Paid Maternity Leave? Forget it!

Get a load of this article from the New York Times about how the United States is NOT one of the 170 countries that offer a paid maternity leave. GET WITH THE PROGRAM ALREADY!

Another Blanket (Yawn)

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

Latest from the nursing-mothers-are-legally-protected-to-breastfeed-in-public front:
this law is unfamiliar to the manager of a Kentucky Applebee’s. A story that ran in the Lexington Herald describes the dispute between a breastfeeding mom and the restaurant manager. Asked to cover up and offered a blanket to do so, little separates this seemingly ubiquitous story from being like the others. (And maybe that’s the point: even once protected by law, it’s such a hidden one that no one feels compelled to follow it). The nursing mom, Brooke Ryan, however, had a copy of the law in hand, pointing out to those in charge that she was within her rights to breastfeed in public—and without a blanket. In going public, Ryan compared her situation to Rosa Parks’ on the bus, except with a blanket.

A discreet breastfeeding mom (and we who have done it for years believe women if they say they are discreet) isn’t a public eyesore. Whether Ryan’s actions were staged, it matters not. While the nod to Parks might seem extreme, an articulate woman like Ryan demanded a simple, and I think fitting thing from Applebee’s: an apology.

Meantime, the June story is resurfacing now because on September 8th, a series of Nurse-Ins are being scheduled at Applebee’s restaurants around the country.

These stories don’t make big headlines necessarily beyond the local angles. Perhaps, though, on a national stage, it’s our duty in supporting women’s experiences from being invisible to keep taking note.

Watching the Post Reveal a Breastfeeding Campaign Gone Lame

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

It’s only a conspiracy theory if they’re NOT out to get you.

This could apply to breastfeeding advocates. A recent story in the Washington Post revealed that with help from a former head to the Republican National Committee turned lobbyist, formula companies were successful in getting political appointees from the Department of Health and Human Services to tone down their pro-breastfeeding campaigns. Rather than depict the ills of formula with asthma inhalers and insulin syringes, the ads instead showed more “friendly” images of
dandelions and cherry-topped ice cream scoops to show how breastfeeding can help stem childhood obesity.

Representative Henry Waxman, investigating the matter in the wake of former Surgeon General Richard Carmona’s claims that the White House pressured him to make certain policies, called the softening of the breastfeeding campaign ads a “credible allegation of public interference” with potential “serious health consequences.” The US breastfeeding rate did not increase with the kinder, gentler ad campaign and lags well behind Europe. While the original ads were to scare women into breastfeeding, the final product became ads that tried to encourage women into breastfeeding by extolling its benefits, an approach the company hired to consult on the campaign predicted would be unsuccessful, and, not incidentally, was unsuccessful.

The Post article chronicles how formula companies were able to assert themselves such that HHS officials tried to “be fair” to the companies, rather than press hard for public health concerns. This story has made its way across the blogosphere. While some newspapers, including the Kansas City Star, picked up the Post story, other outlets have yet toreport upon it. Breaking just before Labor Day (no pun intended), the jury’s out about whether the story will travel further. Its narrative echoes other complaints about public health, but also management writ larger (think, Katrina, Iraq, oil drilling). My question: will the story follow in those footsteps of mismanagement due to pandering to big business or will the story not be as prominently featured because breastfeeding seems to be shunted to “women’s” issues rather than a national concern (even if the public health implications might loom
large).

What?

This is just too bizarre for me...
I'm sorry to rip directly from Feministing, but sometimes it's too good to pass up.

Full Frontal Feminism

Ok, I somehow missed Jessica Valenti promoting her book Full Frontal Feminism on Colbert this summer (how?!?!?) In case you did as well:



I haven´t read FFF yet, but I am a big fan of Feministing so I can´t wait to get my hands on a copy. Just one question, Jessica, why the back-breaking heels when talking about unattainable beauty?

Malalai Joya is Suspended from Parliament

Malalai Joya has been suspended from Parliament in Afghanistan. Please click here to read this important article.

Let's Talk About Sex

"Let's Talk About Sex" by Atul Gawande, published in the New York Times on May 19th is an informative read, and since it's in TimeSelect and I'm not supposed to re-publish it, I will link to it here.

More Contraception, Fewer Abortions

by Carol Towarnicky

From the Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2007 issue of the Philadelphia Daily News. Click here to see the original article.

PLANNING parenthood is the right thing, the moral thing to do. Most Americans, whatever their faith or lack of it, believe this. Eighty-nine percent of women of childbearing age use some form of contraception.

It is such a given that some of our fellow citizens are quick to judge those they assume have had children they didn't plan for.

Writing sympathetically of mothers who struggle to feed or house their children is sure to prompt letters or e-mails calling them irresponsible for having kids in the first place.

At the same time, a Harris poll last spring found that support for Roe v. Wade, which decriminalized abortion, is at its lowest point ever - 49 percent in favor, 47 percent against. They are ambivalent about abortion in part because of a brilliant framing of the issue by anti-choice forces. Perhaps they are troubled by the fact that there are 1.3 million abortions in the United States each year, the highest rate in the developed world.

(Note to those who shy away from calling abortion "sad" or "tragic" for fear of adding to the ambivalence: Can't we agree it's better not to have an unintended pregnancy in the first place?)

Thousands of people took part in the March for Life marking the 34th anniversary of Roe on Monday. What I want to know is why they weren't examining their collective conscience to acknowledge their own contribution to the number of abortions?

No pro-life organization I know of actually supports increased access to contraception. The farthest they go is neutrality on the subject. In fact, many anti-abortion activists do their best to make birth control harder to get.

Few people outside these movements realize this. Anti-birth-control people don't dare come out and say that contraception is a sin - that would be a surefire way to turn off the overwhelming majority of Americans who use it. Instead, they bear false witness about the safety and effectiveness of birth control.

They claim that government funding for contraception for poor women is used to provide abortions, which simply isn't true. In fact, family planning funding is subject to strict regulation and auditing - oversight missing on government-funded abstinence-only and "alternatives to abortion" programs.

Pressure from religious-right investment funds have scared away pharmaceutical companies from doing research on better and more convenient contraceptive methods. Under the Bush administration, government-funded abstinence-only programs withhold the truth about contraception and even pass on false claims of health dangers.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has included false information on its Web site suggesting that condoms are not effective in preventing the spread of the HIV virus that causes AIDS.

The FDA was also complicit in a transparent attempt to delay making emergency contraception available over the counter for more than two years, even though it met all the requirements.

The campaign against planned parenthood culminated a few days after November's election when President Bush appointed Dr. Eric Keroack as director of the program that oversees 4,600 clinics providing family-planning services to low income women.

Keroack turns out to be a crackpot who maintains that people who engage in premarital sex use up a hormone, oxytocin, that prevents them from forging strong marriages. On top of that, Keroack headed a group that refused to provide contraception even to married couples.

AFTER SIX years of this insanity, finally there's a smart response: Legislation introduced in the U.S. Senate this month would increase family-planning funding to the level it would be if it had kept up with inflation. And - get this - the "Prevention First" legislation would ensure that the information given out by our own government about birth control is medically accurate.

Truth and responsibility is the right thing, the moral thing.




Praying With the News: On C-Span last week, Wisconsin Rep. Tammy Baldwin was filling in at the speaker's chair, occasionally pounding the gavel for order. An out lesbian presiding over the House. Thank you, God, for allowing us to reach this moment. Amen.

Real “Women?”

By C. Bradford

Upon graduating from Scripps College, an all women’s liberal arts college, this past May, I had idealized thoughts of what the “real world” would be like. True, I already knew that many of my imaginings could not come to pass anytime soon. For example, seeing President Bush step down and a woman step up would make my political dreams come true, (which are already on the way with Nancy Pelosi now in power!) At the same time, I could not help but make what I thought to be “realistic expectations” for what lay in store. What follows is an example from the real world about how real women do not support each other, and instead tear themselves (and each other) down in their attempts to gain a competitive edge.

In June, I began a postbaccalaureate program at a competitive school in the Pacific Northwest in order to enter a master’s program. I am thrilled to finally be studying what I am really passionate about, and living in the Northwest (one of the most laid-back, liberal places on the West coast, complete with people walking around in Birkenstocks and socks) is very refreshing compared to the stuffy Southern California attitude. I was ready for a change, and I knew that I could not have chosen a better place to begin my life-after-Scripps.

At the orientation meeting, I was excited to find out that twenty out of twenty-two people in my program were women. After all, I had just graduated from a powerful women’s college, and my four years there had reinforced my opinions about valuing and respecting women in all aspects of life. After going through one-by-one and hearing a brief synopsis of my classmates’ backgrounds, education, why they love the field, and their middle name, I was proud to be part of this group of amazing women (and two men) and was excited to begin classes.

But things are not always as they seem. I first began to doubt my expectations soon after the introductions were made and people were milling around eating and drinking, when I realized that everyone was keeping track of how much everyone else was eating. One girl practically yelled across the room at me, “Oh my God, you’ve had like a thousand Teddy Grahams! How are you so skinny?” as if she expected me to gain all that weight right before her very eyes. Or maybe she expected me to blow up like Violet from Willy Wonka once she started chewing three-course-meal gum. She then proceeded to impersonate a fat person by puffing out her checks and extending her arms at her sides, saying that that is what she would like if she had eaten all those Teddy Grahams, (like a thousand). I was shocked that she would venture to do something that stupid in front of everyone, especially since we had just met. It was even more disturbing that she had been monitoring my vast consumption of the free food provided (true to form of any Scrippsie), and would judge me for it.

Throughout the next few weeks, similar instances like this happened with the other women in the program. They were not limited to food and eating, for example, all of the women would dote on the few men in the program, acting flirty and touchy-feely with them. I felt like I was constantly up against a jury that never ceased to make judgments about me and each other. I did not understand; I was accustomed to being surrounded by women, but these were a very different sort than I was used to.

The structure of the program does not easily provide for real, meaningful relationships, either. The courses were lecture-based, and grades were almost completely derived on scores from three standardized tests. After the tests were scored by a computer, they would post all the scores corresponding to our seven digit ID number. This way, everyone could guess what number matched what person, and how she did on the test. This, along with the occasional “group” projects, where people would form cliques at the first mention and then remain attached at the hip, dictated our grades. The whole situation seemed to foster competitiveness, and before I knew it, people started paying attention to all the extracurricular activities outside of school that we were engaging in. It was a giant contest to see who could be the best, and who would “take your spot” in graduate school.

It was every woman for herself, and I felt like I could not do anything without receiving some sort of scrutiny from the firing squad. Eventually, my roommate Shannon, who is also in the program, and I started to isolate ourselves from the group because we did not enjoy the constant judgment which seemed to be attached to all friendships among the postbacs. This separation from the group caused some rumors to go around, including one that Shannon and I were lesbians. We laughed because that seemed to be their only reason, and poor explanation, for why two women would be such close friends. After that rumor died, another one started that explained our lack of interest in bonding with the group by assuming we were snobs. Now, there is another that we are too dorky for the group. All in all, we do not fit in, and it seems as though we never will.

Then I got to thinking about the women in my program and women in general (that is, outside of Scripps), and I decided that we are practically two different species: one type encourages feminism and equal opportunities, recognizing that it is important to support all women because we are all in it together. The other type is fake, and likes to pretend that they are in it for the same reasons, yet at the same time, they work behind your back, constantly judging and putting down other women to make themselves feel better and to get ahead in the game. Given this situation, my species seems to be endangered, which is something that I never expected to find.

At a pre-grad school Q & A session with one of my favorite professors, the topic was raised of women in the field. To my relief, she started off on a tangent about how women in the field need to stick together and support each other. Oftentimes dealing with the doctors in related fields, mostly men, our opinions get put to the wayside and discarded, even though they are just as valid, relevant, and possibly more knowledgeable given the circumstance and reason for diagnosis and treatment. Her tangent was greeted with inky skepticism and vacant stares. That was so depressing. How could they not be aware of our potential as a field of educated women? Was I the only one who was reassured and comforted about this epiphany? That yes, a Scripps view on life and womanhood can exist in the real world? No one else said a thing, and as I looked around, I tried not to let the others affect my giddy excitement and rediscovered meaning of the word “woman.”

The more I think about the women in my program, the more I realize how different I am. It seems to me that they all get along very well with the men in our program, and yet refuse to get close to another woman except on some sort of superficial and phony level. If the women in this “ranked number two in the nation” program act this way towards each other, then think of how other women must behave toward one another. I am not one of these women who seem to feel that it’s somehow necessary to become a man in order to survive, and if that defines what being a woman in the “real world” really is, then I don’t want any part of it.

EC: It Isn't Just For Women Anymore (Exactly)

By Sarah Werthan Buttenwieser

When I was an undergrad interested in women’s health care, my end-of-semester project for biology class was to study sperm. My friend (and lab partner) and I had solid reasoningsa for this: the kind of revolutionaries we wanted to be in the women’s health field were ones who created a viable male contraceptive (besides condoms, which we knew from experience males did not particularly like). This project, by the way, dates me because it was just at the early cusp of the AIDS epidemic back when sexually transmitted diseases basically meant gonorrhea, syphilis and herpes. Anyway, the point was that almost all research was going into new contraceptives for women (the sponge, for example), and some of it felt invasive or scary to us, personally. Certain IUD’s were facing recall. Depo-Provera and other long-acting drug fixes weren’t necessarily safe, but were being pushed and the pill had undergone some serious refining from its early days when the hormonal doses were way too high and had caused many problems. We noticed that female contraceptives had a way of being pushed before they were well tested, but that male contraceptives didn’t seem to reach the widespread testing phase. Obviously, we understood that like with condoms, compliance was an issue that worried those in public health; men, given their inability to get pregnant, perhaps would be less responsible than women about using contraceptives.

These days, condoms are, at least in theory, critical for both males and females.

Interestingly, now that Emergency Contraceptives (EC or Plan B, or the Morning After Pill) are going to become available over the counter in pharmacies (including, after a lawsuit, Wal-Mart), both women and men can buy them. The barrier now isn’t gender but age: you have to be eighteen to purchase EC (see this article in Women's ENews). Having said that, boyfriends, sisters, brothers or mothers can now obtain EC for women under eighteen (as long as they have picture ID). The other barriers may be cost (Medicaid won’t cover over-the-counter drugs), and ensuring that all pharmacists provide it (although now chains will, what about individual pharmacists at independent pharmacies?).

While more types of female contraceptives are widely available, no significant gains have been made in creating or marketing male contraceptives. And the rate for unintended pregnancy rate in the US remains high: forty-nine percent in 2001.

Take Action: This Man Doesn't Believe in Birth Control

As mentioned in the NYT article previosly posted,

Eric Keroack was the medical director of five so-called "crisis
pregnancy centers" that oppose contraception and do not
distribute information promoting birth control. In Keroack's new
role, he will oversee hundreds of millions of dollars in federal
funding meant to provide access to contraception and
reproductive health information. This politically motivated
appointment is not in the health interest of women and families.

Please sign this petition to Secretary Leavitt and make your voice heard.

Dear Secretary Leavitt,

As an advocate for women's health and access to birth control and medically accurate sex education, I am outraged by the appointment of Eric Keroack to the position of deputy assistant secretary for population affairs (DASPA). Eric Keroack's role as the medical director of six so-called "crisis pregnancy centers" that oppose contraception and family planning calls into question his ability to administer the nation's family planning program. Keroack also has testified in favor of biased counseling provisions in the Massachusetts legislature and has produced numerous writings that promote politics over sound science and medicine.

As the new DASPA, Keroack will oversee Title X and have authority over hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding meant to provide access to contraception and reproductive health information. Title X has been crucial in helping millions of American women prevent unintended pregnancies and obtain reproductive health care for three decades.

The appointment of anti-birth control, anti-sex education advocate Eric Keroack to oversee the nation's family planning program is not in the health interest of women and families. Three weeks ago, Americans overwhelmingly rejected an extremist agenda, and sent a clear message that women's health care is a priority. I am asking you to do the same.

It's time to move forward with policies that can help prevent unintended pregnancies, including support for broader access to contraceptives and comprehensive, fact-based sex education. Because I care about commonsense solutions that protect women's health, like an affirmative Prevention First agenda that includes full funding for birth control, I urge you to replace Eric Keroack with a Title X administrator who is committed to protecting women's health.

Signed by:
[Your name]
[Your address]

Family Planning Farce

Published by the New York Times on November 24, 2006

Family Planning Farce