Every member of Congress has pages of accurate information on women’s health at their fingertips – more than 900 pages to be exact – now that they have the latest edition of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”

Thanks to supporters of OBOS’s Educate Congress campaign – inspired by a road trip to deliver “Our Bodies, Ourselves” to then-Rep. Todd Akin – we hand-delivered or mailed the newest edition and a letter signed by prominent health policy experts to all members of the U.S. House and Senate.

Educate Congress launched with a simple premise: Everyone deserves access to accurate information concerning women’s reproductive and sexual health – especially those who write the laws.

Deliveries began Feb. 28, when I spent the day meeting with members on Capitol Hill. It was the day that the House finally passed the Violence Against Women Act, which made the trip particularly poignant.

Joining me were Christy Turlington Burns, founder of Every Mother Counts (EMC), and Erin Thornton, EMC executive director. We collaborated on scheduling and delivered EMC materials along with “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” including a special petition for women members of Congress congratulating them on their leadership role and asking them to affirm support of policies that protect the health and well-being of girls and women around the world, especially those that will reduce infant and maternal mortality rates.

Two National Women’s Health Network (NWHN) interns, Alysson Reddy and Grace Adofoli, provided invaluable logistics support and shoulder-bag transport of the rather hefty copies of “Our Bodies, Ourselves.” We received warm receptions not only from those who know the book and OBOS’s work, but also from members who want to be better prepared to address key reproductive health concerns.

Our first meeting was with Rep. Jim McGovern (MA), a consistent advocate of evidence-based policies. Christy and Erin presented a copy of EMC’s excellent documentary about maternal mortality, “No Woman, No Cry.”

Alysson and Grace helped me walk the corridors of three House office buildings in record time, with stops in the offices of Representatives Adam Kinzinger (IL), Steven Horsford (NV), Gary Peters (MI), Kay Granger (TX), Betty McCollum (MN), Chellie Pingree (ME), Michael Capuano (MA), Marsha Blackburn (TN), James Clyburn (SC), Jackie Speier (CA), Nita Lowey (NY), Anne Kirkpatrick (AZ), Joseph Kennedy (MA), and Cheri Bustos (IL).

The day ended on the Senate side, with visits to Senators Jeanne Shaheen (NH) and Elizabeth Warren (MA). Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families (NRCWF), joined me in discussing women’s health with Sen. Warren and her chief of staff, Mindy Myers.

Time was running short, so Allyson and Grace returned later that week to deliver books and letters to Senators Mitch McConnell (KY), Rob Portman (OH), Carl Levin (MI), Mark Begich (AK) Charles Grassley (IA), Pat Toomey (PA), Jeff Flake (AZ), and Christopher Coons (DE).

OBOS has already received personal thank-you notes from several members of Congress who indicated that the book will be a useful resource. We’re confident it will be of value to staff members working on policy issues.

If you visit the D.C. office of your representative or senator in the coming months, let us know if you get a chance to ask about how “Our Bodies, Ourselves” might have been referenced. Establishing sound, science-based policy about reproductive health is no easy feat, but it will be all the more likely if each of us finds ways to promote this goal.

OBOS will continue to monitor where information interventions are needed. Please help fund our efforts to send books to state legislators, educational leaders, and other public officials.

* * *
Photo, clockwise: EMC’s Erin Thornton and Christy Turlington Burns, Rep. Gary Peters, OBOS’s Judy Norsigian, and NWNH interns Alysson Reddy and Grace Adofoli; Judy and Christy with Sen. Jeanne Shaheen; Judy, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and NRCWF’s Diana Zuckerman; Rep. Chellie Pingree; Judy and Christy with Rep. Jim McGovern (center). 

Angelina Jolie certainly has good intentions in sharing her experience with breast cancer genetic testing and her decision to have a prophylactic mastectomy, and her announcement marks another welcomed example of well-known women coming forward about personal health issues.

But it is now up to women’s health advocates to ensure that the media coverage and public debate that follows does not offer false information or false hope — which I fear it will, if women are not fully informed about all the issues involved before imagining that Jolie’s decisions would be the right ones for them.

Already, women in the United States undergo a higher rate of mastectomies than women in other countries. “Breast cancer experts believe that many women undergoing mastectomies don’t need them and are getting them out of fear, not because of the real risks,” Diana Zuckerman, president of both the National Research Center for Women and Families and the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, wrote this week.

First, women need to remember that BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations occur in less than 1 percent of the population. To decide whether testing for breast cancer genetic mutations makes sense for them, it is important to speak with a knowledgeable health care provider. According to the National Cancer Institute:

The likelihood that a breast and/or ovarian cancer is associated with a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 is highest in families with a history of multiple cases of breast cancer, cases of both breast and ovarian cancer, one or more family members with two primary cancers (original tumors that develop at different sites in the body), or an Ashkenazi (Central and Eastern European) Jewish background. However, not every woman in such families carries a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation, and not every cancer in such families is linked to a harmful mutation in one of these genes. Furthermore, not every woman who has a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation will develop breast and/or ovarian cancer.

The steep price tag of testing, around $3,300, is of concern, though some women considered appropriate candidates for testing may be covered, all or in part, through their insurance. Under the Affordable Care Act, genetic counseling and BRCA testing, if appropriate, are considered preventive services and are covered without cost-sharing.

If a woman does seek testing, she needs to consider the pros and cons of all possible approaches to positive test results. While a bilateral mastectomy reduces the risk of getting the disease by 90 percent, about 10 out of 100 women who have their breasts removed will still get breast cancer in the underlying tissue. And there are numerous potential problems with such surgery that need to be fully discussed, such as infection and mobility impairment.

For those who choose this radical surgery, there is also the decision about whether to pursue breast reconstruction and, if so, what kind. Despite widespread assumptions to the contrary, there are major unresolved safety issues, especially for silicone breast implants.

Some women choose to forgo reconstruction entirely, though most media fail to mention this. The truth is, some women have no problems with their “breastless” bodies, nor do their sexual/intimate partners. Some women also find that modern prostheses are comfortable and offer a satisfying appearance.

Moreover, not all choices — even what might be ideal in a given circumstance — will be possible given financial constraints and lack of adequate medical coverage or support. As Cheryl Lemus, managing editor of Nursing Clio, a blog on gender and medicine, writes:

In order for all women to have the right to red carpet healthcare [...] then all women don’t just need money and insurance, but also the other resources Jolie highlighted in her op-ed, which include the supportive partner/spouse, family, an understanding employer, reliable transportation and childcare, and “time” in general.

Sadly, we know this is often not the case.

We also need to be honest about what we know and don’t know about breast cancer and risk. According to the NCI, women who have inherited a harmful mutation in BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene are approximately five times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who do not carry the mutation.

The way the numbers break down, about 12 percent of the general population — or about 120 women out of 1,000 — will develop breast cancer at some point during their lives, compared with about 60 percent — 600 out of 1,000 — who have inherited a harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 gene mutation.

Yet there are other factors, such as environmental exposure, that influence breast cancer risk. Some women living in communities with high levels of toxic exposure may have elevated breast cancer risk for a non-heritable reason.

The NCI also notes that the risk factor for those carrying the mutated gene is based on research on large families in which many individuals have been affected by cancer. We still have many questions to answer about genetic and environmental influence:

Because family members share a proportion of their genes and, often, their environment, it is possible that the large number of cancer cases seen in these families may be due in part to other genetic or environmental factors. Therefore, risk estimates that are based on families with many affected members may not accurately reflect the levels of risk for BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers in the general population. In addition, no data are available from long-term studies of the general population comparing cancer risk in women who have harmful BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations with women who do not have such mutations. Therefore, the percentages given above are estimates that may change as more data become available.

This heightened interest in breast cancer genetic testing caused an uptick in the stock of Myriad Genetics, which has a monopoly on BRCA1 and 2 testing. OBOS is a co-plaintiff in the lawsuit challenging Myriad Genetic’s patenting of human genes, along with the ACLU, Breast Cancer Action, a number of scientific organizations and researchers, and Lisbeth Ceriani, a single mother whose circumstances led her to seek breast cancer genetic testing and who felt stymied by Myriad’s monopoly.

The Supreme Court heard arguments in the case last month and is expected to issue a ruling this summer. Its decision will have a major impact on whether or not scientists will be able to improve upon the current test as well as the future price tag for such testing. In the meantime, let’s hope that thousands of women don’t make hasty decisions about testing and treatment without careful consideration of all the issues involved.

As Zuckerman writes:

As an actress whose appeal has focused on her beauty, surgically removing both her breasts when she didn’t have cancer was a very gutsy thing to do. But if we care about women’s health, we need to stop thinking of mastectomy as the “brave” choice and understand that the risks and benefits of mastectomy are different for every woman with cancer or the risk of cancer. In breast cancer, any reasonable treatment choice is the brave choice.

by Miriam Zoll

In an essay recently published in the Wall Street Journal, Sarah Elizabeth Richards, author of the new book “Motherhood Rescheduled,” encourages women to ward off age-related infertility by simply freezing their eggs — like she did.

Between the ages of 36 and 38, Richards spent $50,000 to freeze 70 eggs that she plans to thaw, fertilize, and insert into her uterus when she is 44 or 46.

“Egg freezing,” she said, “stopped the sadness that I was feeling at losing my chance to have the child I had dreamed about my entire life.” Still looking for a mate at almost 40, Richards says she now goes onto Match.com and has the confidence to tell men that she can “have kids whenever I want.”

While Richards’ decision appears to have provided her with a sense of hope and temporary emotional equilibrium, it may prove to be illusory. Sadly, as millions of women, including me, can attest, the vast majority of assisted reproductive technologies fail.

In 2012, of the 1.5 million treatments performed globally, 1.1 million failed: a 77 percent failure rate. In the United States, the overall failure rate was 68 percent. Once optimistic and hopeful about the promise of reproductive science, I endured four failed in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, one miscarriage, and two donor egg attempts in which both donors were diagnosed as being infertile.

But it is no wonder that Richards believes she will be able to bear children with her frozen eggs whenever she wants to. A $4 billion industry is driving the public discourse about often unproven discoveries through a lens that focuses attention on the minority of successes rather than the whole messy, complicated story.

---

Related: What’s Wrong With Fertility Clinics and Online Advertising

---

Growing up in a culture that reveres science, she has been bombarded with overly optimistic and one-sided media stories touting the miracles of creating babies in laboratories. The truth is, many women signing up for treatments do not realize until later the extent to which they are participating in a vast experiment, where evidence-based medicine has yet to establish a reasonable foothold.

The only current independent effort to track the health of all women going through treatments remains largely invisible to patients who might sign up to have their health — and that of their offspring — tracked over time.

The voluntary Infertility Family Research Registry is based at the Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center and is funded in part by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). To date, the vast majority of large fertility centers in the United States are not displaying the registry’s placard in their waiting rooms, greatly reducing the potential benefits such a long-term study would provide. [Ed note: Our Bodies Ourselves is actively encouraging infertility clinics and centers across the country to promote awareness of the Infertility Family Research Registry.]

Richards’ desire to protect her ability to bear a biological child is heartfelt, and her willingness to undergo egg freezing procedures that were considered experimental at the time speaks to her commitment — and her panic — to try anything to preserve that opportunity. But her statement that this decision was “the best investment” she ever made is premature, to say the least.

The general public knows virtually nothing about the failure and success rates of vitrification — a new flash-freezing technique that has been used to preserve the eggs of women younger than 30 who are facing life-threatening illnesses. While an estimated 1,000 babies have been born from this technology worldwide, there is virtually no data that tells us if these live births were the result of 3,000 or 10,000 trials.

We have no idea how many miscarriages or still births may have ensued, and there are few, if any, long-term infant health studies evaluating how flash freezing half of a child’s DNA might affect that child later in life. The one study Richards cites found that 900 babies exhibited no more risk of birth defects than babies conceived naturally by young mothers, but is one study really enough?

Apparently the ASRM believed it was proof enough for them to lift the “experimental” label from the still young procedure last fall. The ASRM Practice Committee said it was not yet ready to endorse widespread use of egg freezing for elective use. However, while randomized controlled studies were rare, the committee did find sufficient evidence to “demonstrate acceptable success rates in young, highly selected populations.”

Citing a lack of data on safety, efficacy, cost-effectiveness, and potential emotional risks, their report states, “Marketing this technology for the purpose of deferring childbearing may give women false hope and encourage them to delay childbearing. Patients who wish to pursue this technology should be carefully counseled.”

As would be expected, once the ASRM decision became public, their caution about women’s age and infant health was obscured and eventually obliterated by the dust kicked up by a stampede of panicked but hopeful 30- and 40-something women running to the nearest fertility clinic to have their eggs harvested for future use — for anywhere between $10,000 and $15,000 per harvest, or more.

One must wonder why the ASRM felt so compelled to provide a stamp of approval for a procedure still lacking in reliable safety and efficacy data. As legal scholars Debora Spar and Naomi Cahn have written in their books, “The Baby Business” and “Test Tube Babies,” respectively, in the context of an unregulated industry in the United States, it is virtually impossible to separate the medical and market forces at play when new techniques and procedures are advertised to potential clients.

The blurred boundaries between fertility clinics wanting to provide patients with safe, evidence-based procedures while also needing to generate business to meet their bottom lines puts that much more pressure on consumers to know what they are signing up for. But when evidence and information is scarce, biased, or non-existent, well-heeled consumers like Richards feel they have no choice but to close their eyes, write a check, and jump off that technological cliff called “hope.”

For Richards’ sake, I hope she succeeds. If not, she may well join the ranks of millions of men and women who, since the first IVF baby was born in Britain 35 years ago, have experienced involuntary biological childlessness as a result of delaying parenthood and relying on science for last-minute miracles.

Miriam Zoll is an award-winning writer and an international health and human rights advocate and educator. She is the author of “Cracked Open: Liberty, Fertility and the Pursuit of High Tech Babies” and is on the board of Our Bodies Ourselves. This article was originally published at RH Reality Check, and is reprinted with permission.

What a frustrating week in the ongoing battle over evidence-based health policy.

To the surprise and disappointment of women’s health advocates, the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday filed an appeal to prevent girls under age 15 from gaining over-the-counter access to emergency contraception.

Approaching the date U.S. District Judge Edward Korman’s order making levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptive pills (such as Plan B and Next Choice) available without restrictions would go into effect, the Obama administration also requested a stay pending appeal, meaning the judge’s order would not be implemented according to schedule.

The judge’s ruling last month was in response to the Center for Reproductive Rights’ renewed lawsuit seeking over-the-counter access to the morning-after pill.

Responding to the appeal, Nancy Northrup, CRR president and CEO, said in a statement:

Women who urgently need emergency contraception have been delayed in getting it or denied access entirely for more than a decade because of the political maneuverings of the last two presidential administrations. The federal court has made clear that these stalling tactics were based purely on politics, not science.

We are deeply disappointed that just days after President Obama proclaimed his commitment to women’s reproductive rights, his administration has decided once again to deprive women of their right to obtain emergency contraception without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

In the appeal documents, the administration argues that the court overstepped its authority and improperly interfered with the rulemaking process; the judge should have instead sent the issue back to the FDA for further action.

“We aren’t focused in this appeal on the merits of the secretary’s decision,” a Justice Department official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told The New York Times. “What we’re focused on is that the remedies that the judge ordered were beyond his authority.”

Ironically, overstepping is what many would argue the administration did in 2011 when HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overturned a decision by FDA scientists to make the contraceptive pills available without restriction.

The administration also argues that since the actual plaintiffs in the case are all over age 15, and it’s not a class action suit, that no harm is done to the plaintiffs by granting the stay (see below). By making this argument, the administration avoids addressing the potential harm to girls who are prevented from accessing a drug both FDA scientists, and the judge, said should be available.

The administration claims that the public would suffer irreparable harm if the stay is not granted; if the ruling is allowed to go forward and later overturned, it would create confusion for women, who might “mistakenly believe that they can obtain the drug without a prescription or at certain locations where it used to be available, but is no longer.”

We’re also supposed to believe the appeal has nothing to do with politics. A Justice Department official told The New York Times: “This is a decision that the Justice Department is making in representing our client: FDA. This is not a political decision. It’s not had White House intervention or involvement. This in our judgment is the right legal step to take in this case.”

Meanwhile, FDA Approves Making Plan B Available to Teens Age 15 and Up
The decision to appeal came just one day after the FDA announced its approval of Plan B One-Step emergency contraception pills without a prescription for teens age 15 and older. The drug was previously only available without a prescription to women 17 and older.

It’s a great step forward; however, younger women, for whom access to a healthcare provider may be most difficult, are still left without prescription-free access to the drug, which must be used within a limited window.

The FDA adds to the burden by specifically requiring proof of age. From the FDA’s press release:

The product will now be labeled “not for sale to those under 15 years of age *proof of age required* not for sale where age cannot be verified.” Plan B One-Step will be packaged with a product code prompting a cashier to request and verify the customer’s age. A customer who cannot provide age verification will not be able to purchase the product. In addition, Teva has arranged to have a security tag placed on all product cartons to prevent theft.

In addition, Teva will make the product available in retail outlets with an onsite pharmacy, where it generally, will be available in the family planning or female health aisles. The product will be available for sale during the retailer’s normal operating hours whether the pharmacy is open or not.

The ID/proof of age requirement is a big hurdle for many teens. Many states set an age requirement of 16 for a driver’s license or learner’s permit. Obtaining a state ID (related to driving or not) costs money, and hours for doing so are often limited. And undocumented teenagers are unable to obtain a legal ID at any age.

“While welcomed by some as an acceptable compromise,” said Nancy Stanwood, Physicians for Reproductive Health board chair-elect, the “FDA decision to approve the sale of emergency contraceptive Plan B One-Step to those 15 years and older with government-issued identification does little to improve real access for already-vulnerable women and young teens. Plan B has a time limit, and too many women in the U.S. have gone without it because of unfair, unnecessary, and medically unjustified barriers to access.”

Writing at ThinkProgress, Tara Culp-Ressler explains other reasons why the policy shift is still problematic, noting in part that it simply isn’t based on science, and the high cost remains a barrier.

The FDA’s ruling was in response to an amended application request by Teva Women’s Health, the company that makes Plan B One-Step, to make the drug available without a prescription to women age 15 and older. The FDA in 2011 denied Teva’s application to make Plan B One-Step available for all females of reproductive age. And still the debate goes on.

Our Bodies Ourselves board member Miriam Zoll has a new book coming out on May 1, “Cracked Open: Liberty, Fertility and the Pursuit of High Tech Babies.”

Zoll tells her own story of infertility and IVF treatments, and shares what she learned along the way about assisted reproductive technologies.

From the book description:

When things don’t progress as she had hoped, she and her husband enter a science-fiction world of medical seduction, capitalist conception and bioethical quagmires. Desperate to conceive, they turn to unproven treatments and procedures only to learn that the odds of becoming parents through reproductive medicine are far less than they and their generation had been led to believe.

OBOS Co-Founder and Executive Director Judy Norsigian contributed to the foreword with Michele Goodwin, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota. Learn more about Zoll and “Cracked Open” as she shares her story on the My Fertility Choices site.

Zoll is also collecting stories on infertility and reproductive technology via her website. Requests to have her come speak can also be made online.

Although there is a fair amount of information and research available on postpartum depression in general, very little of it seems to focus specifically on the needs or care of teen mothers.

A pilot study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology in March attempts to fill in this gap — and it shows some promising results.

First, the authors explain why the risks of PPD in teens are important:

PPD puts adolescent mothers and their children at risk during an already challenging time in their lives, and this hardship may be a major determinant of poor outcomes for these young mothers and their children. Untreated, depression is associated with school dropout, suicide, and substance use. Among adolescent mothers, evidence suggests that depression may prevent them from engaging in health-promoting behaviors for their infants and themselves.

The study is based on a randomized controlled trial of the REACH program (Relax, Encourage, Appreciate, Communicate, Help), which is designed to help expectant mothers develop stress management and other skills. The program was offered as structured therapy during pregnancy, followed by a postpartum “booster” session.

Participants in the therapy group used interpersonal therapy to work on effective communication skills, conflict management, improving their social support systems and building healthy relationships, and goal setting. They, as well as the control group, received a handbook of typical pregnancy and postpartum/newborn health information. A total of 106 teens age 17 or younger and without pre-existing mental health issues were randomized to the therapy or control groups.

The researchers looked for major depressive episodes within the six months after birth. Although only 12.5 percent of the REACH teens developed postpartum depression, compared with 25 percent of the control teens, the results were not statistically significant, as the study was fairly small and very few teens (19) overall developed postpartum depression. A larger study may be needed to better determine the utility of the program.

Despite a lack of clear effect, the study highlights a need for further investigation into the postpartum mental health needs of teens. As the authors explain:

Although validated treatments for adolescent depression exist and include interpersonal therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, and antidepressant medication, teen mothers with mental health problems are mostly under treated. To date, only one published report of 2 small open-trial pilot studies addressed treatment for depression in pregnant adolescents. Despite the potentially high burden of depression to young women and their families, studies on the prevention of PPD in pregnant adolescents are virtually nonexistent.

Another lesson learned in this study was that teens preferred individual therapy sessions over the planned group sessions, so sessions were adjusted to be one-on-one. The researchers also took care to specifically design the REACH program to be culturally appropriate for a diverse group of racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Intrauterine devices (IUDs) are a fairly safe, long-acting form of contraception, but many myths about the devices persist. For example, it’s somewhat common to hear that women who haven’t already had a baby, and especially teenagers, are not good candidates for IUDs; neither of these is true.

For a new study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, researchers reviewed data from health insurance records of more than 90,000 women who had IUDs inserted (including both hormonal and copper IUDs). They looked specifically at how many records indicated a IUD-related complication, discontinuation, or pregnancy.

When the researchers looked at the data by age group, they found that women ages 15-19 did not discontinue using IUDs any more frequently than older women. Teens were slightly more likely than older women to experience dysmenorrhea (menstrual cramps) or absence of menstruation within one year of insertion, or failure of the IUD to prevent a normal pregnancy, but rates for both of these were very low. Only 1.8 percent of teens using a levonestrogel-releasing IUD experienced a pregnancy (3.6 percent for copper), and 2.4 percent experienced cramping (6.2 percent for copper).

Pelvic inflammatory disease occurred in less than half a percent of teens. Women of all ages using a copper IUD were much more likely to stop using it than women using the hormone-releasing IUD, and this was most true for teens, although it’s not completely clear why. Rates of removal within 30 days for any complication were estimated to be very low for teens (2.9 percent for hormone IUD, 5.2 percent for copper) as well as older women.

The researchers conclude:

Overall, these data indicate that the IUD is an appropriate contraceptive for younger women and is not likely to cause serious side effects among teenagers. Physician recommendations play an important role in their patients’ decision-making, and their recommendation of the IUD could increase the use of this cost-effective and safe method of birth control among teenagers. Thus, physicians should include information about this highly effective method when they counsel young patients on their contraceptive options to help reduce the unintended pregnancy rate among teenagers in the United States.

The authors cite evidence that teens may indeed face clinician education barriers when seeking an IUD. One survey found that “only 19% of obstetrician–gynecologists surveyed in a 2010 study stated that they would offer an IUD to an unmarried 17 year old who had never been pregnant.”

With more evidence like the current study on hand, we hope it will become easier for teens to access this long-acting, effective form of contraception.

Related: Revisiting the IUD for Contraception – Pros and Cons for Women looks at the rise in IUD use and the safety record.

On Monday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the lawsuit against Myriad Genetics, challenging the company’s right to hold patents on  two genes linked to increased risk of breast and ovarian cancer: BRCA1 an BRCA2.

The primary concern — which Our Bodies Ourselves, a co-plaintiff in the case, shares – is that human genes shouldn’t be patentable because they occur in nature. Allowing the patents restricts access to testing and research on these genes, and negatively affects women’s health.

Nina Totenberg, in her coverage for NPR, highlights the significance of the Court’s decision, expected later this year: “There is no way to overstate the importance of this case to the future of science and medicine.”

The oral arguments boiled down to two key opposing points. The attorney for the Association for Molecular Pathology and other plaintiffs in the case argued that the genes cannot be patented because they are found in nature. The attorney for Myriad Genetics essentially argued that because the company found and isolated the gene, it should be able to patent it. There was a great deal of discussion about this point, with analogies such as whether finding and removing a plant from the Amazon should entitle someone to patent that plant as an “invention.”

Major medical organizations have argued that the patents force people in the United States to “undergo tests that are inferior to and more costly than those available in other countries,” with the consequence that “no woman in America can get an independent second opinion about her condition before deciding to have her healthy breasts or ovaries removed in order to avoid cancer.”

In explaining the consequences of allowing the patents, the ACLU has written:

The patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 are harmful to patients and create barriers to medical and scientific advancement. Myriad has a monopoly on BRCA genetic testing in the U.S. and therefore controls the type and price of testing. Thus, while genetic testing technologies have advanced to the point where all 23,000 human genes can be sequenced for $1000, Myriad has raised its price for BRCA genetic testing to over $4000 in the last few years and still does not capture all known BRCA mutations. Other laboratories cannot provide second opinions, and they cannot include the BRCA genes when offering testing of the multiple genes that are now associated with breast and ovarian cancer risk. Gene patents also have a chilling effect on research. Researchers must either obtain permission from the patentholder, or run the risk of being sued. And by virtue of its patents, Myriad controls most of the data about the BRCA genes and has refused to share that information with the scientific community.

Reporting from the courtroom, Breast Cancer Action praised those who made their voices heard in opposition to the patents:

It was a thrill to meet so many wonderful people working hard for women’s health, and it was incredibly moving to hear from the powerful women who stood up to tell their personal stories. We know that Myriad’s patents on our genes are wrong, and we hope that the Supreme Court will take this opportunity to come down on the right side of women’s health.

More coverage of the case:

• SCOTUSblog: First Myriad reactions; Argument recap: Analogies to the rescue; Justices debate gene patenting issues: In Plain English
• More from Nina Totenberg at NPR: Justices Appear Skeptical Of Patenting Human Genes
• PBS NewsHour: Supreme Court Tackles Case of Patent Law, Human Genetics
• The ACLU provides an overview of the case, timeline, and other background on their website.

For further information and resources, see OBOS’s previous posts:

• OBOS Joins ACLU Lawsuit Challenging Breast and Ovarian Cancer Gene Patents
• Breast Cancer Gene Patents Invalidated
• Take Back Our Genes Campaign Fights Restrictive Gene Patenting
• ACLU Survey for Women Who Have Been Advised to Get BRCA Genetic Testing

Update: A second public event has been added, also co-sponsored by Our Bodies Ourselves: “Systemic Violence or Informed Consent? The Politics of New Reproductive Technologies and Medical Experimentation in India” is the theme of the program at MIT on Tuesday, April 23, which will include the film screening and remarks by Sama’s co-founder, Sarojini N. The event will take place in MIT Bldg. 5, Room 217, at 7 p.m.

The rise of commercial surrogacy has led to numerous concerns and conversations involving women’s health and medical ethics. On Monday, April 22, Our Bodies Ourselves will sponsor a screening of “Can We See the Baby Bump, Please?” — a documentary film about commercial surrogacy in India that explores the ethical challenges.

The screening will take place at Boston University’s Bakst Auditorium at 5 p.m. and is free and open to the public. Co-sponsors include the Health Law, Bioethics and Human Rights Department of the School of Public Health and the student-led Health and Human Rights Caucus.

From film director Surabhi Sharma’s website:

The global reach of medical tourism and commercial surrogacy spawns a range of clinics and practices across big cities and small towns in India. Anonymous, often with limited choice, woman’s labour is yet again pushed into the background. A whiff of immorality, the absence of regulation and the erasure of the surrogate’s experience collude to produce a climate of callousness. May we see the baby bump please? meets with surrogates, doctors, law firms,agents, and family in an attempt to understand the context of surrogacy in India.

The film was commissioned by the Sama Resource Group for Women and Health in New Delhi (view Sama’s blog for more on the film and a recent study on commercial surrogacy).

Sarojini N., the director and co-founder of Sama, will attend the screening and discuss her organization’s recent research on surrogacy practices, and strategies to address medical malpractice and the exploitation of women hired to be gestational mothers.

In 2012, Judy Norsigian, OBOS founder and executive director, traveled to Kathmandu to lead a workshop with Sarojini and Renu Rajbhandari, founder of the Women’s Rehabilitation Centre, OBOS’s Global Network partner in Nepal, on the growing popularity of cross-border surrogacy arrangements. Their presentation included effective strategies that could be used to educate and empower women.

“Already a booming business in India, where estimates suggest that 25,000 couples a year travel to arrange surrogacy contracts and there are about 1,000 surrogacy centers, this practice is soon expected to extend to Nepal, where poor women with limited economic opportunities will likely be attracted by the prospect of earning money by bearing children for others,” wrote Norsigian.

Read about her experience and learn more about the growing market in cross-border reproductive health care.

Last week, a judge ordered the FDA to make emergency contraception pills available over the counter, with no age restrictions, capping a long and frustrating legal battle to increase access.

Versions of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptive pills (such as Plan B and Next Choice) are expected to be made available without restriction within 30 days, but it’s not clear whether there will be some administrative interference. The FDA might decide on new labeling or to limit the forms of emergency contraception made available. There is also the possibility that the decision will be appealed.

OTC access for all ages is essential because most emergency contraception pills are most effective when used as soon as possible, and time, distance, money, and privacy can be serious barriers, especially for teenagers, to obtaining and filling a prescription in time to prevent pregnancy.

The push to make emergency contraception pills (also known as morning-after pills) available to all ages without a prescription suffered a major setback in 2011, when HHS Sec. Kathleen Sebelius blocked the FDA’s decision to remove the age barrier. Since 2009, emergency contraception has been available without a prescription for anyone age 17 and older.

Sebelius’s objections focused on the idea that young girls would use EC in unsafe ways. Susan Wood, A former director of the FDA’s Office of Women’s Health who in 2005 resigned over political delays around emergency contraception, rejected Sebelius’s claim that more data was needed on safety and label comprehension, noting that “this type of age restriction, and worries about the use of medicines by teenagers, have not been applied to other products.”

U.S. District Judge Edward R. Korman, in reversing the FDA’s decision to deny a citizen petition for all-ages access, seems to agree that the “What about 11-year-olds?” objection is merely a smokescreen. From the memorandum:

This case is not about the potential misuse of Plan B by 11-year-olds. These emergency contraceptives would be among the safest drugs sold over-the-counter, the number of 11-year-olds using these drugs is likely to be miniscule, the FDA permits drugs that it has found to be unsafe for the pediatric population to be sold over-the-counter subject only to labeling restrictions, and its point-of-sale restriction on this safe drug is likewise inconsistent with its policy and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act as it has been construed.

Instead, the invocation of the adverse effect of Plan B on 11-year-olds is an excuse to deprive the overwhelming majority of women of their right to obtain contraceptives without unjustified and burdensome restrictions.

Korman characterized Sebelius’s actions as “obviously political” and “arbitrary, capricious, and unreasonable,” and wrote:

Nevertheless, even with eyes shut to the motivation for the Secretary’s decision, the reasons she provided are so unpersuasive as to call into question her good faith. While the Secretary has strung together three factual statements in her memorandum to Commissioner Hamburg, she has failed to offer a coherent justification for denying the over-the-counter sale of levonorgestrel-based emergency contraceptives to the overwhelming majority of women of all ages who may have need for those drugs and who are capable of understanding their correct use.

While we’re celebrating the judge’s ruling, we should also keep in mind the fact that President Obama is still praising Sebelius’s unprecedented, access-denying interference and overriding of the FDA’s scientific review process.

More coverage:

• The Top 11 Zingers From the Emergency Contraception Decision – Sharona Coutts at RH Reality Check
• Emergency Contraception and Moral Panic: Dissecting the Newest Misinformation Campaign – Sidra Zaidi at RH Reality Check
• Doctors Celebrate Plan B Ruling – Physicians for Reproductive Choice
• Federal EC Ruling will Benefit Immigrant and Young Latinas – Press release from the National Latina Institute for Reproductive Health
• Federal Judge Orders FDA to Broaden Access to Emergency Contraception – Center for Reproductive Rights; includes a great timeline showing milestones in the struggle for OTC access for more than a decade.

Background information from Our Bodies Ourselves:

• Emergency Contraception Still Not Easily Available to Young Women
• Newly Appointed Acting Surgeon General Played Role in Holding Up OTC Sale of Emergency Contraception
• Information on emergency contraception from “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” including both pills and IUDs

Despite the prevalence of eating disorders in adolescent girls, it’s difficult to find information about longer term health consequences in adults, as little follow-up has been done. A new article in the journal Maturitas on the long-term health consequences of the female athlete triad, a syndrome that may include eating disorders, is an important contribution to the research.

First defined in the early 1990s, female athlete triad used to be defined as the combination of an eating disorder, amenorrhea (lack of a menstrual period), and osteoporosis.

The definition was adjusted in 2007 to focus more on a spectrum of health and now includes low energy (with or without an eating disorder), menstrual function, and bone mineral density. These are interrelated; it is thought that the lack of energy due to excessive exercise or disordered eating leads to changes in menstrual cycles and loss of bone mineral density.

While it’s not original research, the new review by Jill Thein-Nissenbaum of the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s physical therapy program points out some important health issues for women beyond the teen years.

Of major concern, based on a review of the literature, are the long-term effects of decreased bone mineral density associated with the triad. Women who restricted their energy intake may have missed crucial bone mass building time, and this bone density may not be made up even with eating disorder recovery.

Thus, as women age, they are losing additional bone mass from an already depleted system. Thein-Nissenbaum notes that women with the triad may also be at greater risk of musculoskeletal injury, and these injuries may have negative effects throughout life.

Thein-Nissenbaum suggests that women who currently have or have recovered from female athlete triad discuss with their healthcare provider their history of eating behaviors and menstrual history, dating back to adolescence, and review details from previous bone scans.

She also cites the need for bone mineral density assessment in women who have had a history of disordered eating behaviors, menstrual irregularity, or more than one stress fracture.

The National Eating Disorders Association provides a toolkit for coaches and athletic trainers that includes a section on the female athlete triad, including causes, treatment, and behaviors to look out for. The guide also has information on other types of eating disorders and the role of coaches and trainers in prevention and early intervention.

Plus: Eating disorders are most commonly associated with adolescents, but adults are also susceptible to anorexia, bulimia, binge eating and other disorders, and they face a unique set of challenges, says Cynthia M. Bulik, author of the new book ”Midlife Eating Disorders.” Women’s eNews recently published an excerpt.

“If we look at the numbers,” writes Bulik, “the most common profile of someone with an eating disorder is a woman in her 30s or 40s who struggles with weight control and suffers from binge eating disorder. But countless women and men in midlife and beyond — from all racial, ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds — wake up each morning to an ongoing battle with eating and body image, with many suffering from anorexia nervosa, bulimia nervosa, purging disorder, binge eating disorder and night eating syndrome.”

by Allison Saran

Some of the world’s greatest medical discoveries never receive the attention they deserve. For Canadian physician Michael Klein, the attention came late, but it’s been growing ever since.

And thanks to one very humorous and talented fan, Klein’s work is immortalized in rhyme.

Dr. Jerry Kruse, the newly named executive associate dean of the School of Medicine at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, where he had been chair of the department of Family and Community Medicine, has a flair for writing poetry and limericks – often under the pseudonym of Dr. Kreuss, which, yes, rhymes with “Seuss.”

Kruse’s talents were on full display last December at the annual meeting of the North American Primary Care Research Group. In the video above, he pays tribute to Klein, who is widely known for his landmark randomized control trial that showed routine episiotomies during childbirth (an incision on the perineum and the posterior vaginal wall during second stage of labor) cause an increase in the very complications they aim to prevent.

Klein believed that women given routine episiotomies experienced deeper perineal tears than women who were not given episiotomies. Though his study confirmed this, it was initially met with resistance within the medical community. In 1992, eight years after the original request for publication in an accredited journal, Klein’s findings were finally published.

Once released, the study caused a medical, and thus cultural, shift. Routine episiotomy was slowly abandoned by medical caregivers (“scissors were thrown to the floor with disdain,” notes Kruse in his poem) and with that, severe perineal injuries declined.

The results of Klein’s trial helped to decrease episiotomies not only in Canada, but throughout the world. In his opening remarks, Kruse credits Klein with “improving the lives of millions of women.”

In “The Saga of Michael Klein,” billed as the story of Klein’s “search for truth regarding episiotomy,” Kruse begins with a description of Klein’s holistic obstetric practice. Klein had advocated that women in labor should not be treated as if they have a disease, and that the first intervention during labor often leads to a cascade of other interventions, disrupting a natural process.

Here’s an excerpt:

Michael knew in his heart, way deep down inside
That obstetrical knowledge was not well applied.
“Technology’s great, for those who are ill,
But for those who are healthy it’s really no thrill
To be strapped down and poked, and scared stiff as a board.
This just isn’t right!” his fervent voice roared.

One thing more than others, did gnaw at his heart,
Made his blood boil, and stung like a dart.
He just couldn’t stand it, to see a long slice,
A cut, an epis – what a terrible vice,
Disruption of skin for no reason at all,
A snip with the scissors that starts very small
But rips and extends as the baby comes through
Tears into the sphincter and up the wazoo.
A third, then a fourth, oh my what a mess
“They must like to sew,” was his only guess.

So Michael rose up, and he raised his right hand
And opened his mouth, and took a firm stand:
“I’ll study this problem,” he said with a shout,
“And when I am finished there won’t be a doubt
That these cuts are no good—the whole world will see—
This idea’s a good one, they’ll have to agree.
I’ll start up a randomized, single-blind study
And I’ll work with Michel who’s my very good buddy
And we’ll put ole’ McGill right here on the map.
This study of perineal trauma’s a snap.

“The Saga of Michael Klein” concludes with a clear message: Never give up on your cause if the research is true and good can come of it.

Klein’s quest is one of many that healthcare providers and birth advocates have completed to make birth healthier and safer for all women. No matter if you are a doctor, midwife, nurse, pregnant woman, or just someone who cares about childbirth, “The Saga of Michael Klein” encourages you to laugh – and to carry the hope of bettering birth.

Ed. note: You can view the full poem in Family Medicine journal (October 2012), along with a complete bibliography.

—————————–

Allison Saran is a senior at Brandeis University, majoring in anthropology and public health. She is a keen advocate for evidence-based birth and is excited to continue her studies at the Yale School of Nursing (CNM speciality). 

In the United States, 87 percent of counties have no abortion provider, forcing some women to travel potentially long distances for reproductive health services, while others delay making a decision until later in the pregnancy, when an abortion is more costly and restrictions are more severe.

One way to increase access is to increase the range of providers who are permitted to do abortions, such as nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants.

Currently, non-physician clinicians can perform surgical (aspiration) abortions legally only in Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire and Vermont. In some states, these providers can oversee medication abortions, though that, too, has become a contentious issue as more legislatures seek to restrict women’s access to abortion.

Are laws requiring physicians to perform surgical abortions necessary, from a patient-safety perspective? Not according to a recently published study.

Tracy Weitz, director of Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, a collaborative research group and think tank at University of California, San Francisco, and Diana Taylor, ANSIRH’s director of research and evaluation, primary care initiative, set out to answer the question of healthcare outcomes and applied for a waiver of California legal statutes that limit surgical abortion to physicians. They note:

In 2008, 1.21 million abortions took place in the United States, with more 200,000 (18%) in the State of California. Nationally, 92% of abortions take place in the first trimester, but Black, uninsured, and low-income women have less access to this care. In California, only 87% of women using state Medicaid insurance obtain abortions in the first trimester. Because the average cost of a second-trimester abortion is substantially higher than that of a first-trimester procedure, shifting the population distribution of abortions to earlier gestations would result in safer, less costly care. Increasing the types of health care professionals involved in abortion care is one way to reduce this health care disparity.

For the purpose of the study, 40 certified nurse midwives, nurse practitioners and physician assistants in ANSIRH’s Health Workforce Pilot Project, who already had experience with medication abortions, were trained to perform surgical abortions. (ANSIRH’s Early Abortion Training Workbook, which is used in medical schools around the world, is also available online.)

The authors compared the outcomes of abortions performed by those medical professionals to outcomes of abortions performed by 96 physicians. Patients were not randomized to a provider type; they were asked if they would agree to have the non-MD provider on duty perform their first trimester abortion.

Complications were rare in general, with only 1.3 percent of the 11,487 abortions resulting in any type of complication. While the newly trained CNM/NP/PA group had slightly more complications than the group with abortions performed by more clinically experienced MDs, the difference was not considered significant.

The authors conclude that “only 1 additional complication would occur for every 120 procedures as a consequence of having an NP, CNM, or PA as the abortion provider,” and these would largely be minor complications, such as a low-level infection or bleeding that could be treated at home or at an out-patient clinic.

The study was published in the American Journal of Public Health. Based on the findings, the authors argue in favor of expanding the types of providers who can perform abortions:

The benefits of expanding access to abortion for California’s women outweigh the small initial difference in risk, particularly because it would likely move many second-trimester abortions into the first trimester, significantly decreasing the overall risk of complications, which increases with gestational age. Expanded access is also likely to afford more women the opportunity to obtain care without the additional indirect costs associated with traveling to a geographically distant abortion provider.

We would hope, after reading this study, that more state legislatures would consider removing restrictions on non-physician clinicians, but we know such a move would require great amounts of political will, as the trend in recent years has been to restrict rather than increase access.

Did you know the United States and New Zealand are the only nations that permit direct-to-consumer (DTC) pharmaceutical ads?

A decade ago, Kaiser Family Foundation found that every $1 the pharmaceutical industry spends on direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising yields $4.20 in drug sales, and that DTC ads were responsible for 12 percent ($2.6 billion) of the total growth in drug spending in 2000.

Groups such as Our Bodies Ourselves and the National Women’s Health Network have long argued for stricter regulation and elimination of DTC drug advertising, due to the tendency to overstate drug benefits and understate risks in order to increase pharmaceutical companies’ profits.

There is some minimal governmental regulation of traditional DTC ads (i.e., print, TV) with respect to the claims companies can make and information they must provide — although the level of oversight is insufficient to fully protect consumers from misleading and manipulative claims about drugs.

For web-based DTC advertisements, however, there is even less oversight and more mixing of advertising and information content, increasing the risk that consumers will be confused and misled.

This is the case with fertility clinic websites, which represent a multibillion dollar industry. Evidence suggests that fertility clinics’ approaches to online advertising present significant problems for consumers seeking objective information about success rates and clinic practices.

Since 1992, as a result of pressure by consumers and organizations, U.S. clinics have been required to report their success rates to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which publishes this data (see reports on assisted reproductive technologies).

More than 146,000 cycles of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are reported to the CDC each year (primarily in vitro fertilization attempts), meaning that there are many consumers who are having these procedures. But, consumers looking for fertility-related information and/or providers are more likely to visit fertility clinic websites than the CDC website.

Sadly, these clinic sites too often try to influence consumers with misleading information about their ability to create successful pregnancies. ART is expensive (averaging $12,400 per cycle, with many patients requiring two or more cycles) and often is not covered by insurance, so it is natural for patients to seek a provider who can maximize their chance of success.

Yet a recent analysis of web content from 372 U.S. fertility clinics (out of a total of 381 clinics) suggests that the success rates being promoted are not based on reputable practices and/or standards.

The analysis examined websites of the clinic members of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART), which represents most U.S. fertility clinics. SART’s guidelines require clinics to compare their success rates only to the national average, but 46 percent of the clinics violated this policy.

Of those, 47 percent described their success rates as “superior” or “among the best,” without indicating what they were comparing themselves to (which is prohibited under SART guidelines). Over one-third (39 percent) of clinics that provided a success rate failed to describe how the rate was calculated (as SART requires), making it impossible for potential clients to gain a meaningful understanding of the rates.

Clinics also fail to meet the American Medical Association’s (AMA) guidance on website content; one study found the majority of fertility clinic websites failed to meet basic  guidelines such as describing how they protect patient’s privacy. The AMA does not investigate websites’ compliance or issue non-compliance penalties, however, and the only consequence for noncompliance with SART’s guidelines is for clinics to lose their membership (not a very significant penalty).

Consumers face challenges when trying to evaluate clinic performance in other areas as well. ART clinic sites frequently use non-medical and non-verifiable content and advertising tactics to entice potential patients. Many use words like “dream” (30 percent of websites) on their homepages. Many mention their excellent technology (84 percent), personal approach (75 percent), and high-quality doctors (70 percent) — factors that, while important, do not provide objective information by which to compare clinics.

An example of non-specific information is provided by a clinic that calls its prices “competitive” and says it “lacks hidden fees,” but does not provide an actual fee list.

Concerns about ART advertising date back to the field’s beginning in the late 1990s. Then, as now, concerns include the commercialization of medicine, inability to assess service quality, and a lack of accountability. Studies have found that clinics fail to provide objective measures of success; to note when their procedures are experimental (and may have lower success rates); and to generally comply with SART guidelines.

The only thing that’s new is that consumers now have ready access to misleading and poor information online, making it easier for consumer to access and, therefore, to be misled.

What can be done to help patients navigate the maze of on-line fertility clinic information? First, consumers should view these sites with a critical eye, recognizing that words like “miracle” and photos of smiling babies are intended to evoke specific feelings and encourage spending lots of money at a specific clinic. The sites should be considered to be advertisements rather than sources of accurate, verifiable medical information. Consumers should consult the CDC data (recognizing that comparisons may be difficult and clinics may select patients in ways that influence their rates).

Second, we need better oversight of clinic website content, including independent assessment and disclosure of how well clinic websites meet industry guidelines. SART and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine should establish new guidelines that reflect how clinics actually advertise (e.g., online), commit resources to member education, and impose significant consequences for non-compliance.

Any new guidelines should include the use of social media (like Facebook), used by about one-third of clinics already to reach potential customers. More broadly, Federal restrictions and regulations on DTC marketing should include web-based and social media, as well as TV ads and other forms of advertising.

A version of this article was originally published in The Women’s Health Activist, the newsletter of the National Women’s Health Network, and is adapted with permission. 

Related: Our Bodies Ourselves resources on infertility and assisted reproduction

by Hanna Pennington 

No one ever really wants to take health class; it’s a required course, something people try to get out of the way so they aren’t that about-to-graduate senior who still has to take health. And that’s because at most high schools, health class doesn’t offer much — and everyone knows it.

I spent 80 minutes every other morning in health class during the second semester of my sophomore year, and when faced with an end-of-the-year survey about the class, I realized that the time had not been “spent,” but wasted.

We had not discussed birth control; condoms were the only form of contraception mentioned, and they came up only in the context of preventing STIs. A significant number of high school students are already taking hormonal birth control, like the pill, for a variety of reasons, whether to regulate hormone imbalances that can cause acne, reduce the pain of bad menstrual cramping, or because they are having sex, but the pros and cons of the pill were never addressed.

Through reading “Our Bodies, Ourselves” and other feminist websites and books, I have learned about many types of birth control. But this is because I care about this kind of thing. Most people don’t know what they should have been taught until it’s too late.

Another way in which my health class was insufficient, and also offensive, was that LGBTQ people were only mentioned in the context of HIV/AIDS, which we learned about by watching the film “And The Band Played On.” There was no other discussion.

As a bisexual person, I felt shortchanged. I sought out resources online, much the way I did with birth control, but again, this didn’t make up for the lack of class information. The majority of high school students are straight, but it is important to provide for those who aren’t, or who might be questioning. It is important to learn about how to have safe gay sex, not only safe straight sex; that information is a lot harder to find, unless you know where to look.

---

Related: A “Real” Sex Ed Story: A Teenager Recalls Lessons From “Our Whole Lives”

---

Another issue we did not discuss is consent. People need to learn not only that it’s OK to say no, but that enthusiastic consent is the key to happy, healthy sex (in fact, there’s a petition to make consent a mandatory part of sex-ed in public schools).

Abuse, both physical and sexual, should also be discussed. And resources should be provided for everything: where to get help if you’re being abused, where to purchase prescription contraception at a discount, where to get tested for STIs, and the number for the closest Planned Parenthood, for starters.

Finally, we never discussed masturbation. It is important for students to know that instead of it being something unholy or disgusting, masturbation is a perfectly healthy and important way to explore one’s own body and sexuality.

According to research by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS), comprehensive sex education is more effective in preventing teen pregnancy than abstinence-only education. In her 2008 New Yorker article “Rex Sex, Blue Sex,” Margaret Talbot analyzed the differences in sexual patterns of teenagers living in different parts of the country, including the prevalence of teen pregnancies and STIs and use of contraception.

In conservative red states, where abstinence-only education is the norm and religion dictates much of the discourse, teenagers have sex earlier, usually without protection. In more liberal blue states, where there is often (but not always) more comprehensive sex education, teenagers wait longer to have sex and use protection more often when they do.

Although I live in blue-state New York, my health class was not all that. It is possible to acknowledge teenagers being sexual without encouraging it, but our teachers didn’t acknowledge any part of it. It is irresponsible to teach the class assuming that everyone is and will remain abstinent until marriage.

The 2009 documentary “Let’s Talk About Sex” examines young people’s attitudes toward and knowledge of sex and sexuality, comparing America’s largely insufficient programs to those of places like the Netherlands, where parents and children talk openly about sex (and which have lower rates of teen pregnancy and STIs).

Although I was briefly tempted to move overseas, there are comprehensive sex-ed curriculums in the United States, even if they can be hard to find.

One of my friends attends Rye Country Day School in Rye, N.Y. A program there encourages underclassmen to ask upperclassmen leaders whatever they want about sex, relationships, and so on. I was really impressed when I first heard about this, as it fosters an environment that removes shame from asking questions, which is how people get the answers they need.

At Manhattan Country School, there is a sex-ed curriculum, designed by Dr. Cydelle Berlin, that involves theater arts and peer education. Trained actors answer questions while in character. There is a box in every classroom in which students can leave anonymous questions.

The Unitarian Universalist Church, instead of strictly discouraging or not discussing sex as other churches often do, teaches a K-12 sex ed curriculum called “Our Whole Lives.” As stated on the website, the program “not only provides facts about anatomy and human development, but also helps participants clarify their values, build interpersonal skills, and understand the spiritual, emotional, and social aspects of sexuality.”

This curriculum is based on SIECUS’ “Guidelines for Comprehensive Sexuality Education,” which spans the same age range and includes such important topics as body image, gender identity, masturbation, abortion, and sexuality and society.

When reading this curriculum, I was pleasantly surprised how enlightened, inclusive, and accurate it was. But this should not be surprising; accurate language should be the norm.

It is bad enough that decisions about women’s health are made mostly by male politicians, but it is even more disheartening when you realize that some of them have no idea what they’re talking about. High school students aren’t the only ones who need basic education about reproduction, but it’s a good place to start.

Hanna Pennington is a high school senior in New York whose first foray into feminist activism was at age 7, when she wrote a letter to a children’s magazine protesting the omission of Sacagawea in an article about the Lewis and Clark Expedition.