Stephen Colbert has it in for “Our Bodies, Ourselves.”

During an interview with Diane Sawyer on “Good Morning America” this week to promote his upcoming TV special, “A Colbert Christmas: The Greatest Gift of All!” (Sunday, Nov. 23, 10 p.m. EST), the talk-show host announced he was burning our flagship book, often considered the bible of the women’s health movement.

“Is it true what I’ve heard, that you have a yule log with some books you’re burning?” Sawyer asked.

“Well, I had some books laying around,” replied Colbert, “and on the DVD we have an 18-minute video yule log of burning ‘Our Bodies Ourselves’ — you know, kindling.”

Despite the image of pages going up in flames in the cozy hearth, my heart still swoons.

Maybe it’s because Colbert’s medical analysis is so spot-on. Take his recent “Cheating Death with Dr. Stephen T. Colbert, DFA.” Naturally we appreciate the skeleton clutching “Our Bodies, Ourselves,” but we also admire Colbert’s incisive analysis of pharmaceutical industry’s push to prescribe drugs to people who don’t need them.

The “Cheating Death” segment was inspired by the well-publicized JUPITER trial, which suggested that the cholesterol-lowering drug Crestor could prevent heart attacks in people with normal cholesterol levels who exhibit high levels of C-reactive protein. (Scientific American has a concise summary of the New England Journal of Medicine article, and the accompanying editorial by Mark Hlatky, a Stanford University health-policy professor who criticizes the scope of the study and questions the cost of expanding the use of statins.)

Colbert identifies the study’s most notable success: “This is a great breakthrough in the battle to find things to prescribe to people who don’t need them.”

That and other comments led Ivan Oransky to make a few suggestions concerning Colbert’s future that we here at OBOS enthusiastically support:

This is the kind of intellectual rigor that is — and I’ve removed my tongue from my cheek only somewhat — too frequently missing from news reporting on medical studies.

So I’d like to suggest that Colbert launch The Colbert Journal of Medicine. We might have some disagreements about the kind of scientists who would be his peers, to make the journal peer-reviewed. (We hear he has a bit of an ego.)

Dr. Colbert would have to disclose his own conflicts of interest. We’d need to know more, for example, about his relationship with Prescott Pharmaceuticals, which sponsors “Cheating Death.” After all, Prescott makes VaxaCrest, which increases cholesterol until “your heart is pumping liquid nacho cheese,” as Colbert informed us last night. But at least he’s comfortable disclosing potential side effects of his sponsor’s fare — in this case “fallopian tapeworm.”

He did have some trouble pronouncing “hormones” at one point. It came out “homones” (Ho-mones). So he may need some help presenting at meetings.

Or maybe we should just put his name forward for U.S. Food and Drug Administration commissioner.

If Colbert somehow gets the appointment, perhaps he’ll put his vendetta against my employer aside long enough to allow Judy Norsigian, OBOS co-founder and executive director, to take over the Office of Women’s Health.

Heck, we’d settle for the opportunity to go head-to-head with Colbert on “The Colbert Report.” There are plenty of topics concerning women’s health and politics Norsigian could discuss. And maybe she’d stop him from throwing more feminist titles on the yule log this season …

Click to watch Stephen Colbert discuss book burning on "Good Morning America"

The Bush administration is poised to “grant sweeping new protections to health care providers who oppose abortion and other procedures on religious or moral grounds,” despite the fact the rule change has provoked a “torrent of objections, including a strenuous protest from the government agency that enforces job discrimination laws,” writes Robert Pear in The New York Times.

It’s not just access to reproductive health services that will be affected. Once the new Health and Human services rule is implemented, it would would also prevent hospitals, clinics, doctors’ offices and drugstores from requiring employees with religious or moral objections to “assist in the performance of any part of a health service program or research activity” that receives funding from HHS.

Opposition has been intense — the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the American Hospital Association, the American Medical Association, 28 senators, more than 110 representatives and the attorneys general of 13 states are against the rule, according to the Times.

Officials from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — including its legal counsel, who was appointed by Bush — also are against it. Still, it’s clear the Bush administration is hell-bent on pushing through the rule, despite critics’ warnings that it would upset decades of court decisions that had weighed “employees’ rights to religious freedom and employers’ business needs.”

The “provider conscience” rule has missed the deadline by which new regulations are supposed to be issued, but the White House can waive the deadline “in extraordinary circumstances.” The Times notes that the White House was “unable to say immediately why an exception might be justified in this case.”

It seems clear, however, once you look at who’s supporting the rule — social conservatives, like the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, who have been pushing the administration to take a stronger stand against abortion and contraception.

Rachel previously wrote about the dangers of this HHS rule. We’ll be keeping an eye on updates to the situation. Birth Control Watch and RH Reality Check are also good places to check in with for background and the latest news.

One silver lining is that aides to President-elect Barack Obama said he would try to rescind the law upon taking office, though the process could take three to six months.

During that time, rape victims may no longer learn about emergency contraception and Medicaid recipients could be denied certain prescriptions — all because Bush couldn’t resist playing politics with women’s health.

The Washington Post today features a page-one story on efforts to reduce — not ban — abortion.

The emphasis on reduction is in part a response to the political reality of an Obama administration that will not be appointing Supreme Court justices who favor overturning Roe v. Wade, and the fact that several key ballot measures restricting access to abortion were defeated.

It’s also a reflection of the ongoing efforts of the “common ground” movement, which has been bringing together abortion foes and women’s rights supporters around issues they can agree on, such as providing more medical and economic support for pregnant women. President-elect Barack Obama actively supported this approach during the campaign.

And yet, as Jacqueline L. Salmon explains, some abortion foes aren’t interested in anything other than moral certitude:

The new effort is causing a fissure in the antiabortion movement, with traditional groups viewing the activists as traitors to their cause. Leaders worry that the approach could gain traction with a more liberal Congress and president, although they do not expect it to weaken hard-core opposition.

“It’s a sellout, as far as we are concerned,” said Joe Scheidler, founder of the Pro-Life Action League. “We don’t think it’s really genuine. You don’t have to have a lot of social programs to cut down on abortions.”

The diverse group that has come together to try a different tack includes prominent pastors such as Joel Hunter; Samuel Rodriguez, president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference; Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good; Sojourners, a progressive evangelical organization; and RealAbortionSolutions.org, a coalition of Catholics and evangelical leaders.

Others include Catholics United, a progressive Catholic lay group; Richard Cizik, vice president for governmental affairs of the National Association of Evangelicals; the Rev. Thomas Reese of Georgetown University’s Woodstock Theological Center, a prominent Jesuit thinker; and Nicholas Cafardi, former dean of the Duquesne University School of Law and a Catholic canon lawyer.

Their actions have not come without consequences. Cafardi resigned from the board of Franciscan University of Steubenville in Ohio after writing a column supporting Obama and declaring the abortion battle lost. Kmiec has received hate e-mail, and a priest denied him Communion in April. And Denver Archbishop Charles J. Chaput has criticized Kmiec and several of the groups involved, saying they have “undermined the progress pro-lifers have made and provided an excuse for some Catholics to abandon the abortion issue.”

“President-Elect Obama’s healthcare reform proposals have focused intensely on two key questions: How much would reform cost and how many people would be covered? He also must address the critical issue of why the United States has such poor health outcomes despite all the money we spend,” write Judy Norsigian, OBOS executive director, and Eugene Declercq, a professor of maternal and child health at Boston University School of Public Health, in this Boston Globe editorial.

A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention documents a slight decline in the national infant mortality rate (the number of deaths to babies under 1 year of age) in 2006, but the rate has essentially remained flat since 2000, leaving the United States 29th among industrialized countries.

Advocates of health reform who focus exclusively on access presume that the United States provides effective but expensive healthcare, and that the only real problem is lack of access to this care. The reality is more complex when we examine those mortality figures. The low US ranking is misleading since many of the countries rated ahead (e.g., Singapore, Hong Kong, Norway) have fewer births than an average US state. So, what if we do a fair test - only comparing the United States with other wealthy countries that have at least 100,000 annual births?

There are 16 such countries. Among them, the United States ranks last in infant mortality, third to last in perinatal mortality (deaths in the first seven days and fetal deaths), and last in maternal mortality.

It gets even more interesting — in response to the argument that the problem is not our healthcare system itself, but rather a lack of access and social supports across the board, as well as inappropriate health behaviors, the authors turn the lens on births to white, non-Hispanic, U.S.-born mothers who begin prenatal care in the first trimester. Wondering how high we rank then? Continue reading here.

Obama Does More for Women’s Health Pre-Inauguration Than Bush in 8 Years: “President-Elect Obama has not been inaugurated yet and, already, he’s taken some critical steps towards restoring the United States as a leader in global women’s health,” writes Amie Newman at RH Reality Check. Newman goes on to identify global reproductive and sexual health mandates that Obama has prioritized since he won the election way back on, oh, Nov. 4.

Plus: NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation has unveiled a new initiative, Free.Will.Power. Check out the t-shirt design contest.

Baby, You’re in the Home (and Garden): The New York Times published a cool story on the increasing number of women opting for home births (still a very small percentage of all births) that took a very New-York perspective: How does one give birth in a small apartment — especially if the room is filled with family and the walls between neighbors are thin?

If the story had left it there, it’s placement in the Home & Garden section might have been more justified. But as it reads — complete with condemnation of home births from the American Medical Association — it’s better suited for Health.

Plus: Don’t miss the related slide show of home births. And here’s a great trivia question: Who was the first American president to be born in a hospital? Answer: Jimmy Carter.

Sexual Assault on Campus - Changing the Culture: Terrific story in the Star Tribune about rape prevention programs on college campuses that focus on men. Check out the intro below, and be sure to read the rest:

Tyler Jones was tipping back a couple of beers with friends at a Dinkytown bar when he suddenly had to take a stand.

“Hey, see that girl over there?” Jones recalled an acquaintance asking, nodding toward a woman he wanted to take home. “She’s almost drunk. Not quite drunk enough. … What shot should I buy her?”

There was a time, Jones says, when he might have laughed off the remark. Not anymore.

“You want to buy her something really strong to like, basically knock her out?” Jones, a University of Minnesota senior, recalled saying. “Man, that’s not right. That’s rape. That’s sexual assault.”

The acquaintance looked stunned. “Whatever,” he mumbled, and walked away.

It was one moment at one bar. But it’s also a sign of a big shift in strategy on campuses trying to tackle a culture that some say tolerates sexual assault. Instead of teaching women not to walk alone at night or to carry Mace, some colleges are trying something much harder — changing college men. Jones, fresh from sex assault prevention training, is in the vanguard of the movement.

Hat-tip: Kay Steiger

Women Gain Some Access, but Not Political Power: “Women still lag far behind men in top political and decision-making roles, though their access to education and health care is nearly equal, the World Economic Forum said Wednesday,” reports Reuters. “In its 2008 Global Gender Gap report, the forum, a Swiss research organization, ranked Norway, Finland and Sweden as the countries that have the most equality of the sexes, and Saudi Arabia, Chad and Yemen as having the least.”

Where does the United States rank? A measly 27th — below Germany (11th), Britain (13th), France (15th), Lesotho (16th), Trinidad and Tobago (19th), South Africa (22nd), Argentina (24th) and Cuba (25th). Here’s the full report (PDF).

The EPA’s Stalin Era: Yes, it really has been that bad, reports Rebecca Claren at Salon. To wit: “[T]he story of the hundreds of sick people who live near the former Kelly Air Force Base illuminates an entirely new manner in which the Bush administration has diluted science and put public health at risk. This year, largely in obeisance to the Pentagon, the nation’s biggest polluter, the White House diminished a little-known but critical process at the Environmental Protection Agency for assessing toxic chemicals that impacts thousands of Americans.”

Prescription Drugs May Deliver Phthalates: We’ve written before about the potential dangers of phthalates — chemical compounds commonly found in plastics, perfumes and lotions that are linked to reproductive abnormalities. But this one is news to me: Environmental Health News reports that prescription drugs can deliver high doses of phthalates.

“At least 47 prescription medications — including the colitis drug Asacol, an antacid and an HIV drug — contain phthalates, according to scientists at the Harvard School of Public Health and U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,” writes Marla Cone.

Victoria’s Toxic Secret: Feminist Peace Network picks up the story concerning allegations that Victoria’s Secret’s bras are causing skin irritations. The suspect irritant? Formaldehyde.

Racial Barriers Between Doctors and Patients: “In politics, the racial barriers might have fallen, I thought, but what about in health care?” asks Pauline Chen, MD, in her latest doctor/patient column in The New York Times. Chen looks not only at the striking health care disparities and racial inequality, but also at the experiences of minority physicians:

Of all the surgical residents I trained with, “Eric” was easily one of the smartest. He possessed a great bedside manner, brilliant clinical skills and plenty of that Obama cool. Eric was African-American, and one night, when we were both on call together, he told me something I have never forgotten.

“You know, Pauline,” he said, “there are a lot of times when I go to a patient’s room for the first time and they ask me, ‘Are you transport? Are you here to wheel me to radiology?’” I can remember Eric shaking his head as he spoke. “They never assume I’m one of the doctors.”

Supreme Court Hears Gun Rights Case: Allison Stevens of Women’s eNews explains a gun-control case heard before the Supreme Court this week that could effect abusers’ access to guns in some states.

If the justices side with the U.S. government’s challenge — which argues the law should not be restricted to just a portion of the states — batterers in every state and territory would be subject to the gun control ban.

If the court rejects the government’s reading of the law and limits the application of the law to those states with specific anti-domestic violence laws, safety advocates are apprehensive that thousands of abusers across the country will be erased from criminal lists, giving them new access to guns, said Peter Hamm, a spokesperson for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a group in Washington, D.C., that lobbies for gun control.

“Our Bodies, Ourselves” was featured in the beginning of Dr. Stephen Colbert’s “Cheating Death” segment — a biting look at the overuse of costly pharmaceuticals and the medical relevance of the Bee Gees. Oh yes, Colbert covers it all. 

Just look at what the skeleton is holding up when Colbert mentions “women health” (without air quotes!).

This is as good (or better?) as when OBOS was featured in an episode of the first seaon of “Friday Night Lights.” Predictions on whose show we’ll end up on next? 

Our Bodies Our Blog has invited the folks at Breast Cancer Action to write monthly guest posts on breast cancer and related issues.

by Barbara A. Brenner

As everyone familiar with breast cancer knows, there is no available cure for metastatic breast cancer (breast cancer that has spread beyond the breast to life-sustaining organs). In fact, metastatic breast cancer will kill a woman who has it unless something else kills her first.

The good news is that some treatments can extend the lives of some women with metastatic disease, and additional treatments are available that may keep metastatic breast cancer from advancing, at least for a period of time. These treatments are not without side effects, however –- some of them devastating.

What I find most interesting about this moment is that advances in treatment have led the cancer industry — the oncology community, the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, and the big cancer charities — to begin to talk of breast cancer as a “chronic disease.” While this might be seen as a positive trend, reflecting the fact that some people with breast cancer are living longer, the use of the term “chronic” conveys a misguided attitude about the deadly disease.

The term “chronic” has many meanings. Consider how Wikipedia defines it:

A chronic disease is a disease that is long-lasting or recurrent. The term chronic describes the course of the disease, or its rate of onset and development. A chronic course is distinguished from a recurrent course; recurrent diseases relapse repeatedly, with periods of remission in between.

By this definition, metastatic breast cancer is recurrent, not chronic. While this might seem like an academic dispute, it isn’t. Using the term chronic implies that breast cancer is a manageable disease, and downplays the reality that it is far too often fatal. It also diminishes the fact that we are in desperate need of better treatments.

Breast cancer is also sometimes referred to as a chronic disease because the risk of recurrence never completely disappears.  Women with early stage disease are followed in medical care for long periods of time (sometimes for as long as they live, even though they may well live a long life and die without a breast cancer recurrence).

In this context, the push to view breast cancer as a chronic disease seems to be an effort by the cancer establishment to turn attention away from the fact that there are still millions of women diagnosed with breast cancer every year. Urging the public to accept the notion of early breast cancer as a chronic disease undermines the demand for true breast cancer prevention.

How we think and talk about breast cancer and other cancers clearly has implications for how we address the disease. We all need to move beyond accepting the notion of breast cancer as a chronic disease if we are to have any hope of truly ending the epidemic.

Barbara Brenner is the executive director of Breast Cancer Action. More on BCA’s view of cancer policy issues can be found here.

The Real Deal, the blog of the National Council for Research on Women (and a new addition to our blogroll!), last week asked leaders of women’s organizations to speculate how life might be different in an Obama era, that is: “more equitable, healthier, more secure — for women and girls.”

The answers were posted on the Real Deal, and excerpts appeared on The Huffington Post.

Among the responses — Women’s eNews founder and editor Rita Henley Jensen calls for the creation of an Office of Maternal Health; Marie Wilson, president and founder of The White House Project, calls for the nation’s first Presidential Commission on Women and Democracy; and Marcia D. Greenberger and Nancy Duff Campbell, co-presidents of the National Women’s Law Center, note that “the nation has no time to spare in providing guaranteed, affordable health care for all, passing essential legislation that provides basic fairness in the workplace, like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and undoing some of the onerous restrictions on women’s access to reproductive health that were imposed by the Bush Administration.”

The NCRW is hoping readers of blogs like OBOB will add their suggestions to the comments sections at HuffPo. So have at it.

Speaking of the National Women’s Law Center, the organization has been very tuned into health care and is hosting monthly Reform Matters conference calls for women’s advocates who are focused on health reform at the state and federal level.

The next call takes place Thursday, Nov. 13, 2008 at 1 p.m. (EST), and the discussion will focus on what the election means for women and health care reform. Interested? Register for the call here.

These calls provide a collaborative forum to share experiences and questions that have come up in addressing various health reform proposals. So if you miss this one, keep NWLC in mind for future conversations. You might also check out the NWLC’s resources on comprehensive and affordable health care.

Finally, the International Women’s Health Coalition has made available remarks by IWHC President Adrienne Germain on the prioritization of women’s and young people’s health under a new administration. The  16-page agenda for the future can be read online here (PDF).

On this Veterans Day, we take a look at the services available to female veterans, who face high rates of sexual assault, and the increased dangers of domestic violence among military personnel:

- “Shedding light on the challenges facing women in the military, a new study shows that more than one in seven female Iraq and Afghanistan veterans seeking VA medical care reported experiencing sexual trauma during their service,” HealthDay News reported in October.

The study was conducted by the VA Palo Alto Health Care System’s National Center for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in California.

A previous study from 2007 found that 22 percent of female veterans and 1 percent of male veterans — serving in all areas, not just Afghanistan and Iraq — reported sexual trauma in health-care surveys conducted by the Veterans Administration in 2003.

The Department of Veterans Affairs has set up this page to explain the counseling and treatment services it offered to personnel.

Earlier this year, Rep. Jane Harman (D-California), described the rate of sexual assault in the military as “an epidemic.”

“Women serving in the U.S. military today are more likely to be raped by a fellow soldier than killed by enemy fire in Iraq,” said Harman.

- Sharkfu remembers Pvt. LaVena Johnson, who was murdered in Iraq in 2005, just eight weeks after her deployment and days before her 20th birthday. The Army insists her death was a suicide. Read more at Our Weekly.

- In a recent editorial, the Fayetteville Observer called on the Army to redouble its efforts to provide programs and services to prevent domestic violence. Fort Bragg was the recent site of protest against domestic violence — four female service members were slain in North Carolina this year, all allegedly murdered by their husbands or boyfriends, also service personnel.

- Writing at AlterNet, author Penny Coleman notes that when “Barack Obama decides who he will appoint to head the Department of Veterans Affairs in his administration, he should consider appointing someone who also understands how important it is that women’s bodies, souls, dignity and health be taken seriously.”

Tammy Duckworth, who is reported to be at the top of his list, certainly has had personal experience with a health care delivery system she has called “a little bit arcane.”

Duckworth is now director of the Illinois Department of Veterans Affairs, but in 2004, she was a Blackhawk helicopter pilot in Iraq and lost both of her legs in a crash. She describes the care she received at Walter Reed Army Medical Center as “excellent,” but adds, “the comfort package I received contained men’s Jockey shorts, and the local VA hospital carried Viagra but not my birth control.”

There are currently about 1.7 million female veterans in the United States, and the Department of Defense estimates that there are about 200,000 women, 15 percent of the military, on active duty. Thirty-nine percent of those women return from Iraq or Afghanistan with mental health issues, and, for more than a third who seek VA health care, the precipitating trauma was a sexual assault.

Every VA center now screens both men and women for sexual trauma. That is an improvement. Still, Duckworth says, “I don’t think the VA mental health care system is ready for (female veterans).” It would be encouraging to see a VA director who has some understanding of how important that is to fix.

Sure we’ll be back to other health news soon, but first here’s a wrap on presidential politics and women’s health priorities. And, just to remind you that voting feels oh-so-good, Babeland’s voter discount continues through Nov. 11. Enjoy!

Yes We Can … End Eight Years of Failed Women’s Health Policies: Sign the RH Reality Check petition, which asks President-elect Barack Obama to:

• Defund failed abstinence only programs in favor of proven, effective comprehensive sex ed programs,
• Reinstate global family planning funds that save women’s health and lives and overturn the Global Gag Rule,
• Take action on ensuring availability of publicly funded contraception for low-income women and women in poverty,
• Immediately implement your HIV/AIDS domestic agenda,
• Pass FOCA (Freedom of Choice Act) that overturns dangerous anti-choice state legislation, and
• Protect Roe v. Wade.

Plus: Theresa Braine, writing at Women’s eNews, notes that women’s groups aren’t wasting any time organizing around priorities: “From fixing the domestic health-care system and the economy, to making child care more accessible to working mothers, to rescinding the so-called global gag rule that cuts off foreign aid to groups that provide abortion or counseling, or even lobby for changes in abortion laws, women’s groups started exercising the type of grassroots activism that political analysts say helped bring the Democrats to power on Tuesday.”

What’s On the Agenda (So Far): Here’s the new Obama-Biden administration’s agenda on issues addressing women. Health care is up there at the top.

And when it comes to the administration’s hiring policy, it’s nice to see that gender identity is included in the nondiscrimination clause. (via Feministing)

Health Care Ballot Initiatives: A wrap-up of several health care measures that passed on state ballots.

Why Prop 8 Won: “If exit polls are to be believed, some 70 percent of African-Americans voted Yes on 8, as did 52 percent of Latinos and 49 percent of Asians; each of these demographics went heavily for Obama, blacks by a 94-to-6 margin,” writes Richard Kim, associate editor of The Nation.

The easy, dangerous explanation for this gap, and one already tossed around by some white gay liberals in the bitter aftermath, is that people of color are not so secretly homophobic. But a more complicated reckoning — one that takes into account both the organizing successes of the Christian right and the failures of the gay movement — will have to take place if activists want a different result next time. First, there’s the matter of the Yes on 8 coalition’s staggering disinformation campaign.

Plus: I’m still reeling after reading Proposition Hate over at NoFo (via Gapers Block).

The Mom on the Bus: Jodi Kantor has a great piece up at the The Caucus blog about covering the presidential and raising her daughter, Talia, who is almost 3.

Sayonara, Sarah: Katha Pollitt bids good-bye to Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, but not without first explaining how Palin was a gift to feminism –

[T]he first way Palin was good for feminism is that she helped us clarify what it isn’t: feminism doesn’t mean voting for “the woman” just because she’s female, and it doesn’t mean confusing self-injury with empowerment, like the Ellen Jamesians in The World According to Garp (I’ll vote for the forced-childbirth candidate, that’ll show Howard Dean!). It isn’t just feel-good “you go, girl” appreciation of female moxie, which I cheerfully acknowledge Palin has by the gallon. As I wrote when she was selected, if she were my neighbor I would probably like her — at least until she organized with her fellow Christians to ban abortion at the local hospital, as Palin did in the 1990s. [...]

Second, Palin’s presence on the Republican ticket forced family-values conservatives to give public support to working mothers, equal marriages, pregnant teens and their much-maligned parents. Talk-show frothers, Christian zealots and professional antifeminists — Rush Limbaugh and Phyllis Schlafly — insisted that a mother of five, including a “special-needs” newborn, could perfectly well manage governing a state (a really big state, as we were frequently reminded), while simultaneously running for veep and, who knows, field-dressing a moose. No one said she belonged at home. No one said she was neglecting her husband or failing to be appropriately submissive to him. No one blamed her for 17-year-old Bristol’s out-of-wedlock pregnancy or hard-partying high-school-dropout boyfriend. No one even wondered out loud why Bristol wasn’t getting married before the baby arrived. All these things have officially morphed from sins to “challenges,” just part of normal family life. No matter how strategic this newfound broadmindedness is, it will not be easy to row away from it.

Now that the election is over, are you feeling a little blue (and not just because of the passage of California’s Proposition 8)?

After months of obsessing over tracking polls and following up-to-the-second campaign news round the clock, much of the nation seems to be going through a withdrawal of sorts. New York Times health writer Tara Parker-Pope points to several news stories about our collective crash, some of which include suggestions from psychologists on how to bounce back and re-focus.

Of course, there are still many important issues that demand our attention. Elissa Epel, an associate professor in the psychiatry department at UCSF, tells the San Francisco Chronicle that we are likely to continue intense discussions, though perhaps on different terms: “People will be less plugged into the political pundits each day. They will start to pay attention to neglected longer-term issues - how to survive the recession, how to take of their family and health better. We may notice we are in one of the most stressful eras in recent history.”

Over at Slate, Farhad Manjoo offers suggestions for new topics to obsess over if you’re still glued to your computer screen. The list also includes social networks to join and cool games to play, if you’re looking to take a vacation from the news.

A new report criticizes the FDA for ignoring studies questioning the safety of bisphenol A, a chemical found in many household products. From the Washington Post:

The Food and Drug Administration ignored scientific evidence and used flawed methods when it determined that a chemical widely used in baby bottles and in the lining of cans is not harmful, a scientific advisory panel has found.

In a highly critical report to be released today, the panel of scientists from government and academia said the FDA did not take into consideration scores of studies that have linked bisphenol A (BPA) to prostate cancer, diabetes and other health problems in animals when it completed a draft risk assessment of the chemical last month. The panel said the FDA didn’t use enough infant formula samples and didn’t adequately account for variations among the samples.

Taking those studies into consideration, the panel concluded, the FDA’s margin of safety is “inadequate”. The panel is part of the Science Board, a committee of advisers to the FDA commissioner, and was set up to review the FDA’s risk assessment of BPA.

The FDA’s findings were at odds with a report released in September by The National Toxicology Program, which found that there is “some concern” that BPA can affect neural and behavioral development in fetuses, infants and children. Another study found an association between BPA and cardiovascular disease, Type 2 diabetes and liver-enzyme abnormalities in adults.

The possible connection between chemicals such as BPA and cancer was the focus of a Boston Globe op-ed this week. Rita Arditti, one of the founders of the Cambridge, Mass.-based Women’s Community Cancer Project, writes that “because we still do not know what the causes of breast cancer are, primary prevention remains an elusive goal while mammography and early detection are the focus of attention.”

Here’s what we do know:

Since World War II, the proliferation of synthetic chemicals has gone hand-in-hand with the increased incidence of breast cancer. About 80,000 synthetic chemicals are used today in the United States, and their number increases by about 1,000 each year. Only about 7 percent of them have been screened for their health effects. These chemicals can persist in the environment and accumulate in our bodies. According to a recent review by the Silent Spring Institute in Newton, 216 chemicals and radiation sources cause breast cancer in animals.

Nearly all of the chemicals cause mutations, and most cause tumors in multiple organs and animal species, findings that are generally believed to indicate they likely cause cancer in humans. Yet few have been closely studied by regulatory bodies. There is concern about benzene, which is in gasoline; polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are in air pollution from vehicle exhaust, tobacco smoke, and charred foods; ethylene oxide, which is widely used in medical settings; and methylene chloride, a common solvent in paint strippers and glues.

There is also broad agreement that exposure over time to natural estrogens in the body increases the risk of breast cancer, so it is important to consider the role of synthetic estrogens in breast cancer development. Many other chemicals, especially endocrine-disrupting compounds - chemicals that affect hormones, such as the ubiquitous bisphenol A, which is found in plastic bottles and cans - are also thought to raise breast cancer risk. Endocrine-disrupting compounds are present in many pesticides, fuels, plastics, air pollution, detergents, industrial solvents, tobacco smoke, prescription drugs, food additives, metals, and personal-care products including sunscreens.

There’s no definitive evidence that these substances cause cancer, but all the information acquired so far makes a strong case for more research and precautionary measures as this research develops. The Massachusetts state Senate this year passed the Safer Alternatives Bill, which would create a program to replace toxic chemicals with safer alternatives when feasible. The bill was not taken up by the House. Advocates for the bill, under the umbrella group Alliance for a Healthy Tomorrow, continue to work on its passage.

With less than one week to go until Election Day, we’re taking a look at some of the women’s health issues at stake. Want to add more? Leave links to blog entries or other resources in the comments.

One other note — I can’t believe some folks aren’t voting. If you know anyone who plans on sitting this one out, please urge them to consider the importance of their vote on local and state issues, in addition to what’s obviously a national turning point for women’s reproductive rights and access to health care.

Still wondering about the differences between the health care reform proposals of senators John McCain and Barack Obama? You might want to review this non-partisan report, “Health Care Reform and the 2008 Election - A Guide for Women.”

Through the stories of seven “fictional women,” each with a different set of health problems and insurance coverage, readers can understand what each candidates’ health reform plan means to them. The report was published by the Connors Center for Women’s Health and Gender Biology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital.

And don’t forget Kaiser Family Foundation’s excellent Health08.org, which includes in-depth comparisons of the candidates’ health care plans and positions on issues.

Turning to ballot propositions, USC’s Initiative and Referendum Institute (IRI) offers a good overview (PDF) of the 153 ballot propositions before voters in 36 states, including headline issues of same-sex marriage and abortion (also the subject of discussion on Monday’s “Talk of the Nation”).

Measures to ban gay marriage are on the ballot in California, Arizona and Florida, with most eyes on California, which the IRI refers to as a “critical firewall in the battle over gay marriage.” This document (PDF) analyzes the likelihood of passage in each of the three states, and it features a list of all same-sex marriage propositions. Did you know that 29 of 30 measures banning same-sex marriage — some proposed by initiative, others by state legislatures — have passed?

BallotPedia.org is another comprehensive site. It’s easy to search and it does a nice job of listing initiatives by category, including abortion, marriage and health care. These pages include not only this year’s ballot items, but also initiatives coming up next year — and even those that failed to get on the ballot. Very cool.

Here’s a look at some of the discussions on three specific ballot items:

1. Colorado Amendment 48 Definition of Person: This amendment seeks to define “person” and grant constitutional rights from the “moment of fertilization.” It’s also been tied to “Horton Hears a Who” (”a person’s a person, no matter how small”) — much to the consternation of thinking Dr. Seuss fans everywhere.

Protect Families, Protect Choices has a good fact sheet about the far-reaching consequences of this amendment, including:

• Emergency contraception for rape and incest victims would be banned. By giving legal rights to fertilized eggs, this amendment could ban birth control options like the Pill and IUD’s. (These kinds of birth control can prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus.)
• Establishing rights from the moment of fertilization would ban some stem cell research being used to find cures for chronic disease and disabilities. In vitro fertilization could be banned since fertilized eggs used in these processes would have full legal rights.
• A woman with cancer could be denied access to life saving medical treatment because it could endanger a fertilized egg.

Former U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder recently wrote: “Years ago, when I was asked how I could be both a mother and a Congresswoman, I replied, ‘I have a brain and a uterus and I use both.’ On November 4, I urge Coloradans to use their brains and protect women’s uteruses. Vote no on Amendment 48.”

2. South Dakota Abortion Ban Initiative: Following South Dakota’s failed attempt in 2006 to ban abortion, this kindler, gentler initiative “now makes convoluted exceptions for rape, incest and, when there is a full moon and Mount Rushmore spouts Strawberry Quik, the health or life of the woman.” It’s being pushed by anti-choice activist Leslee Unruh, who has trouble following the facts of life (including her own).

South Dakota Campaign for Healthy Families has an incredible amount of useful information, including statements in opposition to the initiative submitted by the South Dakota State Medical Association and the South Dakota section of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.

Plus: Katha Pollitt this week spotlights Women Run! South Dakota, the umbrella organization for progressive pro-choice Native American women running for the state legislature.

3. California Proposition 4 (”Sarah’s Law)”: In an editorial, the L.A. Times came down against this parental notification proposal, noting:

The initiative purports to protect California girls from dangers associated with abortions by requiring that their parents be notified. But Proposition 4 attempts to solve something that isn’t much of a problem. There’s no evidence that California’s teenage girls are harmed by abortions with any frequency, whether or not their parents have been notified. [...]

In fact, under the guise of protecting underage girls, this proposal really is just the latest attempt to impose any obstacle in the exercise of reproductive freedom. This represents the third try in recent years to pass such a measure. California should reject it again.

The editorial goes on to note, in no uncertain terms, the ridiculousness of the measures included to protect girls in abusive situations:

Proposition 4’s writers say they crafted a measure that would permit girls in potentially abusive situations to get an abortion without their parents being notified. To do so, they would need to tell another adult relative. But a girl can use this option only if she makes a written accusation alleging that her parents are repeat child abusers, with the complaint to be turned over to authorities. Spoiler language like this makes it hard to believe that Proposition 4 is chiefly about girls’ safety.

Read more editorials against Proposition 4. Planned Parenthood has posted a number of videos about how the proposition would endanger teens, including the one below, “Jane’s Journey,” which shows the complexity of the judicial maze that teens would be forced to navigate if they can’t talk to their parents.

The New Health Insurance Model: In the first of a three-part series, the L.A. Times looks at the changing insurance scenario — where once working Americans could rely on employer-based benefits, now more people are being forced into the individual market, where coverage is costly, bare-bones and precarious.

Part two looks at the business side of managing health savings accounts, and part three covers the battle between doctors and insurers. Meanwhile, health care costs continue to rise.

Plus: Read more about how the individual health insurance market fails women. It’s a great report from the National Women’s Law Center.

No Candy or Condoms: Divine Mercy Care Pharmacy in Chantilly, Va., drew attention this week for becoming at least the seventh pharmacy in the United States to refuse to sell contraceptives of any kind, even if a person has a prescription. The decision, say owners, is guided by Roman Catholic teachings, though the pharmacy is not affiliated with the Catholic church. Still, it did receive a blessing from Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde. From the AP:

“This pharmacy is a vibrant example of our Holy Father’s charge to all of us to wear our faith in the public square,” said Loverde, who sprinkled holy water on the shelves stocked with painkillers and acne treatments. “It will allow families to shop in an environment where their faith is not compromised.”

Too bad everyone can’t shop in an environment where their health is not compromised. In Virginia, pharmacists can turn away any prescription — for any reason.

Prop What?: Heather at Scarleteen gives a good overview of several important ballot measures that will be up for vote Nov. 4 in states from Arkansas to South Dakota, “such as parental notification laws for minors who want an abortion, age of consent laws, same-sex marriage, civil rights, stem cell research, education issues, even a proposal to lower the voting age for primaries in one state (whoohoo!) and another to ban abortion outright (grrrr).”

Plus: Look up ballot measures for your state here.

2009 Sheroes: Next year’s Sheroes Womyn Warriors calendar is now available for sale (check out the beautiful cover art by Ekua Holmes!). The calendar honors change agents, rebels, radicals and revolutionaries of different times and places around the globe.

“This is definitely not a ‘great women of history’ celebrity calendar,” reads the back cover. Instead, this is a calendar “of womyn who have challenged their societies and who have advanced the struggle of the oppressed and exploited.”

Proceeds support the Gustavus Myers Center for the Study of Bigotry and Human Rights at Simmons College.

Plus: Send in suggestions for who should be included in the 2010 calendar.

Seen But Not Heard: Jeannine Stein at the L.A. Times writes: “Researchers at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center in Lubbock interviewed eight overweight women ages 20 to 61 to learn about their experiences with the healthcare system, then published their findings in this month’s Journal of Advanced Nursing. During interviews about their experiences, four themes became apparent: struggling to fit in, feeling not quite human, being dismissed, and refusing to give up.”

Scary Sexy Costumes for Kids: “Halloween costumes are reflecting an increasingly sexualized childhood. They often reflect the stars and starlets and popular culture role models that girls have, starting with Disney princesses or Hannah Montana when girls are young. But even traditional favorites, like witches and pirates are sexier every year. And French maids are quite the thing for tweens and teens,” said Diane E. Levin in a Q&A about Halloween costumes and gender roles.

Levin is co-author with Jean Kilbourne of “So Sexy So Soon: The New Sexualized Childhood and What Parents Can Do to Protect Their Kids.”

Life’s Lessons: On the other side of what’s good for kids, “Free to Be You and Me,” which has never gone out of print since its 1973 debut, was reissued this month with a new, expanded edition, reports USA Today.

Jessica Reaves of the Chicago Tribune, who also made her debut in 1973, writes about the book’s appeal and the lessons that have remained incredibly relevant for more than three decades:

Some critics of “Free to Be” accused Thomas of advancing a radical feminist agenda. They pointed to the book’s co-producer (the Ms. Foundation for Women) and Thomas’ role on “That Girl,” the first television program to shamelessly promote the career girl lifestyle. (I mean, really: Ann Marie strung that poor Don along for four years before she finally agreed to marry him!)

As a feminist born into a family of feminists, I’m biased: I happen to think adopting a feminist agenda is the best thing that could ever happen to this country. (Trust me, it hasn’t happened yet.) But those long-ago critics were right about one thing. The witty, wise lessons of “Free to Be” do underscore feminism’s fundamental tenet: namely, that everyone — male, female, black, white, brown, young, old and in between — should be treated equally and empathetically. Yes, even the jerks.

You only need to glance at the headlines to know we’re not quite ready to cross that particular item off our collective to-do list. Which isn’t to say we haven’t learned a lot in the 35 years since “Free to Be” was published. It’s just that we may need another 35 years for it all to sink in.