Taking Health Care Into Your Own Hands

Yesterday, the Obama Administration launched a new, user-friendly webpage geared towards health care reform. The website, HealthCare.gov, allows U.S. citizens to find the insurance options available to their state, understand the new healthcare reform law, and learn about prevention among other things.

What I really like about the site is that it's so user-friendly, and with the confusion that so many Americans had over healthcare reform and what we were receiving, I think this site will really help to ease some of that confusion as well as inform the public of the many apparent benefits of healthcare reform legislation.

The site invites the public to voice what improvements they believe should be made on the website. So, go check out the website and if you have any suggestions, let the government know!

photo credit: Sun Sentinel

Stop Stupak Phone Banks in the FMF's Los Angeles Office

Here in the FMF's Los Angeles office, we are ANGRY about the Stupak amendment! We can't make it to DC for the Emergency/Rally Lobby Day on Dec. 2 but that won't stop us from taking action!

If you are in the Los Angeles area, join us at the FMF Headquarters on Dec. 1 & 2 for a Stop Stupak Phone Bank! We'll be phonebanking our supporters, asking them to take 2 minutes to call key decision makers and demand that no anti-choice amendments be included in health care reform.

The Stupak Amendment is the single largest threat to abortion access in our lifetimes. We must demand that young women's lives and bodies stop being used as a political bargaining chip and make sure Congress understands that abortion is health care.

Here are the details: FMF Headquarters at 433 S. Beverly Dr. between Pico and Olympic, 90212. Tuesday, December 1 join us from 6pm - 9pm, or on Wednesday, Dec. 2 join us from 10am - 6pm for any amount of time. Spread the word!

To RSVP, email Allie at amcdonald@feminist.org or Jacqueline at jsun@feminist.org or call us at 866-471-FMLA.

See you on December 1st & 2nd!

AMA Opposes Don't Ask Don't Tell and Gay Marriage Bans

The Feminist News Wire reported yesterday that the AMA voted to oppose the military's Don't Ask Don't tell policy:

The American Medical Association (AMA) voted yesterday in favor of repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and proclaimed that existing bans on gay marriage negatively affect the health of the LGBTQ community.

According to the Huffington Post, the AMA based its assertion on evidence that married couples are more likely to have health insurance and that uninsured people are more likely to live sicker and die younger.

The AMA passed the resolution after learning that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has interfered with doctor-patient relationships, according to the Seattle Post Intelligencer. Military doctors reportedly have revealed personal information about their patients, including sexual orientation, to military commanders.

As a result, Servicemembers United has observed that some lesbian and gay servicemembers have been compelled to avoid treatment or to keep important medical information from their doctors, potentially putting them at risk for life-threatening conditions.

Alexander Nicholson, founder and director of Servicemembers United, said in a press release, "Today, the American Medical Association took a principled stance against a law that clearly has a negative impact on military healthcare, military medical providers, and our troops...This is yet another nail in the coffin of the flawed and outdated "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law, and it should send a strong message to those who continue to blindly claim that this policy works."

Instituted by former President Bill Clinton in 1993, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" prohibits the military from inquiring about a service member's sexual orientation, but also calls for the discharge of anyone who acknowledges being lesbian or gay. Thus far, the policy has led to the expulsion of about 13,000 troops.

Photo Credit: quirkybird on flickr.com

Stupak is Whack

30 feminists descended on Capitol Hill today to protest the Stupak amendment. I was one of them.

The rally, sponsored by NOW, drew feminists from groups like the Feminist Majority Foundation, Southeast Asia Resource Action Center, and the National Women's Law Center.

We met in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, carrying signs that said "Keep Ur Stupak Off My Body," "Stupak is Whack!," and "Healthcare for All!" We were promptly greeted by Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and his anti-choice buddies. They followed us around, shouting "Abortion is murder!" through their megaphones.

Oddly enough, we got serenaded by Randall in a Grim Reaper costume. His lyrics bordered on sexual harassment and were pretty demeaning. "Don't worry ladies, I want all your children." "Girls, girls, keep abortion going." Oh well, religious nutjobs going out of their way to put you down is a sign that you're doing something right.

We did two laps around the office building before we were asked to leave by Capitol Police. You can only do so much with an impromptu protest and no permit.

I hope these protests pick up in size. We need our Congressfolk to kill this amendment!

I love healthy, living Michigan women: How about you?

Early October, I told you about the Guttmacher Institute's shocking abortion research. To sum it up, the study states "restricting the availability of legal abortions does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies...Abortion occurs in roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted or illegal."

The difference is in the quality of the procedure. Because of the poorer conditions and health risks that go along with illegal abortions, 700,000 women die each year from the procedure and 5 million are left with medical complications after the fact!! (Remember: these numbers include American women too.)

So, after a report proving that banning abortion kills, State Representative Jim Slezak (D) (and his 22 other co-signers) have recently proposed an amendment to outlaw abortion in his state of Michigan. It's tied to a human rights legislation that guarantees each person the right to life, which sure, I'll go along with, until it goes on to defines "person" as a human being who's life begins at the time of conception.

As the omniscient feminists that we are (and the fact that we can read studies like the aforementioned one,) we know that this will only create health risks and consequential deaths for the women in Michigan (and not actually bring down the number of those having abortions, like right-to-lifers would like us to believe.)

We encourage you to keep an eye out for legislation like this in your area, so that we can best protect the women in this country (especially if you are one of the many Michigan feminists out there!)

photo credit: AnnArbor on flickr.com

Are YOU a pre-existing condition?

Great new campaign ad from the National Women's Law Center (found via Jezebel) around the healthcare debate...

Health Care Reform: A Moral Question?

Via Huffington Post. William A. Smith, the VP for Public Policy at SIECUS states:

Here is where I return to the lament about the lack of consistent and
penetrating moral framework to our domestic discussion about healthcare. Moral language is the bridge back to securing rights and reviving the special sense in the American consciousness that the term ought to inspire. They are not mutually exchangeable terms or frames of reference. Further, morals lead to rights, not the reverse. Positing rights language without first successfully providing the moral argument perhaps serves short term advocacy goals, but in the end, creates a hollow shell that is ultimately difficult to defend. And here is where we find ourselves.

Smith's argument is that health care reform in the US is deteriorating because health reform advocates have failed to frame the issue as a moral one. The debate has been framed in terms of money and rights without a moral component. With this in mind, is true health care reform in the US even possible?

The Feminist Majority Foundation has framed the issue as an implicitly moral one:

• "Women spend higher percentage of income on healthcare because they earn less than men on average and often reproductive health costs are not covered. Women are more likely than male counterparts to be underinsured." (link)


• "Reproductive health services are costly and too often not covered. Birth control for women of reproductive age is the highest out-of-pocket expense." (link)


• "Women are the principal health care deciders for families and make 80% of all family health care decisions." (link)


• "The public option is essential for keeping affordable the premiums of private insurance companies by providing competition and an alternative. It ensures there is an affordable option for individuals or families who do not have health insurance access and for small businesses currently without health insurance coverage for their employees. " (link)

The need for reform due to the inequities and deep impacts facing women under the current health system is clearly stated. The moral tie to this claim is that health care reform must be passed because it would be more just and equitable to do so.

Is Smith right? Is true health care reform impossible today? Or, do we still have a chance to win true health care reform? Do we have the necessary moral ground to do so?

Misogynist of the moment: IRS

STBU, breast cancer survivors.

Mothers who cannot breastfeed due to mastectomies may not list baby formula as a pre-tax medical expense, according to Newsweek.

The Internal Revenue Service categorizes infant formula as food, which would be a personal expenditure, not a medical expense.

FAIL.

Beauty and the Beast (of Beauty Standards)

Huffington Post has a great piece today about comedian Margaret Cho and her struggles with trying to fit into a narrow and unmerciful standard of beauty.

In 1994, Cho was set to star in the first sitcom to feature an Asian American cast. While Cho is a lovely, talented woman, she was intensely criticized for her appearance and, in an effort to fit what the show wanted, she starved herself. She developed kidney failure, and the show was replaced by Drew Carey's show.

Cho says, "Women don't live their lives fully because they are always concerned about if they are thin enough to be attractive, instead of accepting their weight." Eating disorders and preoccupation with body image take their toll on the lives of millions of women every day.

The mental energy that could be used towards having a fulfilling career or healthy relationships instead goes to endless and needless worrying about aspects of our appearance that are perfect to begin with. It is with the work of people, like Margaret Cho, that women can slowly ease up on their obsession with body image and move towards not only accepting their bodies, but loving them.

Photo courtesy of www.flickr/jimdavidson

Protesting Health Care in Zambia

Earlier this summer in Zambia, there was a health care workers strike that appeared to have no end in sight. In effort to urge government to work to end the strike, the news editor of the local newspaper sent photos of a woman giving birth outside a closed hospital to the vice president and a number of other organizations.

The photos of a desperate woman struggling to survive, instead of being taken as the evidence of a serious problem, were considered pornography and Chansa Kabwela, the editor, was arrested this Monday and faces five years in prison.

Ms. Kabwela said that she sent the photos to try and get people concerned about how the strike was disproportionately effecting women. She faced additional criticism from women's groups who said that she had violated the woman's rights by circulating "inappropriate" photos.

Photo courtesy of www.flickr/kioko

Surgeon General Nomination

President Obama's administration appears to have found a new surgeon general in the woman the New York Times called the "angel in a white coat." Dr. Regina Benjamin, who became widely known as the travelling savior of the rural poor in Alabama, treated victims of both hurricanes and crippling poverty in the town of Bayou le Batre; she has also become Presiden't Obama's choice for Surgeon General, a decision to be announced later today.

It would take a lot of effort not to be awed by Dr. Benjamin's accomplishments. She began her career working on behalf of people often relegated to the margins, poor patients in extremely remote areas of Gulf Coast Alabama who could often pay little to nothing for her services. Yet even when she rose to national recognition, becoming the first black woman to be elected as the President of the Alabama Medical Association in 2002, she continued to pursue her work. In September she received the $500,000 "genius" grant from the MacArthur Foundation to rebuild her clinic after it burned down; the clinic had just months earlier been rebuilt after being destroyed by Hurricane Katrina.

Structural poverty traps, devastating hurricanes, and lack of funding have all conspired to create what should have been a hopeless situation, and yet Dr. Benjamin managed to find a model for providing healthcare in an extraordinary circumstance. With a troubled economy and a bankrupt healthcare system, the US today is facing a unique health challenge; I can't imagine anyone better suited to the job of facing this challenge. Congratulations to Dr. Regina Benjamin, and here's to a speedy confirmation.

Photo courtesy of the MacArthur Foundation, www.macfound.org

Tina Tchen, Small Businesses, and Why Women Everywhere Should Care About Health Care Reform

Overall awesome feminist, Tina Tchen (Executive Director of the White House Council on Women and Girls and Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement) just posted on the White House blog about health care and small businesses as they pertain to women's realities.

I love this post. First, because Tina Tchen is totally one of my sheroes (term borrowed from Tania - thanks!), and I LOVE the fact that the post is based on a roundtable she hosted with Secretary Sebelius at one of my favorite DC small businesses, StitchDC.

Second, I think Ms. Tchen gives us something to really sink our teeth into as feminists. We hear about health care reform and the failures of our health care system on the news all the time. I'm guilty of rolling my eyes when yet ANOTHER talking head starts to drone on about the subject. But I shouldn't, and I'm publicly promising - here and now - to do better.

Why? Because while we hear the words "Health Care Reform" regularly, as a feminist it upsets me that we don't as frequently hear about the disproportionate impact that these failures have on women or the obstacles that small business-owning women face.

According to a report released last week by the Department of Health and Human Services:

• less than half of women are able to obtain health insurance coverage through their work
• women of reproductive age are subject to higher premiums than their male counterparts (up to 150% for 22 year olds!)
• class and social status seem to have a lot to do with whether women are able to afford individual insurance plans or obtain insurance another way (e.g., through a spouse's plan)

Inequitable access to health care is a feminist issue, and health care reform should be, too. We should be seeking a fundamental change in our system of health care that encourages preventative care, makes health care accessible to all (regardless of gender, age, sexuality, marital status and/or socioeconomic class).

In her blog post, Ms. Tchen discusses the stories of some of the small women business owners she met with.

"We were joined by 7 women small business owners who explained firsthand how skyrocketing costs are making it nearly impossible for small businesses to provide health care benefits for employees and their families. Marie Connolly, who owns Stitch, discussed how difficult it was to lose employees because she was not able to offer them health care coverage. As is the case with many small business owners, Ms. Connolly was forced to choose between not providing health care insurance for her employees in order to remain competitive, or providing such benefits and risk going out of business altogether."

We can rail against corporate America all we want, but is it any surprise that in an economic crisis, people choose to work for big businesses if small, independent businesses are unable to provide benefits? Sure, we all love our indy coffee shops, but if I was an uninsured woman, or had a family to be responsible for, etc.. I can see how the benefits package at Starbucks might be more enticing. (Now, whether the coffee is tolerable or not is a completely different issue..)

The point is, for our sake and the sake of small businesses we love, we should all care about health care reform. Check out the Government's website here: HealthReform.gov to view reports and see updates. Contact your legislators and let them know you support reform, how it will alleviate difficulties for small business owners, and why equitable access to health care is important to YOU.

We hope to see movement on this in the near future, but the critical thing to remember is that such a fundamental shift in the way things are done will require a lot of work. It's incumbent upon us to keep an eye out for it, to speak up when we're concerned, and to take a stand.

As always, please comment below with your thoughts and responses!

Image source: Roadblocks to Health Care

70% of Working Women Limit Health Care b/c of Cost

According to US researchers, 70% of working-age (or 63.8 million) women have no health insurance, are underinsured, or are in debt due to medical bills.  

Comparatively, 59% of working-age (or 51.9 million) men are in similar situations.  And on top of it all, the research is from a 2007 survey and very likely underestimates the economic troubles of the current recession.

While the numbers are unacceptably high in both categories, what could possibly account for the 11% difference?  Factor in the wage gap and caregiving sacrifices alone, and it's not hard to see where the disparity comes in.

Source: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/05/12-3