Women's health advocates vigorously question unrealistic projections for sexuality and aging - bleak sexual desert or pharmaceutical Niagara - and have identified helpful strategies for maintaining and enhancing sexuality after menopause.
Menopause is a natural stage of a woman's reproductive life, a condition women go through as they grow older. Knowing the facts and having resources will help women prepare for, rather than dread, that change.
Do you need to have a sit down about sex with someone that you love? Is that person your mom, dad or even a grandparent? The reality is that the changing face of "seniors" means a lot more sexually active older adults. We need to start talking to the old and the young about the birds and the bees.
Why care about women’s health in health care reform? The reasons why were best captured by the 19th century Swiss poet and philosopher Henri Frederic Amiel. He wrote: “In health there is freedom. Health is the first of all liberties.”
In the midst of foaming-at-the-mouth at the political give-and-take in health care reform, many prominent pundits neglected to properly inform the public that Stupak's language allowed for a major incursion into women's rights.
Stupak-Pitts is a slippery slope: For example, every health insurance company in America could now lose some of its tax benefits. And you could just say that anybody that got a federal loan for housing could not get an abortion.
Pro-choice advocates abided by an agreement not to seek changes to the Hyde Amendment in health reform. Anti-choice factions broke their end of the bargain.
What are the real-life effects of the Stupak-Pitts amendment to the House health care bill? An analysis by experts on health law, and reproductive and sexual health issues, shows just how far it goes.
"Irrational." "Hypersensitive." "Hysterical." The tone of comments on Daily Kos around the abomination known as the Stupak-Pitts Amendment is: "Calm down, little lady. Get real. Be adults. Doncha know how politics really works?"
Is a Senator who says she's pro-choice short-circuiting efforts to beat the Stupak Amendment in the Senate by conceding the point less than 48 hours after the disastrous vote in the House on this amendment? Is she signaling for the White House?
The Stupak Amendment potentially goes farther than any other federal law to restrict women’s access to abortion. The claim that it only bars federal funding for abortions is simply false.
By banning private insurers in the public exchange from covering "abortion services," the Stupak Amendment will affect women with incomplete miscarriages. Like the one I faced last month.
The Stupak-Pitts amendment would actually result the loss of abortion coverage many women already have because it prohibits the new private insurance market as well as any possible public option from providing such coverage.
This is only the first salvo in the bishops’ campaign against women’s health. Just imagine for a moment what healthcare will look like when the bishops are finished.
Our biggest defeat since 1973 was enactment of the Hyde Amendment and the lack of an uncompromising commitment to overturning it. If nothing else, we must now make overturning Hyde the single objective of our movement.
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops apparently now runs the US government, aided by "faith-based advocacy groups," the House Democratic Leadership, the White House and members of the Senate. If you didn't know before, you know now.
None of the bills emerging from either the House or the Senate require insurers to cover all of the elements of a basic gynecological "well-woman" visit leaving out essential care such as pelvic exams, STI counseling and - yes - birth control.
Today, the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals called on Congress to remove the Stupak Amendment from the rinal version of the House health reform bill.
Laurie Rubiner, Vice President of Public Policy at Planned Parenthood, spoke with WNYC's Brian Lehrer about the Stupak-Pitts amendment on Monday morning.
An HIV-positive Macomb County man is facing charges created under Michigan’s 2004 terrorism laws for biting another man in a neighborhood scuffle. That, HIV advocates, state lawmakers and legal experts say is “cowardly” and “nonsense” and increases ignorance and stigma surrounding the virus.
