WoMN Focus

As the MN legislature races to pass a bonding bill to put Minnesotans back to work, I hope they remember to solve some of the problems behind the anemic economy.  A major economic factor is that employers aren't hiring.  Why? According to a Healthpartners survey of 180 employers, the number one reason was affordable health care.  For most of us, this makes sense. American businesses are forced to compete in a global community where many other countries provide health care for their citizens.  By providing health care, this takes a huge operating cost off the backs of business.

More

I think we’ve got to acknowledge that the State of the Union was as much a campaign speech as it was a policy speech.  Considering the amount of work that needs to be done, I’m not sure I think that is an entirely bad thing.  Consider the fact that we got a promise to end Dont Ask Dont Tell and a date for troop withdrawal.  We got a commitment to jobs and a promise to reform the financial services sector.

Elements of the left will no doubt criticize the speech as empty promises.  And maybe they are.  He didn’t say how he planned to repeal Dont Ask Don’t Tell.  But is he supposed to?  He sets the agenda.  Congress figures out the details.  The constitutional distribution of power is at heart a delegation. For anyone who has ever worked as the #2 on a project or in a department you know this dynamic precisely.

And a word on the rebuke of the Supreme Court.  It was necessary and long overdue.  Federal judges may not run for election but they are political appointments and maintaining this illusion that they are not political actors has run its course.  They are, particularly under the neocon model.  Furthermore, on the state level judges run for office, so the ramifications of the Citizens United decision has potentially even more devastating effects, and ones that no one seems to really have their arms around.

But I’m tired.  I’ve been working hard and tonight I heard promises but I’m still waiting to see the action.  And I’m willing to acknowledge that had President Obama provided all the details to all the programs I’d still be listening to the speech.  So I’ll take the pep talk.  Tomorrow it is back to work.

To say that it has been a challenging week for progressives is a bit of an understatement.  There was a defeat in Massachusets, the Citizens United ruling, and the loss of Air America.  And that doesn’t even touch on the challenges of getting any kind of comprehensive health care reform passed, let alone reform that protects women’s access to reproductive health services.

As if that were not bad enough, states like Minnesota that have made a commitment to women can anticipate a full-throttled attack on that commitment.  I provided a policy overview of what health care reform would look like in Minnesota here but want to draw attention to one point–Medicaid.  Now I know nothing puts people to sleep quite like talking about state funding vehicles, so I’ll be brief.  Minnesota is one of a handful of states that currently uses Medicaid funds to provide abortion-related services to recipients beyond the circumstances of rape and/or incest.  The funding mechanisms and the insurance exchanges put forth in federal health care reform, combined with razor-thin support for continued funding and billion-dollar state deficits makes this an easy target for “reform.”  Whatever happens with health care reform on the national level we can expect to see another assault on choice and access at the state level.  And if reform passes, expect a broader coalition of groups and legislators going after this Medicaid funding.

Many choice activists felt blindsided by the Stupak/Nelson/Hatch abortion shennanigans in the crafting of health care reform legislation.  There’s no reason why we should be as blindsided at the state level.  Consider yourself warned and let’s get prepared.

Today is the 37th anniversary of Roe v Wade. I have been lucky enough to grow up in a time where the majority of the population believes that a woman has the right to choose what is best for herself and her body, and that the laws mostly support that right. I realize now that it is an incredibly lucky time for women to live in.

People often mention that the post-Roe generation of women don’t appreciate the importance of the right to chose, simply because we haven’t had it any other way. Older feminists worry that when it comes to women’s reproductive health, we post Roe-ers aren’t invested in the same way, are disinterest in the cause.

Last night, I was able to attend a pre Roe celebration with many of the leaders of the Minnesota Pro Choice community. But even better, I got to see a room full of many, many post Roe women, celebrating and recognizing the victories that the pre Roe generation won for us.

If I’ve learned nothing else from my new job, it’s that reproductive health is not just one victory, however, and that while we may celebrate the greater wins, our right to maintain and treat our own bodies are still being chipped away one by one. From choosing when to have a child, to choosing how to treat a loss, to deciding how to deal with the results of a physical attack or a genetic abnormality, our options are being limited daily. While we are losing the right to make our own personal decisions, “conscientious” doctors and hospitals are gaining the right to decide with they want to respect our choices. That cannot continue to happen.

We MUST trust women. We do not make our decisions lightly.

Today, I’ll be over at RH Reality Check, covering Roe Anniversary events, writing a little about my personal story, and watching the first day of the trial of Scott Roeder, the man who murdered Dr, George Tiller in cold blood while he was ushering at his church.

In the meantime, a statement from Planned Parenthood:

On the 37th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota (PPMNS) reaffirms it’s commitment to reproductive justice and it’s efforts to ensure that all women and families have access to the health care they need. We recognize that in order for women to participate fully in our society, they must have the ability to make personal decisions about their reproductive health.

“Today, we ask again, that all those truly interested in the health and well-being of women and families move past divisive debates and join us in our every day work to strengthen public health, access and preventive care. We have a commitment to the health and well being of those in the communities we serve that is more powerful and positive than one day of protest,” said Sarah Stoesz, President and CEO of PPMNS.

PPMNS works every day toward real solutions. Ninety-five percent of the care Planned Parenthood provides is preventive and primary. Last year in Minnesota alone, PPMNS provided more than 300,000 units of contraception, nearly 58,000 STD tests, more than 20,000 breast cancer screenings and over 17,000 cervical cancer screenings to women and families in need of health care in 27 clinics throughout our region.

Last year in communities across our region, Planned Parenthood provided more than 65,000 women, men and teens with health care and education they need to build healthier, brighter futures.

I truly hope that women in Massachusetts turn out in-force tomorrow or they may see their right to comprehensive reproductive care eroded. State Senator Brown, who is running for US senate, attached an amendment to a bill that would allow medical professionals to deny women access to emergency contraception. While I’m not agreeing with the negative ad saying that Senator Brown ‘wanted’ to deny rape victims access to care, his amendment would have achieved that.

Massachusetts senate record

Pending the question on passing the bill to be engrossed, Mr. Brown moved that the bill be amended, in section 4, by adding the following paragraph:—
Nothing in this section shall impose any requirements upon any employee, physician or nurse of any facility to the extent that administering the contraception conflicts with a sincerely held religious belief. In determining whether an employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious belief administering the contraception, the conflict shall be known and disclosed to said facility and on record at said facility.
If it is deemed that said employee, physician or nurse of any facility has a sincerely held religious conflict administering the contraception, then said treating facility shall have in place a validated referral procedure policy for referring patients for administration of the emergency contraception that will administer the emergency contraception, which may include a contract with another facility. The referrals shall be made at no additional cost to the patient.

There is the obvious issue of compounding an already tramatic situation, which is absolutely unthinkable. Maybe he didn’t think about that or about the logistics. Women in a larger city may not have been impacted greatly and possibly wouldn’t have even noticed because there are multiple doctors and nurses in one hospital. What happens in the county hospitals/clinics where you may only have one person that is licensed to dispense medication? If they have a ‘religious conflict’, this ammendment would have done unnecessary harm to women in a horrific situation. Again, maybe he didn’t think about women in rural areas, but isn’t that his job? If he did think about them, what was his plan? How was he going to explain this to his women constituents who would be harmed by his amendment. Thankfully the amendment did not pass.

This threat of legal action by the Brown campaign against the mailer sent by the MA-DFL, has also served to highlight President Bush’s midnight HHS regulation. President Obama has pledged to overturn it because it sets a dangerous president that could lead to the denial of birth control and family planning services. Family planning services are an essential part of a women’s life. It’s starting so feel like a constant battle to defend my rights. There are groups that so readily fund protesters at clinics, attempting to dissuade women from using the services and legislators attempting to chip away at my right to choice. What I don’t understand is why are they so willing to fund groups bent on intimidating women, but won’t fund programs to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies.

Access to comprehensive reproductive care as a right is a dream many women in America will never achieve. Many states put so many restrictions on abortion access that women have no doctors to turn to. Geographic isolation can be one of the greatest barriers to women’s health care in the nation.

Abortionaccess.org

Women in places such as Mississippi, Kentucky, West Virginia and Arkansas share a troubling commonality – they all live in states with the least accessible abortion services in the United States.  Because of where they live, these women face daunting barriers to get safe abortion care if and when they need it.  These least access states have the most restrictive laws and the fewest number of abortion providers.  These states also share other traits: low levels of contraceptive care, high rates of poverty, and strong anti-abortion cultures.  With little help to prevent pregnancy, few financial resources to help pay for abortion care, and the threat of isolation or even harassment within her community, the health and autonomy of a woman living in one of these states is at risk.

Among the states labeled ‘least access states’ are both North and South Dakota, which is not surprising considering the Dakota’s record on women’s health. Even in Minnesota, the state currently funds ‘clinics’ that intentionally mislead women about reproductive health.   How are anti-choice activists continue to chip away at women’s right to a legal medical procedure? Funding. Restriction of funding began in 1976 when Congress passed the Hyde amendment.  During the “Gingrich Revolution” of the 90’s conservatives went even further by banning abortion coverage for all federal employees, preventing military hospitals from  performing abortion, banning prisons from funding abortions and eliminating 35% of funding to family planning centers. The issues today’s women face in obtaining a safe abortion:

Prochoice America

Making abortion access more difficult and dangerous is a key tactic in the anti-choice movement’s strategy. Today, 87 percent of U.S. counties have no abortion provider, yet anti-choice lawmakers continue to impose a broad range of restrictions on women’s access to abortion.

• Anti-choice members of Congress and their allies are trying to use health-care reform legislation to impose a new nationwide abortion ban in the private health-insurance market.
• Refusal clauses and counseling bans (“gag rules”) limit women’s access to honest information and medical care, making it virtually impossible for some women to access abortion services altogether.
• Congress has imposed restrictions on abortion care for women who live in Washington, D.C. and those depend on the government for their health care needs, including women serving in our military.
• Numerous federal and state laws aggressively limityoung women’s access to abortion care and information.
• Anti-choice activists have developed “crisis pregnancy centers” to confuse, coerce, and mislead women in order to prevent them from exercising their constitutional right to choose.
• Anti-choice lawmakers have used propaganda and distorted scientific information as part of a strategy to instill fear in women to prevent them from exercising their right to choose.
• Clinic violence, murder, threats, and intimidation endanger doctors and patients and further restrict women’s access to reproductive-health care. While there are state and federal laws in place to protect women and doctors, this campaign of violence is still a very real threat to the right to choose.

A large proportion of women in our society depend on Medicaid for health care and as health care costs soar the dependence on governmental aid will only increase.  Congress, in negotiations for passing HCR, has enabled some legislators to dictate coverage of specific medical procedures by insurance companies.  In an attempt to prevent any federal subsidies for abortion, something already accomplished by Hyde, congress has gone further by preventing money going to companies that provide abortion coverage.  This is the largest attempt to limit access to abortion in my lifetime and if the Stupak language becomes law, health insurance coverage for abortions will essentially be eradicated, even for those receiving no governmental aid.

Abortion opponents strategy for targeting public funding are two-fold, first to immediately reduce access and secondly as a broader strategy to recriminalize abortion. The limits on abortion coverage overwhelmingly affect the most vulnerable among us and while the government will cover sterilization, they won’t fully fund access to all other forms of reproductive care.

During the seven years that Republican governor Tim Pawlenty has led Minnesota, the state has seen numerous road blocks added to impede women’s access to abortion services. A 24-hour waiting period after meeting with a doctor was implemented, forcing low income women and rural women with no nearby access to doctors to take more time away from work or families. The Women’s Right to Know law was enacted, making women read over extensive and in some cases just wrong information before having an abortion, including a section that states incorrectly that abortion may be linked to breast cancer. And clinics that provide or even mention abortion services are being cut off from any state funding.

However, Pawlenty has chosen to not run for re-election, possibly hoping instead to position himself as the GOP nominee for President. In the wake of his announcement, 11 democratic candidates have filed to run for governor. Of those 11 candidates, ten came to speak with reporters, bloggers, and advocacy groups at an event called “Netroots Nation, Minnesota.” At a Q&A session, I submitted the following question:

Tim Pawlenty has used his 8 years as governor to roll back women’s access to reproductive health more than any governor in recent history. Despite heavy DFL majorities in in the legislature, there has been no effort made to change this via legislation. If you are elected governor, will you make it a priority to remove such roadblocks to abortion access such as the 24 hour waiting period, the state based gag rule, or the sometimes factually inaccurate information provided in the “women’s right to know” information act?

Although the question was edited slightly, it was asked of the panel. The following video shows their answers.

Although I haven’t spoken much lately on this site about the policies that effect women, I have been writing about reproductive health issues in other places. Most people think of reproductive rights issues as being solely about the right to terminate unwanted pregnancies. That only scratches the surface. It’s about having the right to make healthy choices for your body.

As I learned too well lately, reproductive health isn’t just about life, it’s also about loss. And, thanks to the recently passed Stupak Amendment, insurers may get to have a say in how loss will be handled as well.

This weekend, a group of male pro-life Democrats gambled with women’s health, and women lost. By broadly writing in that insurers can chose whether or not to cover “abortion services,” pro-life amendments don’t just affect their intended victims — women seeking a way out of an unwanted or medically harmful pregnancy. They also affect another group of victims — women whose pregnancies have already ended but have not yet miscarried.

I’m one of those women, and this past Halloween I had what the hospital officially termed an “abortion.”

Please, read my entire story here.

NY Times

Women need more health care than men because of the combined demands of pregnancy and family planning. The typical American woman who wants to have two children will spend about five years being pregnant, recovering from pregnancy or trying to get pregnant, and about 30 years trying to avoid unintended pregnancies.

Partly as a result, young women typically must pay more than young men for individual health insurance, unless they live in one of 10 states where gender rating is illegal.

….

Many women gain access to their health insurance through their husbands. That means that male job losses as well as the possibility of divorce leave them vulnerable. A recent report by the Joint Economic Committee of Congress estimates that about 1.7 million women have lost health insurance benefits as a result of job losses since December 2007 — 71 percent of these as a result of their spouses’ job loss.

Although fewer adult women than men lack health insurance, they seem to be more affected by insurance-related problems, including inadequate coverage. A Commonwealth Fund study released last May found that about 52 percent of working-age women, compared to 39 percent of working-age men, reported in 2007 that they had to forgo filling a prescription, seeing a specialist, obtaining a recommended medical test or seeing a doctor at all as a result of medical costs.

Read the full summary here.

Between the disproportionate amount of time and money women have to spend maintaining or preventing pregnancy, the fact that women tend to be the primary caregivers for dependents who are ill, and that women still make less on the dollar than their male counterparts and need to make that dollar stretch further when it comes to health care purchases, health care reform truly is a woman’s issue.