cigarettes will cause your daughter to become a streetwalker: 'Catcalling: creepy or a compliment?'"
]]>
While hemorrhage, eclampsia, sepsis, and obstructed labor account for many maternal deaths, the most easily prevented of the top maternal death culprits, unsafe abortion, remains a political, rather than health, issue in most of the world. Maternal mortality is a phenomena largely confined to the developing world, with 99% of maternal deaths -- over half a million women per year -- concentrated in low income countries. The World Health Organization estimates that almost 13% of all maternal deaths are caused by complications from unsafe abortions.
Reducing maternal deaths from unsafe abortion is one of the most straight-forward public health problems to remedy. It requires increases in access to safe abortion and contraceptives. It is well-documented that countries with the lowest rates of abortion are those with the greatest access to legal abortion services and contraceptives. According to the Guttmacher Institute, Belgium, where abortion is legal and accessible, has an abortion rate of 7 per 100,000 women. Contrast this to Peru, where the procedure is illegal, and the rate skyrockets to 56 per 100,000. Despite the evidence, reproductive health targets were not initially included in the MDGs. These targets came late to the process in 2006 -- almost half way to the end date of the campaign -- and were added under the goal of reducing maternal mortality only after significant pressure from UN member states, including members of the EU and several developing nations such as Cambodia, Cuba, Madagascar, and Nigeria.
MDG subgoal 5B sets out to ensure universal access to reproductive health by 2015. Unlike other MDG's, reducing maternal mortality and achieving universal access to reproductive heath care will take more than technical expertise and material resources. Reducing maternal mortality, unsafe abortion, and increasing access to reproductive health care requires that governments, societies, and donors confront not only the issue of abortion but also medically-accurate sex education for women and girls and access to contraceptives. These measures alone would decrease by 90% incidents of unsafe abortion -- and go a long way to reducing maternal mortality.
Abortion is a reality of many women's reproductive lives. The underlying political gap is standing in the way of women's access to comprehensive reproductive health care. Without added pressure from donor governments, local women's health advocates in the developing world can only do so much to stop deaths from unsafe abortions in their countries. Donors who place restrictions on reproductive health funding, including the United States -- which prohibits any organization accepting these funds from offering abortion as part of their comprehensive reproductive health care programs -- do so at the peril of women's lives. Other developed nations, such as Great Britain and EU members, have made a commitment to unrestricting their reproductive health funding.
Reducing maternal deaths is a laudable goal, and one that must be achieved if the rest of the millennium development goals are to be realized. But reductions in maternal mortality can never be fully realized unless the global community of donors, governments, and public health starts including abortion in realistic approaches to protecting women's health. If the world wants to promote development, it needs to start promoting comprehensive reproductive health care.
]]>McCain appeared incredulous that Bush could support such an extremist platform, without those exceptions. In 2007, McCain reaffirmed his commitment to change the Party's platform to reflect these changes.
That was then. Now it is widely assumed that McCain will drop his call for these changes. In the words of Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council, for McCain to continue to call for a revised platform, "would be political suicide...I think he would be aborting his own campaign because that is such a critical issue to so many Republican voters."
Are Perkins and other Christian conservatives courted by McCain, such as Senator Sam Brownback, co-chair of the nominee's Justice Advisory Committee, correct in their view that a challenge on the abortion plank would doom his run for the presidency?
This question, of course, captures the larger dilemma swirling around
McCain's candidacy -- go too much to the Center and lose the base, swing
too much to the Right and lose the independents and moderate
Republicans (yes, there still are some left). Which is more costly a
strategy for him? Or put another way, how long can McCain get away with
at one moment seeking the endorsements of right-wing preachers whose
statements are every bit as incendiary as those of the Rev.
Jeremiah Wright, and at the next, go on the Daily Show and act like a
very charming and hip person who could not possibly believe the
outrageous positions he is forced by circumstances to take?
McCain's "maverick" image has misled a considerable number of voters into believing he is for abortion rights.
In fact, he has long been opposed to abortion. The differences now is that the "straight talker" appears more than willing to overlook his previous more thoughtful positions in order to please his extremist friends. Several years ago, McCain was on record as saying reversing Roe would not be a good idea, because of the likelihood of women resorting to illegal and dangerous abortions; today, he calls for the immediate overturning of Roe.
While McCain struggles to keep both the right and the center happy, it is our job, as progressives, to let the American people know what his party -- and presumably, he -- is capable of supporting. The utterly draconian nature of the Republican party's official position on abortion has not gotten the attention it deserves, either from the media or, surprisingly, from abortion rights advocates themselves. No exception for the life of the woman?!
Recall that South Dakota voters in 2006 voted down a ban on abortions that had a life exception, but did not have one for rape and incest. Assuming there are reporters and debate moderators willing to call him on it, how possibly will McCain defend a position on abortion that, even if symbolic, is breathtaking in its callous disregard for women?
There is no question that in the coming general election campaign Barack Obama (assuming he will be the Democratic nominee) will be targeted by antiabortion forces because of his support for abortion rights. In particular, we can expect that Obama's expressed disagreement with the most recent Supreme Court decision on abortion, Gonzales v. Carhart, will be relentlessly revisited in TV and radio ads to selected audiences. Obama's statement after the decision voiced his concern that the Court for the first time upheld an abortion law that did not allow an exception for women's health.
Since this decision involved a ban on a rarely used procedure, that has been successfully sensationalized for years by opponents as "partial birth abortion," and which many Americans find upsetting, we can expect Republicans to hammer him on this point.
But I believe that if Americans are told that John McCain, and the party for which he is a standard bearer, stand behind the proposition that it is preferable that women die, rather than have an abortion, that will be substantially more upsetting. Words matter. If McCain insists on placating the fanatics in his party, let him start paying a price.
]]>I'm a 13 year old girl and HATE being a GIRL. I have the mind strength hands feet and hairiness of a boy but still have the body of a girl complete with boobs. Is there something wrong with me wanting to be a boy?
Heather answers:
There are a couple of common reasons why someone might hate being a girl: you might hate it for one of them, or you might hate it for all of them. Regardless, you get to feel however you feel and there's nothing patently abnormal or wrong about being uncomfortable with your own sex or your gender, be it for a little while, or even full-stop.
The most common reason, by far, why girls can hate being girls is because the world that we live in is generally constructed in such a way that women are positioned to be lesser and/or feel lesser. (In fact, it's a pretty good illustration of that when anyone talks about having the "strength" of a man, since men and women, by sex alone, are equally strong: our physical strength just often can have different centers of gravity...but not always!) Many of us are told -- either outright, or just by the messages we see and hear more subtly -- that it's better to be a boy than a girl, better to be male than female. There are also specific burdens most girls and women in culture carry which boys and men do not (and vice-versa).
Too, a lot of the time, when we go through puberty -- and this can be the case for both boys and girls -- and our bodies start to become more gendered, and our sex becomes more obvious, it's typical to feel uncomfortable with the extra attention our bodies and our identities as defined by biological sex can get, especially if certain or traditional gender roles ascribed to us aren't roles we like, want or are comfortable with. A common term for a person, of any sex or gender, who doesn't feel comfortable with their gender is gender dysphoria. Gender dysphoria is especially common at the age you're at right now, so this might be something that will change and feel better with time.
A less common reason someone biologically sexed as a girl may be less comfortable being a girl, or want to be a boy is because that person may be intersex or transgendered: in those cases, gender dysphoria may not go away in time or feel better over time if that person is trying to be a gender that they either simply are not, or do not feel they are.
An intersex person isn't biologically female (XX) or male (XY) but instead, has a different combination of chromosomes, like XXY, XO, XXX, XYY or other variations Sometimes, a given variation of chromosomes can result in an intersex person feeling more like the "opposite" sex, but at other times, an intersex person may not feel male OR female: too, sometimes, intersex people don't feel any different at all. Some intersexed people will need medical treatment: others will not. Some will look different in some ways than other people, most others will not. A person can get a test from their doctor to determine if they are intersex or not.
Transgender is a term for people who are usually (though some can also be intersex: one doesn't have to be XX or XY to be transgender) biologically male or female -- XX or XY -- but who do not feel like the gender that "matches" that sex, but like the opposite gender. There are an awful lot of theories as to why some people (and it's tough to estimate how many people are, but it's usually estimated at a maximum of one in every 2,000 people, and a minimum of one in every 10,000 people) are transgender, so right now, no one has any one reason why, but what we can say for sure is that some people ARE transgender and gender dysphoric, and probably not just because of cultural gender roles or sexism (though that can certainly make being transgender even more uncomfortable).
I want to also mention that things like hands, feet, hairiness and the makeup of our mind and personality aren't just or at all determined by our biological sex. Certainly, for instance, overall, men as a group tend to have more body hair than women as a group, but at the same time, there are some women who are hairier than men and some men who are virtually hairless, and both of these variations are normal. And what our mind is like -- the way we think, what we think about, what we like, what skills we have -- really is not, so far as data has shown us so far -- about our gender or biological sex, period.
The real issue right now with you as I see it is that you're feeling really uncomfortable in your own skin, and obviously, that can cause some real stress, suffering and agony.
So, what I'd suggest is just thinking about these things a little, seeing which of them ring true for you, and then seeking out some good support or counseling if you still feel so uncomfortable and/or like you don't want to wait this out a little bit and see how you feel in time. There are some counselors who specialize in gender issues and dysphoria, but this is also something you could address with a lot of general counselors, or if you have a doctor or nurse who you like and trust.
You might also want to hop over to your local bookstore or library and check out some books on gender identity and/or intersex/transgender to help you get a better read on how you're feeling exactly so that you can figure out what exactly you need most right now to help you feel better. Kate Bornstein's My Gender Workbook is one I'd very enthusiastically recommend (and Kate is transgender herself, so she gets it, big time). Dr. Anne Fausto-Sterling's work with biological sex and gender is also really illuminating, and you can read all about it in her book, Sexing the Body. You might also look into some books about dealing with puberty, since, as I mentioned, it's really typical to feel this way when your body and brain are changing uncontrollably every fifteen minutes.
I do hope that you know that no matter what the case is here, whatever gender identity feels best to you, and feels the most true to you is okay.
What's most important isn't having a gender identity that "matches" your biological sex, or one which everyone else thinks is best, but having one that feels best to YOU and most authentic for you. So, I'd advise you in exploring your feelings on this to do what you can to accept that whoever you are is whoever you are, and to put your heart and energy in finding out who that is, even if you don't think it's what others would agree is right. It's really no one's place to decide on gender and gender roles for anyone but ourselves, and none of us can ever determine what the 'right" identity or set of feelings about gender is for anyone else.
]]>
The California Supreme Court today declared the state's marriage laws unconstitutional. In a 4-3 decision, the Court said that the state's domestic partnership law was not an adequate substitute for marriage, paving the way for same-sex marriages to be lawfully conducted in the state.
The lawsuit stemmed from the same-sex weddings conducted in San Francisco in 2004, when Mayor Gavin Newsom instructed the city clerk to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples. When the California Supreme Court halted the marriages a month later, a cohort of married couples, along with the city of San Francisco and gay rights groups, sued to challenge the 1977 California constitutional amendment that had declared same-sex marriage unconstitutional.
Though he has vetoed two previous attempts by the California state legislature to legalize gay marriage -- once claiming that the courts needed to speak on the issue before it could be decided -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has said that he will not contest this ruling. "I will not support an amendment to the constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling," the governor said.
Approximately 100,000 gay couples live in California, and about a quarter of them have children, reports the LA Times.
Much more at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, at the LA Times and at the Sacramento Bee.
The California Supreme Court's decision:
]]>Cut the crap: Republicans are dominating Democrats in one area right now: humiliating sex scandals. If former Rep. Mark Foley isn’t e-mailing young male pages or Sen. Larry Craig isn’t playing footsie in the bathroom, then Rep. Vito J. Fossella’s getting busted driving drunk and then admitting he fathered a love child. You can’t run on family values when you don’t practice them.
The Broader Purpose Yesterday's NARAL Pro-choice America endorsement of Barack Obama for president revealed what Jennifer Skalka called "festering friction" in the pro-choice community. Ellen Malcom, founder of Emily's List and national co-chair of Hilalry Clinton's campaign, was the first to express her feeling that the endorsement was "tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton." Karen Cooper, Executive Director of NARAL Washington (state) added a media release saying her organization is not endorsing either candidate, that both have a 100% record on choice and, further, that "to endorse Obama at this point in the race is an unconscionable slap in the face to Senator Hillary Clinton." Dems in the house also weighed in. Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz said "we feel abandoned by this organization today." Rep. Shelley Berkeley called the endorsement "extremely unnecessary" and "inappropriate." Rep. Jane Harmon called it "a betrayal." The Washington Post does a good job of rounding up the reactions.
Skalka goes on to say that this friction could be dangerous for the choice cause:
Dividing the Dems on the choice issue for the sake of Clinton's doomed candidacy is terribly dangerous. Women voters deserve the truth about Obama's views on choice and his record. Muddying that conversation and sparking an intra-party feud at just the moment the two camps need to unite women, in particular, for the sake of the party come November can only be described as startlingly myopic, a Kamikaze mission.
There's a broader mission at hand and that's ensuring a pro-choice candididate occupies the White House come January 20, 2009.
Polichicks wins the award for best line in this kerfuffle, "NARAL is like, Whatev! Endorsing a Clinton is so '96!" They also point here where you can submit questions for a NARAL Pro-choice America web chat on the endorsement to be held tomorrow.
Fertility Films Be sure to check out a great piece by Alyssa Quart in Mother Jones about the many "fertility films" of late. You should read Alyssa first but be sure to check out Courtney's followup at Feministing.
HIV/AIDS Stifling Africa In a must-read opinion piece in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer Cesar Cheala writes that the HIV/AIDS epidemic in Africa is "reversing decades of slow improvement in child survival, life expectancy, educational progress and economic growth."
Transgender Care Be sure to check out Erin Wilkins' post on the care needs of transgendered people on the site today. Also take a look at an article published in mag DiversityInc on the, albeit slow, progress hospitals are making in the care of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.
]]>Because of social stigma and oppression, transgender patients have typically been an underserved medical population. Experiencing transphobia leads many transgender people to stay closeted, particularly to their health care providers. In The Advocate, Beatie describes the discrimination and disrespect he experienced during the process of conception and pregnancy, explaining that "doctors have discriminated against us, turning us away due to their religious beliefs. Health care professionals have refused to call me by a male pronoun or recognize Nancy as my wife. Receptionists have laughed at us." It is this kind of discomfort and misunderstanding that often leads transgender patients to avoid healthcare altogether, even for routine and preventive medical care. It is important for trans allies in the healthcare community to create networks and partnerships, and to increase visibility within the greater trans community so that patients feel invited to seek care with qualified clinicians.
Because there is not one definitive transgender experience, there is not a singular appropriate approach to care for providers to follow. However, there are certain guidelines that can be used as a framework by health care providers who are interested in providing competent, compassionate care for transgender patients.
Health care providers working with the transgender community must have an understanding of transgender psychosocial issues, and should also be familiar with basic sensitivity practices. These include using the preferred name and gender pronoun of the patient, reassuring the patient about confidentiality, and discussing their preferences and concerns regarding potentially sensitive physical exams and tests, such as pap smears or mammograms. The clinic staff, from receptionists to medical assistants and nurses, should also be educated on transgender issues. Providers should also be aware of and savvy about the healthcare and social services systems their transgender patients are navigating. Outreach and networking with other providers and advocates in the transgender community is key to providing proficient care.
In terms of reproductive health in particular, it is important for health care providers to become proficient about the concerns that are unique to transgender pregnancy. For many, the notion of pregnant men is not always easy to understand or imagine, and yet it is a real and significant occurrence that should be openly addressed and responded to appropriately.
While the mainstream media has portrayed Thomas Beatie's pregnancy as a medical anomaly, he is certainly not the first transgender man to become pregnant, and he will not be the last. In light of the recent media attention on transgender pregnancy and parenthood, we should also remember that the topic of transgender pregnancy applies not only to pregnancies that result in birth, but also pregnancies that result in abortion or miscarriage. As a counselor at a reproductive health clinic, I have talked with people of many gender variations about their reproductive health decisions, including female-to-male transgender people (FTMs) seeking pregnancy termination. This phenomenon is often overlooked not only in the healthcare community but also in the trans community. Outward and internalized transphobia can make the process of seeking prenatal care or pregnancy termination a difficult, even shameful experience for transgender patients. Pregnancies, both planned and unplanned, definitely happen to trans folks and it is imperative for reproductive healthcare providers to seek appropriate education and training in order to provide comprehensive care to these patients.
Gender is complicated, and so it is to the benefit of our patients, clients, partners, friends, and family to network and partner with community allies, and to also seek accurate information and understanding in order to provide them with excellent healthcare, reproductive and otherwise.
Resources for healthcare providers and advocates:
FTM International: http://www.ftmi.org/
World Professional Association for Transgender Health: http://www.wpath.org/
Gender Identity Research and Education Society: http://www.gires.org.uk/
Transgender Health Action Coalition: http://www.critpath.org/thac/
]]>
It's a shame that the re-worked, edgier superhero genre has little place for women or people of color, relegating them to the same second-tier status one might have expected in vintage films.
Iron Man, which dominated the box office in recent weeks, is an egregious offender. In a zippy two hours, the film trots out a host of boring and offensive clichés: the trustworthy yet bland black buddy, the endlessly servile love interest, and the insidious band of turban-wearing thugs. Sigh. And this is a movie that critics loved.
The undeniably winning Downey Jr. plays Robert Stark, a weapons-manufacturer-cum-robotics genius, who undergoes a change of heart--and invents a super-suit--after a near-death experience in the hills of Afghanistan. Some high speed air chases, a nemesis with his own metal suit, and the requisite one-liners follow.
But Downey's charm seems to come at his friends' expense. Terrence Howard's character, Rhodes, is a top military officer who watches over Stark with a constant shake of his head. When Stark starts zipping around clad in metal, taking justice into his own hands, Rhodes makes up a story to placate military personnel and sends the all clear. Essentially Stark is the "magical black friend." He doesn't yell about his buddy's hi-jinks and unreliability; he merely frowns, mutters, and gets over it. (Given the classic comic book plot trajectory, Howard's character should soon be playing a much more badass part in future films, but for now, his role deserves critique.)
Gwyneth Paltrow's Pepper Potts is also nauseatingly one-dimensional. Literally Stark's assistant, she serves him day and night, with drinks and devotion. She maintains his schedules, and kicks his disheveled one-night stands out of the house. Pepper also produces a frightened whimper whenever Starks asks her to do something dangerous, because she's worried about his possible death. Naturally, he develops a crush on her.
When she has to steal information off a computer and is confronted by the villain mid-download, Pepper manages to survive by using a bewildered look and smiling, not by sophisticated maneuvering. And as the tension mounts towards the film's climax, watching her totter in heels to help save the day is unnerving--at least they could have given her some boots. (Some have radically disagreed about Pepper.)
Pepper's sketchy presence, like those of Katie Holmes and Kirsten Dunst in the Batman and Spider-Man franchises, actually makes the movie worse. These talented filmmakers need to figure out what to do with their heroines. Here's a hint--don't have them naively fall for wicked love interests, get used as bait by the villains, or serve the hero coffee.
Iron Man's primary villain is a white guy in a suit, played to perfection by Jeff Bridges. But its under-villains are a gang of standard-issue Arab stereotypes: turbans, eyeliner, et al. They're baddies, but not smart enough to be baddie masterminds. The level of violence Stark has provoked by providing the military with weapons rightly puts him in a moral quandary, but the movie seems to imply that his moral doubts kick into gear mostly because the dark-skinned baddies got their hands on his stockpile.
These enemies are countered by a noble, presumably Afghan doctor who saves Stark and then dies for him. With women and minorities sacrificing themselves for him left and right, no wonder Stark is a bit of a depressive.
Finally, as Dana Stevens notes, Iron Man's sensor-gadget, which saves civilians from death but punishes their captors, is a jingoistic fantasy:
He takes out all the bad guys, leaving the grateful good guys standing. It's a clever and viscerally satisfying gag ...but it left me with a bitter aftertaste that lasted for the rest of the movie. How much collateral damage have we inflicted by trusting just such "smart" weapons to make moral decisions for their users?
Is it tired to keep complaining about militarism, sexism and racism in the kind of crowd-pleasing, diverting movies which clearly pull in a hefty number of women and minority viewers anyway?
Given the alarmingly sexist and racist undercurrents rearing their heads in this presidential election, it's not illogical to look at America's number one movie and see a reflection, and perpetuation, of prejudices that just won't die. At this very moment, voter ID, anti-choice, and anti-terrorism policies continue to treat these biases as though they are reality, and that's more frightening than any onscreen villain, even one in a mammoth iron suit.
]]>The first in a series of reports exploring the ramifications of the controversial Colorado state ballot measure.
"States rights" has been the battle cry of modern-day social conservatives over the last 50 years to oppose everything from racial desegregation and gay marriage to gun control. But no issue has raised culture warrior hackles more than abortion.
Less well-known than the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, the Supreme Court's 1989 ruling on Webster v. Reproductive Health Services set the stage for a series of state skirmishes on restricting abortion and influencing public opinion through constitutional amendments, efforts that continue to this day.
Webster is a Missouri state law that restricts the use of state funding, employees and facilities to provide abortions.
However, the real test lies in the language. The law added a strict Christian construct to the preamble of the Missouri constitution -- that life begins at conception and therefore unborn children have protectable rights.
Now 20 years after Webster became law, a similar initiative is being attempted in Colorado through a proposed ballot measure to amend the state constitution:
Be it Enacted by the People of the State of Colorado:SECTION 1. Article II of the constitution of the state of Colorado is amended BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SECTION to read:
Section 31. Person defined. As used in sections 3, 6, and 25 of Article II of the state constitution, the terms "person" or "persons" shall include any human being from the moment of fertilization.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, only Missouri has successfully added religiously inspired conception language to its constitution in an attempt to negatively sway public opinion on abortion. Despite decades of trying, no other state has succeeded with this controversial approach. Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Oregon, Tennessee and South Carolina attempted either legislatively or via citizen initiative to codify personhood for fertilized eggs but every effort was soundly defeated, reports Dionne Scott of the Center for Reproductive Rights.
To Anita Allen, a University of Pennsylvania professor in both law and philosophy, states run into trouble with these efforts when they attempt to apply the conception language.
"The Court has emphasized that Roe v. Wade implies no limitation on the authority of a state to make a value judgment favoring childbirth over abortion," says Allen. "The preamble can be read simply to express a value judgment. A state is free through a referendum, preamble or law to state that life begins at conception but they don't have the constitutional right to regulate abortion or any other practice."
Supporters of Colorado's proposed ballot measure argue on the Colorado for Equal Rights Web site that "the simplicity of the text of this initiative speaks for itself."
However, Allen, an expert on privacy laws and ethics, isn't convinced that the measure is not simply a ploy to avoid the much more difficult persuasion campaign against birth control, emergency contraception, in-vitro fertilization and, ultimately, abortion itself. That debate has largely been long lost in the court of public opinion. A November 2006 Ciruli Associates poll reported that 56 percent of Colorado voters are pro-choice, a figure on par with the rest of the nation.
Thus, it would appear Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere soon.
"It's a strategy," says Allen, of the proposed amendment. "And certainly a moralist could say, 'I really want to believe that from the moment of conception life begins and that that life deserves some legal protection.'
"But there are huge numbers of fertilized eggs that don't ever implant and implanted eggs that spontaneously abort. Plus, it raises the whole question about eggs that are fertilized outside the human body."
It's those not-so-simple questions that has some longtime anti-abortion activist groups lending less-than-tepid support.
The Colorado Catholic Conference refuted statements by Colorado for Equal Rights that the state's three bishops endorsed the proposal, according to a February press account. Further, Jennifer Kraska, executive director of the conference, raised concerns about the ballot group's structure, finances and tactics in she wholly dismissed any possibility of support by the Catholic Church.
Also notably absent is Focus on the Family, the Colorado Springs-based multi-million dollar ministry and catalyst for much of the evangelical culture wars over the last three decades.
The prime backers of the ballot measure, namely American Right to Life Action, have a long and ugly history of calling out its putative allies. One spat last year resulted in National Right to Life yanking the charter of the state affiliate for attacking Rev. James Dobson in newspaper ads for not being anti-abortion enough. From the ashes of Colorado Right to Life rose the hard core American Right to Life Action, which is heavily engaged in petition-circulating efforts for the group Colorado for Equal Rights.
The splintering of what one would assume are allied groups over this ballot measure comes as no surprise to Clemson political science professor Laura Olson, an expert on religion and politics.
"Colorado is a real locus of religious right activism," states Olson. "There's lot of folks who are conservative evangelicals -- you would think that this is a core issue. If this initiative is having trouble getting support, I think it's a real commentary on how evangelicals are a lot more politically diverse than they're given credit for being. This is not the kind of tactic that a lot of people are going to sign on to, quite literally."
And that dissension among the ranks of conservative evangelical Christian and Catholic leadership leads to a whole host of questions -- namely, what if this thing does pass, then what?
Olson believes that the end point -- a total restriction on abortion -- isn't the real goal no matter how clever the political strategy may be to push for zygote civil rights.
"One of the things about the abortion issue more than any of the other culture war issues that's been so interesting is that both sides get so fired up," she says. "But I don't think either side wants things to change in any real perceptible way. It's a mobilizing tool."
And high-intensity fundraising and voter turnout is what fertilized-egg activists will be doing leading up to the November election.
But beyond the boots-on-the-ground tactics, Olson raises an interesting analogy in the national 2004 push to pass state Defense of Marriage Acts (DOMA) as a strategy to for getting re-election support for President Bush from anti-gay marriage, religiously motivated voters." It was the perfect get-out-the-vote strategy for conservative candidates/causes up and down the ticket by pairing an important federal race with a red-meat state ballot measure for the GOP faithful to gnaw on.
So in the context of the "fertilized egg as a person" amendment, if the Colorado Secretary of State approves the measure for the ballot this year, will those highly motivated "values voters" sit out the presidential election or will they if not enthusiastically, at least consistently, pull the lever for the GOP's presumptive nominee, Sen. John McCain, a candidate who has had a great deal of difficulty making inroads with the conservative religious right?
Which seemingly puts the spotlight squarely on Colorado this cycle -- a traditional political swing state with a boisterous evangelical activist movement countered by an equally raucous libertarianesque civil liberties streak. Couple those forces with what is likely to be a very close 2008 presidential election, in addition to several other highly partisan state races and ballot measures, that will have the hard-core politicos salivating in the voting booth.
]]>In the press release, NARAL President Nancy Keenan explains,
"Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman's right to choose throughout his career in public office. He steadfastly supports and defends a woman's right to make the most personal, private decisions regarding her reproductive health without interference from government or politicians."
The endorsement seems to have caught Sen. Clinton by surprise according to TPM Election Central, who reports that campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson said on a conference call, "surprised would be my response."
NARAL showed class by waiting until the nomination was clearly locked up, and leadership by moving its considerable weight to send signals that it is time to mend fences. There are many leading political women in Washington and around the country who have felt betrayed by Sen. Claire McCaskill, Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, Gov. Janet Napolitano, Sen. Amy Klobuchar and others who rose to prominence with the help of Sen. Clinton, Emily's List and the work of an entire generation of women in politics. That is understandable.
This NARAL endorsement need not be seen as further evidence of a betrayal of anyone or anything, but rather an opportunity to begin a process of coming together. It has been a good and hard fought campaign, waged by an extraordinary crop of candidates from the start, and ending with two of the most talented leaders of our time in Clinton and Obama.
Progressives can be proud of this moment, and the very clear embrace America is making of pro-choice values throughout this entire nominating process.
Updated 3:30 p.m.
The anti-choice Lifesite.com reacts to the NARAL endorsement:
The difference between Obama and McCain on abortion is stark.
McCain has a strongly pro-life voting record and has supported bills to ban partial-birth abortions, respect parental involvement regarding teenagers and prohibit tax-funded abortions in a variety of situations.
The Arizona senator has also repeatedly called for overturning Roe v. Wade, said he would appoint judges who won't legislate from the bench, and says he will keep the pro-life plank in the Republican Party platform.
Both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have 100 percent pro-abortion voting records with the group and have pledged to only appoint federal judges who will keep unlimited legal abortions in place for another 35 years.
Obama has voted against preventing taxpayer funding of abortion and led efforts to defeat a bill in the Illinois legislature to provide appropriate medical care for newborns who survive failed abortions.
Those differences are so significant and will affect so many lives of women and unborn children that National Right to Life and pro-life groups in California and Wisconsin have already endorsed McCain.
For the reality of each candidate's record, not just the anti-choice rhetoric, here are Sen. Obama's and Sen. Clinton's responses to our questionnaire. Sen. McCain has yet to respond after many requests, but we did compile this information on the GOP candidates for President.
Updated 3:49 p.m.
Ellen Malcolm, founder and President of Emily's List said this,
“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”
Looks like Jill was understating the ruffled feathers.
Updated 4:00 p.m.
NARAL Pro-Choice New York, Sen. Clinton's home state affiliate has issued a separate statement:
“This decision was made internally by NARAL Pro-Choice America, based in Washington D.C., and without the consultation of the NARAL state affiliates across the country,” NARAL Pro-Choice New York said in a statement this afternoon.
The New York chapter of the abortion rights group has been a staunch supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton, endorsing her in the 2000 and 2006 Senate races. “NARAL Pro-Choice New York will not be issuing an endorsement at this time,” the statement said.
"NARAL Pro-Choice New York believes that this endorsement in the Democratic primary is premature. We are fortunate to have two pro-choice candidates in Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. When a nominee is named, NARAL Pro-Choice New York will stand proudly with the pro-choice Democratic candidate in order to defeat anti-choice Republican candidate John McCain in November.”
]]>
The Family Research Council, backed by an unknown group of 80 anti-contraception groups, has sent a letter to President Bush urging him to make federal funding for family planning centers - Title X funding - more restrictive.
Yes, you read that right.
The same anti-choice advocates who fight so vehemently against legal abortion in this country have requested that rules for Title X funding be changed, according to the letter they sent, "to prevent U.S. taxpayer funds from being used to promote and facilitate abortion."
Never mind that the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA) calls Title X "a true public health success story that helps to prevent one million unintended pregnancies every year, thereby reducing the need for abortion."
And we can forget that family planning clinics, both independent and Planned Parenthood affiliated, help millions of low-income women and men each year with crucial health services.
Finally, let's make sure we restrict what health care providers in this country can and can't discuss with their patients as per the Global Gag Rule for international family planning centers.
This is a travesty. According to NFPRHA, however, Title X regulations are being discussed though there is no timeline for changes just yet.
Title X is one of our most effective, if not utterly underfunded, public health programs - and has been since the 1970s. It seems almost absurd that those organizations opposed to legal abortion would also seek to restrict access to contraception - one of the more effective tools to prevent against unplanned pregnancy, don't you think?
Oh, wait. It's not absurd at all. These desperate attempts are about ensuring that women and families live according to the agenda and under the will of terrified extremists. It's not about abortion or contraception, sex or sexuality. It's about fear. Fear that a society that allows for free will and encourages personal responsibility coupled with a healthy dose of "love and watch out for thy brother and sister" ultimately brings about justice and equality. And with justice and equality comes freedom - we wouldn't want people to think and behave freely would we?
NFPRHA has written a letter to Secretary Mike Leavitt, of the Department of Health and Human Services. Take action here and let him know Title X must not be messed with.
Look for more coverage on RH Reality Check as we track this for you this week!
]]>