Tag Archives: this week in

This Week In: Sexual Health

Posted on September 20, 2012 by E.G. Hanna

Vitamin D could be more important to fetal development than previously thought

A recent study has implicated Vitamin D deficiency in mental and motor skill impairment in infants. Vitamin D deficiency in pregnancy has previously also been linked to language impairment at later ages. The amount of vitamin D currently recommended during pregnancy varies from 600 to 2000 units per day.

A new vaginal ring being tested for use in HIV prevention

Animal testing showed promising results for a new vaginal ring, similar in form to the NuvaRing, that releases medication designed to prevent HIV infection. The ring could stay in place for months, as opposed to a gel or pill that must be used daily. If shown to work in human studies, this could allow women more control over their sexual health, especially those in situations where they may not have the power to request a condom.

In light of anti-biotic resistance, the CDC changes mind about gonorrhea treatment

The two current drug options for treating gonorrhea are cefixime and ceftriaxone. The CDC has found that cefixime has proven less effective than it used to be, due to growing antibacterial resistance of the gonorrhea organism. Gonorrhea has grown fully resistant to other classes of drugs in the past, causing worry among CDC researchers that it may become resistant to ceftriaxone as well, leaving it untreatable. Gonorrhea is preventable by using condoms.

This Week In: Abortion

Posted on May 10, 2012 by E.G. Hanna

Leave a reply

“The Republican-led Arizona legislature has now taken measures to cut off Planned Parenthood’s access to taxpayer money funneled through the state for non-abortion services.” Use of taxpayer money for abortion was already illegal, but apparently that wasn’t good enough – now Planned Parenthood will receive no funding. It is unclear at this time exactly how this will affect its services, but it is certain that this inhibits its ability to provide health care services at a reasonable cost. For people – especially women – in Arizona without health insurance, this is a direct hit to their ability to receive lifesaving cancer screenings, STD prevention and treatment, and affordable birth control.

Utah now requires a 72 hour waiting period before an abortion. Previously, there was a 24-hour waiting period but, as of Tuesday, it has expanded to three full days. I’ll be honest: waiting period laws make me angrier than any other abortion law. There’s no pretense of protecting fetuses here; it’s all about “protecting” fragile women from their emotionally burdened lady brains. As if women need the government to remind them to think about their decision, to take it seriously! It’s insulting. The real kicker here is that there’s no loophole for non-viable fetuses, so women are forced to carry a pregnancy that could not and will not result in a live birth for three extra days which, frankly, is just plain cruel.

Wisconsin’s Planned Parenthood suspends non-surgical abortions. There is a new law in effect that “requires women visit a doctor at least three times before having a drug-induced abortion, forces physicians to determine whether a woman is being coerced into having an abortion, and prohibits women and doctors from using web cams during the procedure.” Three times? How unnecessary. In case you’re wondering about the web cam thing, they are referring to the possibility of a doctor counseling the woman about her medication via webcam – a good option when there is are a limited number of abortion providers in your state. Aside from the obvious problems here, like interfering with the relationship between the patient and her doctor and limiting a woman’s access to abortion, this poses an issue for women unique to this law – insisting that women have a surgical rather than a medical abortion. There are pros and cons to both methods (look for an upcoming post about abortion options!), but some women prefer the medical because it is more private and less physically invasive. Losing this option may make their abortion experience even more difficult for Wisconsin women.

If you live in Arizona, Utah or Wisconsin, consider contacting your representatives to let them know you’re unhappy with their shenanigans. If you want to do something about anti-choice activities in your area, contact your local representatives or sign up at Planned Parenthood Action Network to keep up to date. (Please note that our “action” site is provided by our C4, or political advocacy, arm.)

This Week In: Politics and My Increasing Frustration

Posted on March 6, 2012 by E.G. Hanna

Leave a reply

No, I’m not actually an anarchist. And I’ll probably end up voting for Obama again, just to avoid having a president who will take away our birth control and make safe abortions illegal. But sometimes I look at our political system and the culture in which we must struggle for our rights and our health and just think … damn.

• So March is Women’s History Month and the Obama administration issued a Proclamation about it. I read through it, finding “promoting workplace flexibility, striving to bring more women into math and science professions, and fighting for equal pay for equal work,” OK; “combating violence against women,” OK; “equal role in peace-building” OK … wait a minute. No mention of reproductive health? Birth control? Abortion? Any mention of the issues all over the headlines every day recently? At my most generous, that’s … an odd oversight. Cynical me thinks that this is a meaningless proclamation designed to be as inoffensive as possible to avoid any controversy (which, to Democrats, means making Republicans mad). Do women’s reproductive health choices only matter when the administration is trying to pass a healthcare bill? I hope not. I was also bothered by this phrase: “While we have made great strides toward equality, we cannot rest until our mothers, sisters, and daughters assume their rightful place as full participants in a secure, prosperous, and just society.” Um, this nation has many women citizens fully capable of working towards equality – why is that phrased like the country is full of dudes who just happen to be related to women? Perhaps it was phrased that way because most of his administration is made up of men…oh snap.

• So, not only were women not included in the Congress panel on contraception, but the one woman who was invited (by the Democrats, of course) was not allowed to speak because her name was allegedly submitted too late … sure. Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, came to testify about the importance of birth control to women’s health and success. Even though she wasn’t even allowed to speak, she has still been subjected to media harassment. She’s been called a slut and a prostitute for admitting to needing birth control just like millions of American women. I’m not linking to a page because, frankly, I don’t want to give a certain someone more media attention, but Google if you must. But, in case you were under the impression that conservatives don’t think you’re a whore for being a sexual human being who uses contraception, sorry.

If you’d like to support Sandra Fluke, you can reach her on Twitter @sandrafluke. Have you guys been keeping up on the birth control stuff in the news? What are your thoughts?

This Week In: Your Government, the Good, the Bad, and the Huh?

Posted on January 31, 2012 by E.G. Hanna

Leave a reply

Obama has denied requests from religious organizations hoping to withhold insurance coverage of contraception to their employees. Under the Affordable Health Care Act, birth control will be covered as preventive care (finally!), and some religiously-affiliated businesses argued that this violated their conscience. After Obama’s decision, although churches will be exempt from providing this coverage, employees of religious universities and hospitals will soon be able to get their birth control covered regardless of their employer’s beliefs. (Psst, church employees, Planned Parenthood still has affordable birth control if you need it!)

The Republican party had their debate in Florida Thursday night. You know, I tend to get a little lazy about following primaries because I often already have firm opinions about who I’m voting for, but I do think it’s important to know what the candidates are out there saying. When candidates speak, I try to remember that they aren’t necessarily saying what they believe, but what their advisors think voters want to hear, and that allows us a glimpse at the public’s fears and desires. This debate had the super-rich Romney and Gingrich defending their controversial financial investments while also asserting that being rich just means that you work hard, and arguments over health-care reform where the focus of an attack on Romney’s Massachessets’ health care plan was that it too closely resembled Obama’s. There is a lot to unpack there, but I think my favorite part was Gingrich and Romney arguing over who is the most pro-immigrant; I was surprised to find that being too harsh on immigration was supposed to be a bad thing in the Republican party, although the old chestnut about immigrants stealing our jobs was trotted out, as usual. Did any of you watch the primary, and what did you think?

And, in your What-On-Earth news of the day, a Senator in Oklahoma has proposed a bill to ban the use of aborted human fetuses in products or food. Some questions immediately come to mind, such as: What? Why? Isn’t that…already illegal because of state infection control and biological material disposal regulations? (Yes, by the way). But it’s real. According to Senator Shortey who proposed the bill, its aim is actually to prevent use of stem cells in food products, which he states some companies have used to produce certain flavors. However, the actual language of the law states “no person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development in any of the ingredients.” I’m not sure Senator Shortey is too clear on the concept of stem cell research and how it works, but I’m interested to see how the rest of the Oklahoma government responds to his proposal.

This Week In: Sexism

Posted on January 5, 2012 by E.G. Hanna

Leave a reply

● My new favorite blog Skepchick writes about what happens when a teenage girl posts a headshot of her holding a Carl Sagan book on an Atheist forum. Spoilers: Rape jokes, misogyny, then some more rape jokes. Why is this significant? Because too often this type of behavior is assumed to be the realm of the openly hateful–maybe the super right-wing, or the fanatically-religious, or the men’s rights activists, or the frat jocks–but sometimes we forget that even the supposedly liberal spaces can be hostile and dangerous for women. Things like this serve to remind us that there is still a lot of work to do.

● The Lego Company is releasing a new line for girls…for some reason. Why it’s assumed girls can’t just play with regular Legos, I don’t know. To the surprise of no one, the girls’ Legos will have less boxy, more lithe and shapely figurines, and feature pastel sets with lots of pink. I’m no longer surprised by marketing that is divided into a male/female dichotomy, nor am I surprised that items marketed to girls would be rife with pastels. I even get that it’s more about capitalism then sexism. But really, what is it with marketers being so uncreative that they always seem to reach for the old-fashioned gender stereotypes? Is the part of our brain that makes us want to buy stuff on the opposite side of the critical thinking part? I don’t get it.

● Women in Egypt continue being awesome, in what according to the New York Times historians are calling “the biggest women’s demonstration in modern Egyptian history.” These protests were triggered after soldiers stormed Tahrir Square, stripped a woman of her abaya and revealed her bra. Discussion of the protests requires much more nuance and detail than can be covered in this post, but the gist of it is anger at the military council and its behavior towards dissenters. I don’t know about you but I find the protesters courage really inspiring, and I’ll be following the news closely.

● And you may have seen it already, but frankly looking at current events can be a little depressing, so lets wrap this up with a freaking adorable girl ranting over the ridiculousness of the gender division between boys’ and girls’ toys. Seeing kids learn these lessons so young makes me hopeful for the future.

This Week In: Sexism

Posted on November 17, 2011 by E.G. Hanna

Leave a reply

Sexual harassment has been highlighted in the media lately and, though I’m glad awareness seems to be increasing, the messages being put out are not great for women.

● Katie Roiphe at the New York Times writes an article dismissing sexual harassment as something too “vague, subjective, slippery” to care about, and says “Show me a smart, competent young professional woman who is utterly derailed by a verbal unwanted sexual advance or an inappropriate comment about her appearance, and I will show you a rare spotted owl.” I don’t know about you, but when I’ve been sexually harassed I was never derailed but I was hurt, embarrassed, nauseated and angry. And it was still harassment.

● Nonprofit research organization American Association of University Women found in a research study that “nearly half” of 7th to 12th graders out of a representative group of 1,965 students have experienced sexual harassment in the last school year. Girls were more likely than boys to have experienced physical sexual harassment, and female students reported that the harassment that bothered them the most were unwelcome sexual comments. Boys stated that the harassment that had the “worst effect” on them was being called gay.

● J. Bryan Lowder at XXfactor weighed in on the above study and missed the point entirely, referring to the harassment as “youthful mistakes” made out of “adolescent ignorance,” and stating that writing on Facebook that a girl is a “whore” [is not] equivalent to molesting her at a party.”

Okay, this sounds a lot like the old “don’t you have more important things to worry about?” derail. The problem here is that when someone finds it necessary to point out that a particular type of harassment is not as severe as other kinds, they – whether they mean to or not – sound dismissive of said harassment. And this dismissal would be a mistake because it’s not just the level of harassment that we should consider, it’s the cause. Minor and severe harassment or assault are manifestations of the same internalized cultural beliefs. Calling a boy gay in a derogatory manner and beating up a gay kid come from the same belief that being gay is wrong. Grabbing girls in the hallways at school and assaulting them at a party come from the same belief that girls exist as sex objects that don’t deserve bodily autonomy. And if we dismiss school harassment as youthful immaturity we miss a chance to teach our kids better values before their behavior becomes even more harmful to others.

● And in case you missed it, Sady Doyle of the excellent blog Tiger Beatdown recently started a Twitter hashtag called #mencallmethings to illustrate the type of gendered abuse women bloggers receive on the internet. Trigger warning for lots of sexist comments, rape and assault threats, and foul language. It’s an interesting window into the types of comments women writers on the internet have to deal with on a regular basis.

This Week In: Birth Control

Posted on November 3, 2011 by E.G. Hanna

Leave a reply

● The world population has (possibly) reached 7 billion this week!

● Salon considers how the passage of a Personhood amendment would affect the legality of birth control. Mississippi votes next week on its so-called “personhood” amendment, and personhood supporters are working to get such an amendment put forward in every state.

● Personhood amendment supporter finally admits that if passed, some – if not all – birth control may become illegal. An interesting admission, considering the vast majority of personhood amendment advertisements insist that contraception will not be outlawed.

● Ron Paul comes out against President Obama’s health care plan that insists birth control be covered as preventive care under health insurance, stating that it “violates the conscience of millions of pro-life Americans,” and that furthermore he will “veto any bill with funding for Planned Parenthood or any other international family planning regimes.” Yet another candidate falling in line with the anti-birth control, anti-health care talk.

● The FDA is concerned about an increased risk of blood clots on birth control pills containing the hormone drospirenone. They won’t make any official statement until Dec. 8th of this year, but it looks like it may be bad news for women who love their Yasmin, Yaz, or their generics. Their concern does not extend to other birth control pills that don’t contain that hormone, but if you’re concerned about the risk of blood clots, you can update yourself on the symptoms to look out for here.

● And finally for some good news! The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is sponsoring the Future of Contraception Initiative and they are focusing on male birth control. Some researchers “have found they are able to turn off sperm production in most, but not all, men” and they are also looking at “non-hormonal contraceptives that directly interfere with sperm production.” This sounds like great news, but haven’t there been stories about male birth control coming onto the market for years now? I’ll believe it when I see it.