Escrito por Rachel; traducido por Ema Rosero del orginial en inglés Sept 26, 2011.

A principios de este año, Guttmacher, reportó que en la primara parte del 2011,  los estados promulgaron un número record de restricciones para el aborto.  Parece que cada semana hay noticias de alguna nueva restricción, como la promulgación de leyes aprobadas en Arizona y una nueva prohibición para algunos tipos de abortos en embarazos más avanzados (llamados abortos de “nacimiento parcial”) en Michigan.

Ayer, el New York Times publicó un editorial,  “¿A dónde se están yendo los derechos para el aborto?”  El artículo declara que “una nueva motivación intensificada por fuerzas anti-aborto que rehúsa aceptar la ley del país ha puesto en serio peligro la capacidad de las mujeres para ejercer este derecho.”  Viene acompañado por un mapa que presenta las restricciones para el aborto en los estados.
El editorial termina con una llamada a la acción:

Una lección clara que surge del número creciente de nuevas leyes estatales es que a los que les importa mantener seguro, legal y accesible  el procedimiento, necesitan alzar su voz fuertemente y con eficacia, como lo hacen los del otro lado. Si no lo hacen, y rápidamente, ese número perjudicial de restricciones va a seguir en aumento, al costo de la vida, salud, e igualdad de las mujeres.

¿Ha sido afectado su estado por el incremento de restricciones para el acceso al aborto? ¿Cómo está respondiendo?

Escrito por Rachel; traducido por Ema Rosero del orginial en inglés Sept. 20, 2011.

Los bisfosfonatos (p.e. Fosamax, Boniva, etc.) son medicamentos para el tratamiento y la prevención de la osteoporosis en mujeres postmenopáusicas, pero hay preocupación por los posibles efectos secundarios causados por el uso de estos medicamentos por periodos largos.  Entre los posibles efectos secundarios se incluyen: fracturas atípicas de fémur (muslo), osteonecrosis (muerte de la mandíbula), y cáncer de esófago.

El otoño pasado, la FDA pidió cambios en las etiquetas de los bisfosfonatos para incluir advertencias sobre riesgos de fracturas, para explicar que no se sabe exactamente el tiempo que se debe consumir el medicamento, y recomendar que pacientes y doctores reevalúen periódicamente el uso del medicamento.

Recientemente, algunos comités de la FDA encargados de los medicamentos para la salud reproductiva y del manejo de la seguridad/riesgo de las medicinas, se reunieron para discutir el consumo extendido (>3-5 años) de bisfosfonatos, y sus posibles complicaciones.

En un documento informativo preparado para la reunión, la FDA revisó evidencias sobre estos relativamente raros pero preocupantes efectos, y concluyó: “La seguridad para el consumo prolongado de  bisfosfonatos aún no es clara, por cuanto los resultados de los estudios sobre la posible relación entre la osteonecrosis de la mandíbula, las fracturas atípicas de fémur, o el cáncer del esófago, y el uso de bisfosfonatos para la prevención y el tratamiento de la osteoporosis son conflictivos.”

La agencia concluyó que la evidencia sugiere un aumento en la incidencia de osteonecrosis de la mandíbula con un uso prolongado, especialmente de 4 años o más, pero que se necesitan estudios más profundos.  También dice, “Las fracturas atípicas….parecen tener una asociación importante con los bisfosfonatos, pero no hay actualmente consenso en cuanto a la manera como el uso acumulado de bisfosfonatos aumenta los riesgos de este tipo de fractura poco común.  Finalmente, no hay evidencia definitiva para apoyar la relación entre el cáncer de esófago y el uso prolongado de bisfosfonatos.”

En cuanto a los posibles beneficios resultantes del uso prolongado de bisfosfonatos para reducir fracturas relacionadas con la osteoporosis, la agencia no encontró beneficios evidentes.  “Los resultados sugieren que no hay ventajas de importancia en continuar usando esta medicina por más de 5 años.”

El New York Times también informa acerca de las recientes reuniones de la FDA, y destaca: “El comité convocó a más estudios para establecer la eficacia del medicamento en la meta deseada de prevenir fracturas.  Así mismo, los asesores recomendaron que la FDA examine la razón por la que el medicamento es recetado como medicina preventiva a mujeres que nunca han tenido osteoporosis.”

Para más información sobre este tema, vea nuestras previas entradas de blog, y la Red Nacional de la Salud de la Mujer (the National Women’s Health Network), la cual también pregunta si este producto debe ser comercializado y recetado como medicina preventiva para mujeres con buena salud.

Escrito por Rachel; traducido por Ema Rosero del orginial en inglés Sept. 1, 2011.

Muchas personas que usan cosméticos en los Estados Unidos no se dan cuenta que no se requieren pruebas o aprobación de la FDA para la comercialización de cosméticos.  A su vez, la Agencia Federal no tiene autoridad para requerir que el fabricante retire del mercado productos que no son seguros.  Como los cosméticos no son regulados de la misma manera que los medicamentos, es más difícil para el consumidor hacer una decisión informada, y la FDA tiene menos poder para regular la industria de los cosméticos y para responder a los problemas.

La Ley para Cosméticos Seguros del 2011 (Safe Cosmetics Act of 2011), propuesta por Janic Schakowsky (IL-D) tiene el propósito de ayudar a llenar algunos de estos vacíos en la regulación de los cosméticos.

Esta ley daría poder al gobierno para retirar del mercado los cosméticos no seguros, para requerir mejor información sobre sus ingredientes, establecer estándares de seguridad adicionales y requerir que el fabricante provea información sobre la seguridad del producto.  La ley impone la obligación de informar sobre los efectos adversos para la salud, permite la prohibición de ingredientes que tienen efectos que pueden causar cáncer o problemas con la salud reproductiva, estimula alternativas a las pruebas en animales, aborda la seguridad de los trabajadores, junto a otras medidas.

La Campaña para la Seguridad de los Cosméticos que promueve esta ley, y una mayor conciencia sobre las preocupaciones de la seguridad del consumidor tiene más información.

Escrito por Raquel; traducido por Ema Rosero del orginial en inglés Jan 24, 2011

La semana pasada la Dra. Regina M. Benjamín, Cirujana General de los Estados Unidos, expidió “Llamado a la acción en apoyo a la lactancia materna de la cirujana general” (The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding). El informe describe los obstáculos y las tasas de lactancia materna en los Estados Unidos y los beneficios de salud, los beneficios económicos, sicológicos y ambientales de la lactancia materna. El informe es un llamado de acción a toda persona para tomar medidas que faciliten las opciones disponibles a madres para amamantar a sus bebés.

En lugar de únicamente invitar a las mujeres a amamantar a sus hijos(as), el informe hace un llamado a que los padres y las abuelas sean educados sobre la lactancia materna, a que se fortalezca el apoyo comunitario entre madres, a que las madres aborden cómo  está mercadeando la leche de fórmula, asegurar que guarderías que cuidan infantes apoyen la lactancia, que haya consultores(as) de lactancia accesible para madres y que se continúen haciendo estudios de investigación.

El continuo apoyo de madres en lugares de trabajo y en la comunidad es importante porque los factores por los cuales mujeres dejan de amamantar más temprano de lo que ellas quisieran se debe a factores externos tales como la falta de descansos para empleados durante horas laborables y la falta de instalaciones para extraer la leche materna en los lugares de trabajo. Al presente tres cuartas partes de las mujeres estadounidenses que intentan continuar lactando pero menos de la mitad, han continuado amamantando por un mínimo de seis meses. La Dra. Benjamín indicó lo siguiente:

Existen muchas barreras para madres que quisieran lactar por lo que estas madres no deberían confrontar estos desafíos a solas. Así usted sea un/a médico/a, un miembro de familia, amigo/a, o empleado/a, uno puede colaborar en ayudar a las madres que desean dar de pecho a sus bebés.

En la medida en que nos mantenemos vigilantes con respecto al retroceso de provisiones para la reforma de salud, hemos de mantener los ojos abiertos con respecto a la lactancia materna ya que la legislación aprobada el año pasado incluyó para enmendar la Ley de Normas Razonables de Trabajo (Fair Labor Standards Act)  para asegurar que los empleadores provean descansos razonables para madres lactantes y en áreas privadas que no sean los baños.

Escrito por Christine; traducido por Ema Rosero del orginial en inglés Jan 19, 2011.

La mayoría de adolescentes y adultos sexualmente activos en los Estados Unidos utilizan métodos anticonceptivos y favorecen que la mujer haga por sí misma decisiones sobre su salud reproductiva. A pesar de este apoyo, los que se oponen a la planificación familiar y a los derechos de las mujeres han intentando presentarse como la verdadera voz de moralidad y han logrado avances políticos que amenazan la salud de la mujer.

Este año se celebró el 38vo aniversario de Roe vs. Wade el día 22 de enero. El grupo “Defensores para la salud de la mujer y la Campaña Cinta de Plata para que la mujer asuma sus derechos de reproducción y de justicia” (Silver Ribbon Campaign to Trust Women for Reproductive Rights and Justice) ha demostrado nuestra fortaleza y se ha reivindicado con respecto a los derechos que tiene la mujer para obtener servicios de salud.

La Campaña Cinta de Plata es el esfuerzo de docenas de organizaciones incluyendo Nuestros Cuerpos Nuestras Vidas, para darle prioridad a la ciencia sobre la ideología, ofrecerle a la mujer el apoyo debido sobre métodos para salud reproductiva, el acceso gratuito a anticonceptivos y el acceso al aborto legal.

Usted puede participar compartiendo la información a través de Twitter y el Facebook y llevando la cinta de plata “Confíe en la Mujer” a partir del 22 de enero hasta el 22 de febrero. Haga su propia cinta o puede hacer una donación a las organizaciones participantes para recibir una cinta.

Puede ir a la página de internet: OurSilverRibbon.org, para compartir su historia y mantenerse al día sobre los puntos de acción sometidas por organizaciones colaboradoras incluyendo un esfuerzo por agencias afiliadas a Planned Parenthood de California que ofrece la pastilla anticonceptiva disponible sin costo.  El grupo Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health (Médicos a favor de la elección reproductiva y de salud) están presentando la Declaración de Derechos del Proveedor de Abortos (Abortion Provider’s Declaration of Rights), que usted puede firmar si desea apoyar a los miles de profesionales de salud que realizan abortos.

Ellen Shaffer, codirectora del Centro de Análisis de Políticas (Center for Policy Analysis) y la Dra. Sophia Yen, pediatra y especialista en medicina de adolescentes escribió un artículo para el Huffington Post en el que establece la manera como se ha politizado el derecho a la salud reproductiva y las formas diferentes en que la actual administración y los oponentes al aborto han restringido su acceso.

La mayoría de los adultos utilizan o han utilizado métodos anticonceptivos. Sin embargo, hasta el mejor método falla una vez en cien. La mitad de los embarazos no son planificados. Por lo menos una tercera parte de mujeres estadounidenses han tenido un aborto en sus vidas. La mayoría creen que los seguros médicos deberían cubrir abortos como bajo servicios de salud reproductiva. Ochenta y seis por ciento de aseguradores proveídos por empleadores cubren el aborto. En estos tiempos de dificultad económico es crucial que las familias tengan la opción de traer o no a un niño(a) al mundo.

Sin embargo, el aborto ha sido estigmatizado por un movimiento minoritario bien organizado y bien financiado, incluyendo grupos extremistas que promueven actos violentos. Nuestra salud reproductiva entonces se utiliza como una cuña, y la oposición se aprovecha de la ansiedad entre votantes causada por la economía y otros asuntos sociales para reclamar el apoyo a su ideología regresiva, anti-mujer y anti-auto determinación.

Vimos un presidente a favor del aborto quien firmó leyes restringiendo acceso al aborto en al menos tres maneras: en la ley de  reforma de salud, con una orden ejecutiva, y con un reglamento sobre los planes de salud del estado. A pesar del hecho de que la contracepción cabe bajo el área de salud preventivo la Administración se sintió obligada a convocar un grupo especial para determinar si los anticonceptivos podían hacerse disponibles bajo métodos de salud preventivo.

En la actualidad 87% de los condados carecen de proveedores de aborto. La carga recae duramente sobre los más vulnerables.

En su conclusión, indican que que estamos en mayoría los que confiamos en la mujer para elegir la mejor alternativa anticonceptiva para ella y que nos toca exigir nuestros derechos al respecto.

“Confíen en las mujeres” fue el lema adoptado por el Dr. George Tiller, proveedor de abortos quien fue  asesinado por el activista en contra del aborto Scott Roeder, el 31 de mayo de  2009. El serio compromiso de Tiller sobre la capacidad de la mujer tomar sus propias decisiones de salud reproductiva al consultar con su médico y familiares es un legado poderoso y duradero. Unirse a la campaña Cinta de Plata es un paso hacia adelante para garantizar que no demos pasos hacia atrás.

Last night, President Obama delivered his third State of the Union address, describing accomplishments and challenges facing his Presidency and the nation. Earlier this month, and garnering much less attention, the administration released an accounting of its efforts to reduce healthcare inequality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons, and challenges still to be tackled.

Among the accomplishments, HHS Secretary Sebelius lists the development of an Institute of Medicine report on LGBT health, a rule requiring hospitals to accept patients’ wishes for who can visit them “regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, or any other non-clinical factor,” inclusion for the first time of LGBT health concerns in the nation’s Healthy People goals, anti-bullying efforts, and policies and funds to encourage shelters for homeless young people to be properly equipped to provide services to LGBT youth.

Several items for future action were also listed, including promoting “cultural competence” training for healthcare providers to improve care to LGBT patients, guidance to state child welfare agencies on how to better support LGBT young people, and better data collection on sexual orientation and gender identity in health data collection processes in order to better understand and approach health disparities.

There’s a long way to go – a 2010 report indicated that nearly 1/3 of transgender men and women had avoided getting medical care because of discrimination, and about 1 in 5 had been refused care due to their transgender or gender non-conforming status. Lesbian and bisexual women are thought to be at higher risks of heart disease because of higher rates of obesity, smoking, and stress – which may in turn be related to discrimination faced in healthcare systems and society in general. The IOM report mentioned above reminds us that LGBT folks face “a profound and poorly understood set of additional health risks due largely to social stigma.”

Let us hope that in the coming year, as President Obama stated last night about the nation, the state of our LGBT health will be getting stronger.

For an overview of LGBT human rights and discrimination around the globe, see this United Nations report published last November.

Today, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius issued a statement finalizing the rule that requires insurance plans to provide coverage for contraception without charging a co-pay, co-insurance or a deductibles.

It wasn’t always a sure deal. Back in August, HHS adopted the Institute of Medicine’s recommendation to include family-planning services as one of the preventive health care items for women that must be covered by newly issued health plans, but it was only an interim rule, subject to comments.

In November, there was a lot of worry about whether the decision that contraception should be a covered preventive service under the Affordable Care Act would survive. President Obama met with Roman Catholic bishops, and one of them came away saying, “I left there feeling a bit more at peace about this issue than when I entered.”

Understandably, many people expressed concerns that the administration was going to back away from birth control coverage requirements and broaden the refusal rule to allow Catholic hospitals and universities to refuse to cover family planning services. But the administration rejected calls allowing employers to opt out of covering contraception. The statement by Sebelius reads in part:

After evaluating comments, we have decided to add an additional element to the final rule. Nonprofit employers who, based on religious beliefs, do not currently provide contraceptive coverage in their insurance plan, will be provided an additional year, until August 1, 2013, to comply with the new law. Employers wishing to take advantage of the additional year must certify that they qualify for the delayed implementation. This additional year will allow these organizations more time and flexibility to adapt to this new rule. We intend to require employers that do not offer coverage of contraceptive services to provide notice to employees, which will also state that contraceptive services are available at sites such as community health centers, public clinics, and hospitals with income-based support. We will continue to work closely with religious groups during this transitional period to discuss their concerns.

Scientists have abundant evidence that birth control has significant health benefits for women and their families, it is documented to significantly reduce health costs, and is the most commonly taken drug in America by young and middle-aged women. This rule will provide women with greater access to contraception by requiring coverage and by prohibiting cost sharing.

Starting today through Jan. 27, the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon Campaign and MoveOn are collaborating with more than 50 organizations, including Our Bodies Ourselves, in holding an online virtual march to let legislators know that reproductive health, reproductive justice and reproductive rights are at the top of our agenda, and should be at the top of theirs.

Why the massive collaborative push now? As eloquently explained by Ellen Shaffer of the Center for Policy Analysis:

In 2011, a record numbers of bills were introduced or passed by state legislatures and the U.S. House of representatives restricting women’s access to: basic health care services, family planning, and safe abortion care. It has been called a “War on Women,” Many women are shocked and dismayed by these attacks and want to send a strong message to policy-makers: Government should stay out of making decisions about what happens in my womb. I have self-determination, autonomy.

The Guttmacher Institute has more detailed coverage of the abortion restrictions enacted in 2011, noting that legislators across the country “introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009.”

If you, too, have had enough, add your name and location to a map, along with one of six messages like, “I Trust Women and I Vote,” “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights,” and “Contraception is Prevention.” If you watch the map, new names pop up in real time as more people sign on.

The next steps of this national action, as explained by Our Silver Blog, involve sending messages from virtual marchers directly to members of Congress, governors and state legislators “to underscore that Americans trust women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their lives.”

Please join all of us concerned about women’s health and rights by signing on to the march, and sharing info about the event with your friends via Facebook and Twitter.

This article was originally published in On The Issues Magazine as part of its special issue on abortion history, politics and activism, featuring contributions from dozens of writers and artists.

by Ayesha Chatterjee and Judy Norsigian

As current staff members at Our Bodies Ourselves (OBOS), an organization that has advanced the health and human rights of women and girls over four decades, and longtime reproductive justice activists, we continue to hope that safe and affordable abortion care will, someday, become a reality for everyone. With increasing attacks and restrictions on abortion access worldwide, we have our work cut out.

Here, in the U.S., the debate around abortion has become especially polarized. Right-wing and anti-choice groups bombard young people with messages that stereotype and stigmatize those seeking abortion services — both individuals and entire communities.

Think: billboards have popped up around the country equating abortion to the genocide of African-American children, who are further described as an “endangered species.” These — and other — oversimplified messages mock a personal and often complex decision, not to mention the right to a constitutionally protected and medically safe procedure. They influence how people, especially young people, articulate and align themselves on abortion. They drive our activism — our tireless commitment to alliances across aisles and opinions, and to conversations that move beyond “pro-life” and “pro-choice” rhetoric to focus on the individual, her needs, rights and circumstances.

Engaging, mobilizing and building alliances on an issue like abortion can be an uphill climb. But as 2012 rolls in, we want to take a few minutes to remind you about why it is important and suggest a few ways you can go about this challenge.

Building Up Our Friends
Our allies are our greatest strength. We especially need to appeal to the hearts and minds of people “on the fence,” by connecting abortion rights to principles that they hold valuable — equality, privacy, dignity, security and more. We must show how these principles will be affected if we do not have the fundamental right to reproductive freedom.

We believe that we can even engage anti-choice people in conversations about how restrictions on access to abortion affect women and girls — especially those who are uninsured, under-insured, socially or ethnically marginalized and isolated.

Create safe spaces for respectful dialogue
We need to take a few minutes to contact the judges in our communities and ask them to defend the rights of women and girls. Monica Roa, the lawyer who argued a case before Colombia’s Supreme Court that liberalized that nation’s restrictive abortion law in May 2006, identifies judges as a key audience: “Judicial bias is a major conflict throughout the world.” She proposes a highly effective “court targeting” approach that includes getting better acquainted with specific judges and their position on issues.

And we must not forget our friends, our existing allies — an activist neighbor, a local abortion fund or a provider — on the forefront of the abortion rights movement and under threat because of it. Supporting them is critical and we can do so in a number of ways. We can donate money to local abortion funds which provide financial and logistical assistance to women that need abortions, or simply volunteer our time to their activities — a list of abortion funds is online.

We can also volunteer at clinics, in roles that range from administrative to serving as clinic escorts that guide staff, providers and clients in and out of clinics and shield them from harassment and pro-life demonstrators. If these options seem daunting, we can help tremendously by just talking — with family and friends at home, with our community via blogs and local newspapers, and with our political representatives on the phone.

Listening and Engaging Listeners
In our bid to build alliances across the table, those of us involved in the struggle to preserve abortion rights must develop new tools of moral suasion. How? For a start, we need to be good listeners, good storytellers and patient communicators, and to create safe spaces for respectful dialogue, either one-on-one or in groups.

Judy Norsigian:
I remember an eye-opening conversation many years ago with a priest — a family friend — who had regularly sermonized about the evils of abortion. He described how one year a woman came to him afterwards and described WHY she had had her own abortion and why what he had said in church was so wrong and hurtful to her and many other women. A thoughtful and compassionate person, he decided to cease such sermons, but his comment about this encounter was instructive: “Don’t get me wrong, I still think of abortion as killing life in some form…I have not changed my mind about that. But what I realize now is that an abortion can be the RIGHT and moral thing to do.”

In the years that followed, I found a number of people who resonated with this kind of thinking and who could find a way to support a woman’s right to choose, while, at the same time, holding on to the concept of abortion as an act that destroyed life in some form. They noted that society does, at times, sanction even the killing of human beings (during war, in self defense) and, thus, could envision abortion as a moral choice and one to be preserved for women needing to make that choice.

Ayesha Chatterjee:
Active in the grassroots abortion access movement in the Boston area, I am also expecting my first baby in the spring of 2012. While I see absolutely no dichotomy in my activist and parenting roles, I have been asked a few times whether becoming a mother has softened my position on abortion rights, made me more empathetic to pro-life reasoning. My response: Far from it!

My decision to have children is situated within my unique context and personal needs and capacity. If anything, the hands-on experience with the ongoing physical, emotional and financial commitment needed to nurture another human being has only deepened my understanding of an incredibly complex and personal issue, as well as my appreciation of why some decide to terminate their pregnancy and others, despite the many and different challenges, carry theirs to term.

When we are at a loss for words, drawing on other eloquent voices in the reproductive justice movement can help get the discussion started.

For starters, here are a couple such individuals:

Dr. Garson Romalis, a Canadian abortion doctor, whose speech on January 25, 2008 at the University of Toronto Law School Symposium is well worth reading. Dr. Romalis had been physically attacked — shot and stabbed, on two different occasions six years apart — and remained deeply committed to providing abortion services throughout his long career.

At the close of his speech, he wanted to describe “one last story that I think epitomizes the satisfaction I get from my privileged work.” He continued, “Some years ago I spoke to a class of University of British Columbia medical students. As I left the classroom, a student followed me out. She said: ‘Dr. Romalis, you won’t remember me, but you did an abortion on me in 1992. I am a second year medical student now, and if it weren’t for you I wouldn’t be here now.’”

Lynn Paltrow, executive director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, offers many compelling insights in, for example, “Missed Opportunities in McCorvey v. Hill: The Limits of Pro-Choice Lawyering,” (pdf) in the New York University Review of Law & Social Change in 2011, or “Long-Term Policies, Long-Term Gains,” (pdf) in Conscience in Winter 2006-2007.

In the latter, Paltrow writes: “those who defend the right to choose abortion often frame their defense in terms of protecting Roe v.Wade and access to abortion services. But far more than Roe and abortion is at stake. The health, dignity and human rights of all pregnant women are threatened by anti-abortion and fetal rights laws. Such laws create the basis not only for outlawing abortion but also for forcing women to have unnecessary Caesarean sections, for banning vaginal births after Caesarean sections and for treating pregnant women with drug, alcohol and other health problems as child abusers before they have even given birth.”

It also helps to be prepared for contentious conversations with compelling arguments and facts.

Anti-abortion advocates often use dangerous and misleading approaches to restrict access to abortion and birth control, and having a counter argument ready goes a long way. This misinformation runs the gamut — from claiming that the emergency contraception or morning-after pill (Plan B) is the same as the “abortion pill” to asserting that feticide laws, now existing in about 38 states and on the federal level, protect pregnant women, when in reality they are frequently used against pregnant women, especially those who may have used drugs during a pregnancy.

So, staying abreast of facts to counter their fiction is critical and there are innumerable on-line and off-line resources. Here are two: Guttmacher Institute and Ipas.

Converting Our Energy
When we gain ground by changing hearts, minds or policies, we have to ensure it translates into action — securing real and affordable access to birth control and abortion for women and girls.

While we have a long way to go before reproductive justice is a reality for everyone, the looming possibility of an anti-choice administration (and all that this would entail) has serious implications for women and girls in the U.S. and, through policies that restrict the use of U.S. development aid overseas, women and girls around the world. Your voice is important.

Our goals are substantial and clear. We need to become involved — to educate one another and ourselves on the nuances of abortion rights and access; defend the fast dwindling numbers of abortion clinics and abortion providers nationwide; express our outrage when they are attacked and vilified; demand greater and equal access to all reproductive health services including affordable and safe birth control and abortion care; counter misleading and dishonest anti-abortion propaganda and hold the people behind these tactics accountable for their actions.

Doing this effectively will require creativity, tenacity and abiding respect of all women’s realities and circumstances. We’re up for the challenge — are you?

Breast Cancer Action is hosting free one-hour webinars on Tuesday, January 24th and Wednesday, January 25th to discuss the recent Institute of Medicine report on environmental risks for breast cancer, including how advocates can help move forward the report committee’s recommendations for better understanding and managing these risks.

BCA will discuss some of their concerns about the report, as well as focus policy changes required to reduce exposures to potentially cancer-causing agents.

The report, commissioned by Komen, explores the difficulties of studying how environmental factors affect breast cancer risk, recommends future research, and makes recommendations for steps women can take to reduce their breast cancer risk. Unfortunately, many of the clear actions provided in the report for reducing risk are well-covered things like “quit smoking,” while the strongest conclusion that could be drawn on many other exposures (like cosmetic and personal care products, plastics and other pollutants) was that more research was needed.

If you’re interested, you can register for register for 2pm-3pm (PST) on the 24th or 10am-11am (PST) on the 25th.

Every year in the United States alone, more than 12,000 women are diagnosed and more than 4,000 women die of cervical cancer, a preventable disease that disproportionately affects women of color.

January is Cervical Cancer Awareness Month, and the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health (NLIRH) is launching “¡Acábalo Ya! Working Together to End Cervical Cancer.” The campaign is aimed at educating Latinas about this disease and how to protect their health; raising the profile of cervical cancer prevention as a national reproductive justice and women’s health priority; and advocating for greater access to the tools and care needed to prevent, detect, and eventually end cervical cancer.

The NLIRH is hosting a blog carnival this week on the topic: What will it take to end cervical cancer? Read more on Why Cervical Cancer is a LGBT Issue by Verónica Bayetti-Flores, NLIRH policy research specialist; Cervical Cancer Awareness Month: Trans Men and Genderqueer/Gender Nonconforming People by the National Center for Transgender Equality; Screen More Women for Cervical Cancer – Not the Same Women More Often! by Kate Ryan, program coordinator, National Women’s Health Network; and Thank YOU Affordable Care Act for Helping Cervixes Stay Healthy by Keely Monroe, program coordinator, National Women’s Health Network.

The following text on disparities in access to Pap tests and HPV vaccines has been adapted from the 2011 edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”

* * * * * * *

Most women who die of cervical cancer never had regular Pap tests, had false-negative results, or did not receive proper follow-up.

In the United States, socioeconomic and racial disparities are evident in statistics for cervical cancer. Vietnamese immigrants are five times more likely to be diagnosed with cervical cancer than white women. African-American and Native-American women are twice as likely to die of the disease as are white women. In one study, Hispanic women had about twice the cervical cancer incidence of non-Hispanic women in border counties near Mexico, and Hispanic women are 1.5 times more likely to die from cervical cancer as compared to non-Hispanic white women.

Disparities are due, at least in part, to women of color having less access to Pap screening and regular health care. It is quite possible that those women with the highest rates of cervical cancer will also have less access not only to Pap screening but also to the HPV vaccine. Until our health care system addresses such disparities in access, girls and women likely to benefit the most from this vaccine may well not be able to choose it.

To ensure more equal access to any adolescent vaccine, adequate infrastructure and resources must be made available. Some recommend implementation of school-based adolescent immunization programs similar to those formerly in place for delivery of hepatitis B vaccines. The United Kingdom and Australia have volunteer, nationally supported school-based campaigns that have resulted in high HPV vaccine coverage for about 70 percent of girls.

Currently, school-based health programs and routine preventive care visits for adolescents are limited in the United States, making it highly difficult to provide good access to HPV vaccines, especially the type of access needed to ensure all three required vaccine doses are administered. Available data suggest HPV vaccine coverage in the United States is low (less than 50 percent), and the proportion of girls receiving all three doses of the HPV vaccine is even lower (less than 25 percent).

Pap Tests Essential for Prevention and Treatment

HPV vaccines do not protect against all types of HPV associated with cervical cancer, and it is currently unclear how long they remain effective or whether booster shots will be needed to maintain protection throughout adulthood. Thus, regular Pap tests among sexually active women remain essential for cervical cancer prevention. Resources should not be diverted away from Pap screening programs to pay for the unusually expensive cervical cancer vaccine. Because Merck marketed Gardasil with a campaign that unnecessarily frightened girls, young women, and parents, many people now have a distorted view of this disease, the vaccine, and the continued importance of Pap screening.

There is no question that HPV vaccines represent an important scientific advance in the field of vaccine research, but exaggerating their potential benefit in places such as North America will not serve us well. In countries where there is little or no access to Pap screening, current HPV vaccines might have much more potential for saving lives if their costs were reduced considerably and if adequate infrastructure to prove them responsibly were securely in place.

The District of Columbia and dozens of states — many of which have been lobbied by vaccine makers to expand vaccination requirements — have introduced legislation to require, fund, or educate the public about the HPV vaccine. However, since 30 percent of infections are now caused by virus types for which the HPV vaccines do not provide protection, universal access to Pap tests remains critically important. Unfortunately, many girls in underserved communities (where HPV infection rates are often high) have less access to both the Pap test and the HPV vaccine.

For example, as of September 2009, when the CDC released its first state-level statistics for Gardasil, only 15.8 percent of girls in the relatively poor state of Mississippi had received the vaccine, compared with 54.7 percent of girls in the relatively wealthy state of Rhode Island. Partly because of greater access to Pap testing, the cervical cancer mortality rate in Rhode Island was already 50 percent lower than in Mississippi — which means the girls in Rhode Island are at much lower risk of contracting HPV to start with.

To reduce disparities for Latinas and other under-served women, we will need to make systemic changes in our health care system to increase access to screening and vaccinations for those who need it most.

Last week we posted about the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon campaign banners placed around Market Street in San Francisco carrying messages like “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights” and “Her Decision, Her Health.”

Today, the Huffington Post reports that the banners have drawn attacks from the anti-choice Life Legal Defense Foundation, which has threatened to sue the city for allowing the banner poles to be used to promote a political message not related to a specific event.

In response, Department of Public Works Spokeswoman Gloria Chan:

…defended her agency’s decision to allow the Center for Policy Analysis to buy space on the poles, saying that the banners are running in conjunction with two events: the Walk for Trust Women scheduled to take place on Market Street on January 20th and the The Bay Area Coalition For Reproductive Rights’ West Coast Rally For Reproductive Justice slated for Justin Herman Plaza the following day. Chan noted that any event expected to draw over 500 people, which DPW officials expect both of these to do easily, qualifies as a “city-wide special event” and is permitted to have its ads posted.

For more on the banners, including links to pictures, see our previous post.

A reminder: an online Virtual March will be held with MoveOn during Trust Women Week, January 20-27, to express support for reproductive health, rights, and justice, and to send pro-choice messages to Washington. Look for more details on the Our Silver Ribbon blog.

Our Bodies Ourselves is one of 42 partners in the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon campaign, a project to increase the visibility of pro-choice messages.

Weeks after the Jan. 12, 2010 earthquake decimated Haiti’s health infrastructure, Karen Feltham, a certified nurse midwife and nursing instructor at Binghamton University, traveled to Fond Parisien, Haiti, to provide support for pregnant and laboring women at a local birth center.

Two years later, she is returning — leaving today to spend 10 days working alongside the two local Haitian midwives that staff the HCM Maternity Clinic, a birth center that serves more than 2,000 women a year. While the midwives provide the best care possible under difficult conditions, outcomes for mothers and babies could be improved with additional training and support.

Karen’s trip is sponsored by Circle of Health International, which works with local health care providers in crisis- and disaster-struck regions to ensure access to quality reproductive, maternal and newborn care. Like all COHI volunteers, Karen is donating her time, and COHI is fundraising to cover the transportation to Haiti (about $800 in airfare and local travel) and room and board on the compound where the birth center is located (about $300).

Here’s where you come in. For as little as $10, you can help send Karen to Haiti. Want to donate more? Please do so! Numerous gifts are available as perks for donors who can offer $20, $35, $50 or more.

Training drills like the one shown (left) help ensure safer births in unsafe times. Women in areas of crisis or disaster often struggle to secure basic reproductive health care. The Fond Parisien Birth Center (right) serves more than 2,000 women a year, providing critical care.

It’s all part of the Get Karen to Haiti campaign that Our Bodies Our Blog and other bloggers involved in improving maternal health are participating in for the next two weeks. Hillary Boucher and Jeanette McCulloch at BirthSwell have more information about the collaborative effort.

Your donation can make a huge difference. According to COHI:

Birth Centers like the one at Fond Parisian provide a model of care for other areas in Haiti and around the world, where maternal mortality is at the highest rate in the Western Hemisphere, with 630 deaths per 100,000 live births (compared to 11 deaths per 100,000 births in the US).

The midwives at the Fond Parisien birth center have received training in supporting women in low-risk births, providing care in common emergencies, and are developing protocols for when to transfer to other emergency medical facilities. But unlike their peers in the U.S. and in other industrialized societies, they do not have access to the latest research or journals, conferences where they can share skills, or even family support.

Karen took a moment as she was preparing for her trip to talk with Our Bodies Our Blog about her birth philosophy and why she’s returning to Haiti now (see below). Her goals are specific:

* Review existing protocols for managing emergencies and deciding when to transfer to the local hospital. Provide clinical support and skill-building where it could improve outcomes for Haitian women and their babies.

* Run emergency drills using improved protocol for complications most likely to be seen at the clinic, including shoulder dystocia and postpartum hemorrhage.

* Improve monitoring processes so that the clinic can evaluate their existing protocols and make improvements based on evidence, not just anecdotal understanding.

We hope you’ll consider supporting Karen’s efforts in Haiti and visit COHI’s Facebook page to follow along on Karen’s journey. You can learn more about COHI’s efforts in Haiti on its website.

* * * * * * * * * *

Our Bodies Our Blog: You first visited Haiti after the earthquake. How did that experience affect you and your commitment to expanding access to evidence-based care?

Karen Feltham: Arriving in Haiti, especially Port Au Prince, was overwhelming. I kept thinking of how long the earthquake lasted, counting in my head and imagining the earth shaking and the buildings falling — the world changing in 30 seconds. What was that like? Homes become rubble, the living-dead. It has changed everything for me, in a way. Anything can happen, in any instant. It might sound funny, but I run through worst-case scenarios in my head and with my family. Where will you go? Where will we meet?

Witnessing the work of countless NGOs and volunteers was inspiring, as well as a bit maddening. There was (and is) really good work happening in Haiti. There are excellent providers and logisticians providing great, life-changing (and life-providing) services. And that is inspiring.

At the same time, I think that there is a feeling of, “Anything is better than nothing.” I have seen that lead to a neglect of clinical standards.

OBOB: Why are you returning now?

KF: The organization that I volunteer with (Circle of Health International) is completing their work there and turning over the operation of the clinic to a local organization. This is a nice opportunity to re-connect with midwife colleagues who I had worked with previously. My goals for the trip are to run emergency obstetric care management drills, review core competencies, and always to reinforce and encourage the midwifery model of care.

Also, skilled birth attendants at delivery (and fewer pregnancies) definitely lower the maternal mortality rate. The international community is expecting quite a bit from newly trained midwives, and midwifery is a tough job. In the United States, a licensed midwife is more likely to begin independent practice with the benefit of collaboration and experienced colleagues. And so, I feel a commitment to providing something similar to this midwife team.

OBOB: How does your birth philosophy inform your volunteer efforts?

KF: I absolutely believe in the power of kindness and how it can be transformative, even revolutionary. Think of what women bear, here and elsewhere — assault, abuse, submission. I can’t change a country’s infrastructure, health care and education policies. But I can listen. I can provide the most gentle pelvic exam and the most respectful atmosphere.

If my touch is the first that a newborn feels, then I promise to make it a gentle one. If my voice is the first that she hears, then let it be welcoming. This is what I can bring, a reminder that excellent clinical skills are essential, but that kindness is life-changing. At least that’s what I think, and it’s the best that I can offer.

OBOB: You’ve identified three goals for your time in Haiti. Can you give readers a sense of how those goals will be achieved?

KF: I’m not sure how each day will unfold. One must be very flexible in these situations. But I’m certain that each day will be very full. My volunteer partners and I will run through management of the obstetric emergencies; postpartum hemorrhage and shoulder dystocia — the “what-ifs.” It’s so valuable to run through what everyone does in these situations, and then do it again.

Also, each day will include conferencing with the midwives, which involves reviewing clinical cases and addressing whatever concerns that they might have, along with symptoms, diagnoses, and procedures they have questions about.

OBOB: Have you incorporated into your teaching at Binghamton any experiences or lessons learned from working alongside midwives in Haiti and Nicaragua?

I guess that every experience influences every other, even in subtle ways.

I teach at the Decker School of Nursing at Binghamton University in both the graduate and undergraduate programs. I love working with nursing students! They are amazingly good people. One of the courses that I teach is in global nursing. So many students are interested in really making a difference but don’t know where to begin. I try to share a bit of my own experience and encourage each individual student to find their own way. I believe in the ripple effect of good work.

Also, one thing I try to do intentionally with students is to blur the line between “us” and “them.” Haiti and Nicaragua are very far away, and it’s easy to think that the people, clinicians and patients are so very different from us. I try to refer to clinical cases that I have seen elsewhere and good clinical work and speak to the shared experience between provider and patients that happens everywhere.

Health care is what happens between midwife (and doctor and nurse) and patient. It doesn’t happen at the upper levels of the bureaucracy. It’s the thing that takes place between two people. And that is true in Ithaca, N.Y., Fond Parisien, Haiti and Managua, Nicaragua.

Our Bodies Ourselves is one of 42 partners in the Trust Women/Silver Ribbon campaign, a project to increase the visibility of pro-choice messages.

This week, the campaign has placed banners along Market Street in San Francisco to “spark conversations and to help build momentum and solidarity among supporters of women’s rights, equality and autonomy and access to comprehensive health care, including reproductive health care services.”

The banners display messages like “Reproductive Rights are Human Rights,” “Her Decision, Her Health,” and “U.S. Out of My Uterus,” and include related banners from the Bay Area Coalition for Our Reproductive Rights, SisterSong/Trust Black Women, Catholics for Choice, NARAL-ProChoice California, and Planned Parenthood Shasta Pacific. More photos of the banners in place around San Francisco are online, and more coverage is provided at Our Silver Blog.

Look for more activity later this month – during Trust Women Week, January 20-27, a virtual march will be held with MoveOn to express support for reproductive health, rights, and justice, and to send pro-choice messages to Washington.

This article was recently published in OBOS’s winter newsletter. View the full newsletter.

* * *

“I did training for more than 5,000 women across the country, and all their stories and all their experiences are in Our Bodies, Ourselves. Along with the stories and political activism, we started brokering power at the personal as well as at the political level. As of this moment, we have something to celebrate.”

Those words were spoken by Renu Rajbhandari, a prominent women’s rights activist in Nepal, during our 40th anniversary symposium, Our Bodies, Our Future: Advancing Health and Human Rights for Women and Girls, on Oct. 1. Co-hosted with Boston University, the event marked four decades of activism and celebrated our evolution from a small group around a kitchen table in the United States to a vibrant network of social change activists at the table in countries around the world.

Held in conjunction with the release of the ninth edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” the symposium was also an opportunity to meet 12 of our global partners, including Renu, and listen to their extraordinary journeys of claiming and transforming this landmark book for the women and girls of their countries. Renu referred to the effort as a “transcreation.”

Many women talked about the cultural, political and social challenges to their activism and the relationships and networks they have built in order to effect change. (View videos from symposium, including the global panels.)

The book’s impact and legacy was described by many speakers, including local luminaries. In a video welcome, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick recalled how he was 15 years old when “Our Bodies, Ourselves” was first published; it was considered “racy,” yet filled with information that made him “a better person, and certainly a better partner.”

Robert Meenan, dean of Boston University School of Public Health, offered a formal welcome, followed by an all-star cast of women’s health advocates, including Byllye Avery, founder of the Avery Institute for Social Change and the Black Women’s Health Imperative, and Adrienne Germain, president emerita of the International Women’s Health Coalition. Marie Turley, executive director of the Boston Women’s Commission, brought greetings from Mayor Tom Menino, who had declared Oct. 1 Our Bodies Ourselves Day in the city of Boston.

These terrific presenters, and our energetic emcee, Jaclyn Friedman, executive director of Women, Action and the Media and a contributor to the new edition, spoke about the personal impact “Our Bodies, Ourselves” has had on their lives and the important role played by organizations like OBOS in realizing health equality and human rights, while at the same time reminding the audience of the sizeable challenges ahead.

They symposium paid tribute to the 14 OBOS founders who changed the world of women’s health 40 years ago. Sam Morgan Lilienfeld and Judah Rome, sons of deceased founders Pamela Morgan and Esther Rome, shared memories of their mothers – not only as feminist moms, but as powerful and positive role models.

“My mom viewed birth as an experience that has the power to change and define the life of a woman,” Sam said, “and her spirit of embracing and celebrating these major life events, which we sometimes may welcome and sometimes greet with trepidation, is something I’ve always admired.”

In his remarks about Esther completing the manuscript of “Sacrificing Ourselves for Love” just before her death in 1995, Judah said: “Watching my mom through the final months of her life was very painful for me, but it taught me how to live.” He told the audience he had hoped that her legacy would live on, adding, “I can tell from the energy in the room that it does.”

Our courageous global partners have used “Our Bodies, Ourselves” to develop and bring culturally unique health and sexuality information to their own communities. In addition to the challenges they encounter, they also discussed their success negotiating with power brokers – from men and matriarchs in the family, to religious leaders and heads of institutions.

Their stories of transformation, in Tanzania, Turkey, Japan, Israel, Serbia, India, Nepal, Senegal and Latin America, were reminiscent of the journey taken by OBOS founders 40 years ago. The parallel between the two groups of women was palpable and confirmed that not only has the book gone global, but it continues to inspire movement building by and for women and girls in every region of the world.

Loretta Ross, national coordinator of SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective, closed the day, firing up the audience by reminding everyone of the very real threats to women’s reproductive and sexual rights in the United States and around the world. Even so, she said the global partners’ activism and their use of the human rights framework made her “excited and optimistic” about the future.

As the day started with reminiscences of the 1960s and 70s, it ended with a freshly-stoked fire in the belly. OBOS is at the forefront of changing the lives of women and girls and will continue this work in the U.S. and around the world — into the next 40 years and beyond.

June Tsang is the program associate for the Our Bodies Ourselves Global Initiative